# Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 897

## account creation help needed

Hello,

I am the Instructional Technology teacher at a public high school in Virginia. I am writing because I am hoping to do a project with a few advanced high school English classes, where they author brand new Wikipedia articles that are related to our local school/community.

As we are preparing for this project, we have run into an issue with account creation. I have managed to get an account created for myself and one of the librarians at my school, but it appears that our IP address is blocked from creating accounts. When we try, we see the following messages:

Account creation from IP addresses in the range 97.64.48.0/20, which includes your IP address (97.64.60.166), has been blocked by Gilliam.

--- or ---

This is probably due to persistent vandalism from the IP address you are editing from, which may be shared by many people if you are connected to the Internet via a proxy server (used by most schools and corporations and some Internet service providers) or dial-up access. Account creation from this IP address (50.205.217.211) has been temporarily restricted.

My questions for you are:

1. Can student accounts be created in bulk, if I provide desired usernames (and passwords?) 2. If not, can our IP address be unblocked (even if temporarily) so that these select students can create their own accounts?

Lastly, if you have any resources that can be shared regarding authoring/editing Wikipedia, we would be grateful if you would share those with us.

I have already attempted to contact Wikimedia directly, but have not received a response. Please let me know if any additional information is needed.

Thank you for your time and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkciokan (talkcontribs) 18:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Jkciokan, Hey, I would love to help. What you are looking for is someone with the account creator permission, as they can create accounts en masse. If you could provide the username of the other account just to check it that would be good. Make sure your students are familiar with the guidelines, for instance WP:OR since you are writing on local things. Let me try and get some help with the account creation, and good luck! Also, on discussion pages like this, sign your comments by ending them with four tildes like this ~~~~
By the way, might I ask what school? WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I trust that you've read WP:Student assignments. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, WelpThatWorked. Thank you for your willingness to help. I am at Douglas Southall Freeman High School in Henrico County, Virginia. Is there a way I can send you a list of student information rather than posting it here for the world to see? User:Jkciokan 16:28, 24 January 2019 (EST)
Hi Jkciokan, that would be what Special:EmailUser/WelpThatWorked is for. You will need to have set your own email address under your preferences, as described at WP:ENABLEEMAIL. Bellezzasolo Discuss 21:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Hang on though, I don't think Jkciokan should be e-mailing anyone a list of passwords for requested accounts - least of all anyone who can't actually set them up. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Cordless Larry How can accounts be created in bulk without doing this? We are not able to create accounts on our own, due to a block on our school's IP address. Would it be easier to lift that block, even if only temporarily? User: Jkciokan 08:33, 25 January 2019 (EST)
I'm sure I've seen guidance on this, Jkciokan, but I can't find it now. Users listed at Special:ListUsers/accountcreator should be able to help, so let's try pinging someone from there who I know. Winged Blades of Godric, could you advise here? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Cordless Larry, reading, wait:-) WBGconverse 17:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jkcioan:--I am sorry that you were unable to create the accounts, with ease:( Please proceed to this link and request the account(s) via the interface and kindly hyper-link this discussion, in the comments field, for easy-reference. I will take a look over tomorrow and create them for you, if everything seems fine. Also, please read our username policy and note that each user-name shall be used by a single student (and is essentially non-transferable). WBGconverse 17:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jkciokan: Coming late to the party, might I make a few additional suggestions to help you and your students get the best from your project? Firstly, why not set the task of creating individual user accounts to your students as their homework, and to do it at home? That would get around the problem you described above and also save time in class. You could require each student to spend an hour doing the interactive tour known as The Wikipedia Adventure (as they progress, each student can gain up to 15 different badges on their talk page to demonstrate their understanding of basic Wikipedia editing.) You could set other reading tasks such as Wikipedia:About; Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Your first article. These could all be the basis of some really interesting discussions in class about the purpose and role of Wikipedia and the need to communicate in a clear, concise and well-cited manner.
I'd then suggest you set an example and create a userpage for yourself, adding some content to that page which explains why you're here and your aspirations in editing, and then ask each of them to do likewise (albeit without revealing any personal information, or their real names). For what's OK to put there, see Wikipedia:User pages. Why not collate on your userpage the usernames of all the students who have created accounts as part of your writing initiative? This will allow you, your fellow teachers and all the other students to follow each others editing, as indeed can anyone else, and monitor and support their progress. This is a very common thing to do at WP:Editathons - public events where people come together to learn and edit, often working cooperatively on one or more articles.
Finally, improving the wording of articles can sometimes be quite a challenging exercise in itself, and less likely to result in new articles being summarily deleted because they fail to meet our Notability criteria. If you were to discuss in class the type of 'tone' that a properly-cited encyclopaedia should take, you could then move to assessing how well existing articles about your local area actually meet that expectation. If you do feel there is a need for well-cited new articles, I strongly urge you to advise all student to either prepare content in their personal sandboxes, or as a draft via Articles for Creation. That way they can receive feedback from you (and other editors here). Suddenly finding poor content has suddenly been deleted can be quite demoralising, and that would be a great shame. Good luck with your initiative. Regards from the UK Nick Moyes (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

## Proper course of action for reporting potential conflicts of interest?

I stumbled across an unregistered user who seems to likely be affiliated with a company who is adding links to this company improperly. Asides from simply reverting the edits, is there anything else that should be done? A place to report such behavior?

Caffeinewriter (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Caffeinewriter. Please post your report with supporting evidence to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Thank you for stepping forward to deal with things that damage the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

## Creating a new profile of someone famous

Please let me know the proper method of creating a wikipedia page to someone very famous and deserve having a wiki page

Please read and study Your first article. Your opinion and my opinion about who is famous are irrelevant here on Wikipedia. We summarize reliable sources, not random personal opinions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

## The subject of my article is not considered notable

The subject of my article is not considered notable, but I believe he should be because of his contributions to American music. Is it possible to add the musicians information onto an existing article about American music or a specific page like the Music of Virginia Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Author Kharisma (talkcontribs) 05:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Author Kharisma, the lists in Music of Virginia are lists of articles, and hence the subjects must be notable. —teb728 t c 06:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

beam's grant locomotive ,handcrafted regal china porcelain decanter.

That looks like an eBay listing for the sale of a collectible whiskey decanter shaped like a steam locomotive. The whiskey is Jim Beam, and hint!, that is a really poor promotional article that needs to be cleaned up. This decanter is not really appropriate for improving the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

## Changing the preview on Google

Hello,

How do i change the wikipedia preview information on google.

I would like to change the CEO name for Red Rooster to match the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rooster.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Reds (talkcontribs) 23:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, James Reds. Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid we don't have any control over the algorithms that Google uses to create its previews on its own search pages. All we can do is to encourage every volunteer to keep pages here up to date, based upon reliable sources. We can only then let Google catch up in its own sweet way. Sorry there's no other route that I'm aware of. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Standard reply: Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
If a website is using WP as their content then why not contact that the appropriate people at "X" company may not be aware that the content they carry needs to be updated.2605:E000:9149:8300:C9E:6B46:95A6:3A0C (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

## Enhanced spaceflight template

Hi folks.

For spacecraft like Solrad 8, which are included in the Explorers Program and the Solrad program, is there any way to include BOTH programs at the bottom of their Infobox?

(I asked this at the Spaceflight project, but answer came there none...)

Thank you,

--Neopeius (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Neopeius. Bearing in mind that I know nothing about spaceflight missions, I think the answer to your question is no, you shouldn't try. Firstly, have a read of the template documentation at Template:Infobox spaceflight. For the 'programme' field it states: !--Only use where a spacecraft/mission is part of a clear programme of sequential missions. If in doubt, leave it out-->. A quick skim of the Solrad page indicates, for example, Solrad 8 had the synonym 'Explorer 30', so, to me, it suggests that there was only one formal programme. And anyway, how could one spaceflight be part of two different mission programmes? This is guesswork on my part, but I don't think there would be any way of having two programmes in one infobox, even if that were actually the reality of the situation. Hope this helps? Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Solrad was already several programs in one satellite, so it being included in several other programs wouldn't surprise me. :) --Neopeius (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, I didn't know that, Neopeius. My only other suggestion (assuming you get no further input here) is to post your question on the template's talk page (Template talk:Infobox spaceflight) - it has over 30 watchers and quite recent activity. If pushed, you could even wade through the 'View History' sections of relevant articles to find active editors who have worked on those topics and to contact them directly. Obviously, ensuring that categorisation and summary templates at the page bottom are all there and up to date is also part of helping users find related information - but it looks like that has been addressed already. Apart from that, and re-iterating that the spaceflight infobox doesn't offer more than one 'programme' option, I'm not sure I can be of further help here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

## Ibiza Weekender references

Hello, I’m currently trying to work on Ibiza Weekender, and I noticed that the references are in a ‘list of citations’. I’ve never came across something like this before, and wondered if it’s possible to make it into a proper reference list. If so, could it be explained/carried out?

Thanks, – Joesimnett (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

That is a proper reference list. If you don't know how references are implemented in Wikipedia, try WP:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I would like to know just what style is it that is being attempted to edit into since the article in edit mode the reference follows that information it concerns but in published form is in what format the article being discussed. The only other style that I know of used in professional settings is the science fields that when discussing issues the author and page number may appear instead of a note number and then there is a list of what has been consulted but I believe that is not WP style. Unfortunately, some contributors do not provide a page reference when they cite and leave it up to the reader to find within each in the list of publications just where it can be found for evaluation.2605:E000:9149:8300:C9E:6B46:95A6:3A0C (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

## question about doing a speedy deletion

Could someone explain the process for a speedy deletion nomination? Stevenvieczorek (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The criteria for speedy deletion are strictly limited, and laid out at WP:CSD. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I assume you are wishing to delete the Pennsylvania Bluestone article, this doesn't require deleting it is in the process of being discussed for a merge with Bluestone. Theroadislong (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

## Bayat(name) merge to Bayat(tribe)?

The main problem is with Bayat (name). There is information there that someone from the Bayat family killed Genghis Khan's favorite son-in-law, and I think this is the part that is disputed with a tag. I've done some brief searching and I see

1. Bayat tribe fought with Genghis Khan.
2. Khan's son-in-law was killed by someone from Nashipur. The Bayat people are said to have settled here.
3. Toquchar, listed as the favorite son-in-law, was not, in fact, related to him.

The article Bayat (tribe), while short, is much more factual (as far as I can tell) and I have at least 2 sources that have information that will help expand the article. My question is, should I propose a merger for Bayat (name) to Bayat (tribe)? Thanks, Aurornisxui (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

## Clarity about the finite use of 'references' -- 'citations' -- 'notes'

There seems to be an overlapping or redundancy in the use of 'notes' (which are actually references to a published article, news story etc) written in brief terms. My question centers on 'citations' that denote in detail either references or quote references found within news stories, published journals and news documentaries. For clarity, quotations within an article or news story are best placed where on a Wikipedia page? If a scientifically valid claim is made, often the original paper is long in length and the specifics needed for Wiki are isolated (usually by page). But what if it is a nationally broadcast TV news story that has a quote within? The video of the news story needs to be cited and then, it is up to the researchers to review the entire video to see the quote.. correct? I am trying to avoid unnecessary redundancy. I am new to this process and as I look at Wikipedia articles, there are similar conflicts that maybe I don't understand that have added to some confusion. Comments, please. BARRY BARON (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for being interesting in citing your sources. For video programs, you may include in the citation the time within the video that has the quote you are citing. A good place to learn about this is Referencing for Beginners, Citing Sources, and the tutorial at WP:TUTORIAL. There's also an interactive learning experience called the Wikipedia Adventure at WP:ADVENTURE. Hope this helps and feel free to ask more questions. RudolfRed (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

RodolfRed -- Thank you for the hint --- that's sort of what I figured. Just trying to be expeditious and more concise. Thanks again for the help and sage advice. BARRY BARON (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

## Trauma Center

The History section of the subject, "Trauma Center," under, "US" credits two doctors in Chicago for creating the first trauma unit in the U.S. in 1966. The first trauma unit in the country, however, was a pediatric trauma unit in Kings County, NY created in 1962 by Dr. Peter K. Kottmeier. There are numerous articles on the internet crediting Dr. Kottmeier's pediatric trauma unit as predating the Chicago unit by four years. E.G. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/435031-overview Is Wikipedia interested in accurately reflecting this history? Regards,

The page currently reads as follows: US[edit source]

According to the CDC, injuries are the leading cause of death for American children and adults ages 1–44. The leading causes of trauma are motor vehicle collisions, falls, and assaults with a deadly weapon.

In the United States of America, Drs. Robert J. Baker and Robert J. Freeark established the first civilian Shock Trauma Unit at Cook County Hospital in Chicago, IL on March 16, 1966.[6] The concept of a shock trauma center was also developed at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, in the 1950s and 1960s by thoracic surgeon and shock researcher R Adams Cowley, who founded what became the Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore, Maryland, on July 1, 1966. The R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center is one of the first shock trauma centers in the world.[7] Cook County Hospital in Chicago trauma center (opened in 1966).[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregger333 (talkcontribs) 19:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you may be right, Gregger333. The place to discuss this is on the talk page of the article, Talk:Trauma Center, where people with knowledge and interest in the subject are more likely to see it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

## "Consensus"

Since Wikipedia doesn't really use consensus as a means of deciding, one editor does that, always. How is the systemic suggestion of consensus, giving the appearance of consensus without any real consensus, be a valid method of assessing scientific truth via language? I strongly suggest that it is an unhelpful adjunct which should be deleted from Wiki-policy unless it's utility can be adequately explained, I further suggest that it cannot be explained and should be removed immediately with direct effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YogiShivRaJi (talkcontribs) 2019-01-25T19:14:25 (UTC)

Hello, YogiShivRaJi. Almost all Wikipedia policies are set by consensus. You are welcome to try and change them: the place to do so is at VPP I don't think you will have much luck, but if you can win enough people over to your view, you will have changed the consensus. Wikipedia's purpose is not "assessing scientific truth": it is, like other encyclopaedias, to summarise existing reliable published material on a given subject. --ColinFine (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, there is a "discussion" when the action takes take but it is only senior "authorized" WP participants that seem able to handle the group when the decision comes down and when it concerns "authorized" WP participants only those that are accepted into that upper echelon of administrators seem to ever be in a position of authority. And it seems as if when there is someone that is not of the administrator class those that are administrators seem to find the most insignificant things to discredit the position of the non. So to say . . . . is rather simple. And I know that this "attitude" will not be appreciated by a certain group in WP but so is my insistence at the endorsement of WP to use my IP address as my user id. To not address significant challenges to what is accepted as credible sort of short changes the purpose of a source of knowledge. And WP does not seem to be a place where the limitation of "credible" sources is based on the ability of the language abilities of that particular language group. Non-western culture subjects are usually subject to western language publications. If a non-western subject is to be as fulfilling in its subject matter it would seem relavent to understand what is that subject within that culture, society or language group. You cannot do that if you do not understand the "native" language or what is published in the non-native language for others to attempt to understand.104.35.236.49 (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, nor is it a bureaucracy. The purpose of existing policy and how it is enforced is to make it possible to create a collaborative, free encyclopedia that is as reliable as possible given the circumstances. Becoming an administrator means passing a rather grueling public hearing, which by its very nature establishes that the would-be administrator has earned their stripes. Still, as someone who is not an administrator, but has been in quite a few RfC and AfD discussions, I'd have to say that administrators aren't necessarily shown any special deference in decision-making, but that as experienced editors who have been doing this for years they know policy and guidelines pretty well and thus usually make good arguments. The few tasks that only admins are allowed to do (revdel, ANI, etc.), are powers have the potential to be extremely disruptive and thus have to be restricted to only users who have been thoroughly vetted by the community. If you ever disagree with an action that an administrator has done, there are various notice boards where you can go state your case and try to get the action reverted. As for your second point, I'm not entirely sure I understand the argument you're making: Wikipedia absolutely has problematic biases, but sources can be offered in any language. If you think that an article is missing a vital perspective from sources published in a given language, you should add that information and cite those sources. signed, Rosguill talk 05:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
"Community"? You mean those that have already been elevated to administrators because that seems to be who is aware and responds to the vetting process. It is still a closed shop. All that is needed to black ball someone from elevation to administrator is despite knowledge of the process labeled as not always cocktail party polite. But that is what happens in an organization that has a class of one type and a class of another. It did not work in the Soviet Union. As for the "rules", there seem to be what is established in the guidelines and policies and then what gets in WP by what appears to be mere influence, i.e. date formats.104.35.236.49 (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

## Rude awakening

I found it very rude of buidhe to deny a simple building of the character of the user jffmurphy10. Perhaps buidhe would like me to follow or become dependent. Please be considerate buidhe of newcomers because brilliant minds do not think alike.

Regards,

--Jeffrey E. Murphy 23:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jffmurphy10 (talkcontribs)

If you did not want your sandbox reviewed, you should have not submitted it for review. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
No, brilliant minds don't all think alike; but Wikipedia has principles and policies. Perhaps Jffmurphy10 would find it profitable to review What Wikipedia is not and User pages. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Why is it there are obtuse individuals showing the human element portion of Wikipedia no regards? jffmurphy10 Sandbox still remain! Gheez!

Regards,

Jeffrey E. Murphy 00:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jffmurphy10 (talkcontribs)

...Did you want it deleted? I can do that if you want. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Funny character... we just hit our tenth edit. How do we ever repay you? lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jffmurphy10 (talkcontribs) 00:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## trying in Draft "Anton Miller" violinist article (in Engish) to fix link to Italian Wikipedia article on Franco Gulli

trying in Draft "Anton Miller" violinist article (in Engish) to fix link to Italian Wikipedia article on Franco Gulli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millipede (talkcontribs) 15:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Millipede. The best way to create a wikilink to an article in another language is to use Template:ill. So if you write {{ill|Franco Gulli|it}}, it will display as Franco Gulli [it]: the main link is to the non-existent English article, so it is in red; but there is a blue 'it' link which will take you to the Italian article. If in the future somebody writes an English article on Franco Gulli, the link will automatically be updated to point to it. --ColinFine (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millipede (talkcontribs) 21:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for having forgotten Wikipedia etiquette regarding four tildes or custom signature Millipede (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## Confused!

Hi, I was looking at Jeremy Ray Taylor's Wikipedia page and I noticed that it says he would be in an episode of Doctor Who (a tv show) in 2019. The thing is, it's been announced that the show wouldn't be returning in 2019, but in 2020, and nothing has showed up any search I've made of his episode or character. Also, there wasn't anything left in the References category about it either. Is there any way I can, instead of editing, maybe leave a remark saying that that should be checked out somehow? Does anyone know how I can confirm that that information is either true or false? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebekahbird (talkcontribs) 01:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. You can raise the question on the article's talk page, and interested editors may look at it and respond or fix it. RudolfRed (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, just to add to the above, we have nice templates like {{citation needed}}, which put an unobtrusive notice next to a statement. In this case, I added {{dubious}}. Definitely don't be afraid to add these tags, as they help involve other readers of the page, and point to the talk page. Bellezzasolo Discuss 02:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello. 1) Im have the sources / citations for what has been written, however im struggling to workout how to add them. any cheat sheet on this please

2) How to add a photo

many thanks

regards seav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torng Seav (talkcontribs) 02:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Torng Seav. Please read Referencing for beginners and Help:Pictures. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis

This page is being subjected to possible deletion. I wish to agree with the deletion. However, I know zero about how to do this. I don't even know how to publish one word here.. unless it has a very simple sign post. Like this page. Please help me. Thank you HER KNIGHT (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, HER KNIGHT. Just go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis, click the edit button, and make your case. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
At the AfD, click on Edit, then add your comment below the last comment. Typing a * will create a bullet. Most editors type Keep or Delete or Comment and then Bold that one word, followed by their comments. At end of comment, type four of ~ to sign your name. The process is not a vote. An editor will read all comments and make a decision. David notMD (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi HER KNIGHT. Some tips on posting to that deletion discussion. After you click edit, as suggested, your post goes at the very bottom of the page. Start your post with an asterisk (*), which will format as a bullet when you save. Right after the asterisk, write '''Delete''' – with the three apostrophes on either side. This will format as boldface, which is the convention at deletion discussions for formatting your !vote. After that, write out your rationale, ending with your signature, as you did for your post here. I would also suggest perusing Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## Concerning the retention of historical statements about "Thirubuvanai", (in French: Tribuvane) which was deleted in Wikipedia on 26.01.2019.

Americans should first know the freedom of the United States, and the neighbors do not need to know. The people in the area where the event is to be revealed first to tell a historical event. The Puducherry government is a coordinated part of India which will not be able to conceive of the freedom of a territory and to conceal the bloodshed, humiliation, imprisonment and release of liberation and the liberation of that area.

64 years after the release of Puducherry, the Tribuvane commune is not aware of how and when it came to independence. No one knows today until today's true release of the Holy Communion. The banning of the loudspeaker is to block the report and to spread the lies and inverters without informing the world of the old stable real history of the joint effort of the journalists.Similarly, prohibiting the truth of the Freedom struggle of the Puducherry is to hide the truth.

On 06.04.1954, the three members liberation struggle group Kalitheerthal Kuppam lived headed by S. Narayanasamy took over the Tribuvane Commune(in English: Thirubuvanai Commune) from the French Indian Government and declared independence. The Liberation Government changed the name of the Commune as "Mannadipet Commune". Till now the name is existing with the name of Mannadipet commune. It is not legally binding on the Government of Mannadipet to incorporate the Indian Government agreement with the French Government under the name "Tribune Commune", as the Government headed by Tribuvane headquarters with an area of 23.54 square miles. The Liberation Government came to power from 06.04.1954 to 30.10.1954. It's not legally valid. The Liberation Government came to power from 06.04.1954 to 30.10.1954. In the period of the Liberated Government, the government has not been informed of any action of the state. Indian newspapers are afraid to release these messages. The Indian press also reluctantly refrained from releasing news of the governing body of the Tribuvane Commune and dismissed the state of the state.

As if the Indian media have been reluctant to release the news that the French government has been seized and fired since 06.04.1954, it is as if the modern World WIKIPEDIA NEWS HAS BLOCKED THE ARTICLE written in the title of "THIRUBUVANAI" the present editor.

History of the French India Liberation struggle was reportedly titled "Thirubuvanai", the title of the Wikipedia to inform the public about the hidden history. During the French rule, the name was changed to the Mannadipet Commune and the Liberation Government was in control of the 22 villages that had been held by the Thirupuvanai, Mannadipet and Kalitheerthal Kuppam. No one knows anything to tell any other historical event in the outside world. In the name of the history of the French Liberation War, the news will reach the readers and historians only if they tell the true limit. Historical article in the title titled Thirubuvanai in Wikipedia is a hidden history. There is no reversion in this.

We have only the power to carry out the "Sanwaa" movement, the successor of Narayanasamy, who has officially conquered the history of the renamed Tribuvane Commune, to seize the Commune from the French and take over as Executive Minister. There is no news for anyone else.

Therefore, it is requested to rewrite (release) the reverted content given in Wikipedia written by Sanwaa in the name of “THIRUBUVANAI’. Otherwise, Wikipedia will only be known as a medium that hides history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanwaa (talkcontribs) 05:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## No subject

Hi Teahouse. I'm having a spot of bother at the moment and I'm wondering if you could give me any advice. A year ago I uploaded an image I made myself so I could use it on my talk page. A couple of days ago I uploaded a fair use image (that got deleted, I'm not worried about that), but this other image from a year ago was deleted too. The people who deleted did no explaining. I initially assumed they thought I plagiarized it, So I uploaded the original variant of this image without lettering I used from a fair-use website to be on the safe side, but they deleted that again, believing it to be the one they initially deleted, leaving again no explanation. I'm really confused, as I've left a message and I've had no response. They've given me "final warnings" but I don't see anything I've done wrong. Could you give me a piece of advice? --Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Leavepuckgackle1998. If I understand you correctly, you uploaded two fair-use images and an image derived from a fair-use image to Commons. Commons does not accept images under fair use, but only free use and public domain images. —teb728 t c 06:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Let me add Leavepuckgackle1998, that (unlike Commons) fair-use image can be uploaded to Wikipedia under the very restrictive conditions at WP:NFCC, and those conditions allow use of fair-use image only on articles and never on user pages. —teb728 t c 07:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Leavepuckgackle1998. I think the problem might be with your "fair use" website. Images from such a site are probably still copyright, but if you tell us which site, we can check for you. (On a separate minor point, I find your user page amusing, but you might like to review it if you wish to be taken seriously as a Wikipedia editor. ) Dbfirs 07:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## Article Creation

How do i make a article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetlebug202 (talkcontribs) 08:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Writing your first article can be difficult, but we have a guide on article writing that can be found here. RhinosF1 (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## Newbie here👋

Hi, ummm.. I'm quite new here so can someone teach me the basics(and how to add pictures) 🙏

I am bone123 (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I have left a message at your talk page. RhinosF1 (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@RhinosF1: Thanks

## How to make aricles

Hi Can An yone help me make an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nana Asare 13 (talkcontribs) 12:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nana Asare 13 and welcome to the Teahouse. You can find a lot of information about this at Wikipedia:My first article. Wikipedia articles need references which show the subject of the article has significant coverage in reliable sources: sources which can be trusted. Cheers, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
If this is related to Draft:The Kingdom of Jhansi, you may be better off editing the existing article Jhansi, adding any relevant material to that article and including references to published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## Another help request

I am trying to locate a wikik writer to edit changes who has some Integrity and allow changes per Wikipedia rules. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A250:AE40:4BE:7B88:66D5:7EE8 (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. You stand much more chance of engaging somebody's interest if you make it clear from the first what changes you want to make. Otherwise, why would anybody bother to spend the time talking to, only to find out it is in an area they have no knowledge or interest in? Or it relates to a subject which does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability? No purpose is served by keeping it secret anyway: if somebody agrees to make some edits for you, they will be expected to declare their conflict of interest anyway, so it is much better to be open about it from the start. --ColinFine (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## When is present tense appropriate instead of past tense

When it comes to events such as a sports game, particularly say a championship event, is the title always current tense as the title never changes but the play does. It is the playing that changes tense not the title? What is the rule on grammar as to why it seems titles are treated as past events instead of as an identification that remains constant?2605:E000:9149:8300:4560:D1CF:6806:3065 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP and welcome to the Teahouse. Articles about past events are written in the past tense, whereas articles about ongoing events are written in the present tense, along with most other articles. You can find more information about this at MOS:TENSE. Cheers, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## i dont understand

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffcoll2222 (talkcontribs) 15:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

You are presumably referring to your userspace draft at User:Jeffcoll2222/sandbox? In the feedback messages on the draft and on your user talk page, the words in blue are wikilinks to more guidance to help you to understand. At present, the draft has no references. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I assume that you are trying to write your WP:Autobiography, but you need to provide independent WP:Reliable sources for all statements. You can't just write your profile here. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) for further details. Dbfirs 16:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## Need some help getting started on a new entry (after a few years).

Hi,

I completed an entry a few years ago for an ancient illuminated manuscript, but now I would like to write about a banned graphic novel from Egypt, and have forgotten where to go to begin this entry, with the title and the content from class members in a class I'm taking. Can you please direct me? Thank you!

Kerri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerri Buckley (talkcontribs) 07:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I know from what you've said it isn't your first article but have you tried rereading the article writing guide for new users. RhinosF1 (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kerri Buckley and welcome to the Teahouse. You might like to rewrite your user page in the first person, since it is not supposed to read like an article. See WP:User page. Dbfirs 16:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## Request for advice on how to help an article

I am a new editor and have a question on what to do next with an article. I came across Flame front when looking at underlinked articles. That article, however, looks like it has much bigger problems. I would like your advice on what I should do with it.

What I see: The format looks incorrect to me. There is an external link at the top of the article, and it is to another encyclopedia. However, that link is to a directory page in Britannica, not actually an article. So it really has no source. In my opinion, this also appears to fit more in a dictionary instead of an encyclopedia.

What do you recommend I do with this page? Should I try to clean up the format, and then tag it as unreferenced? (I don’t know much about this topic so don’t feel comfortable trying to expand it). Or do you think it would be better to submit this one as a candidate for deletion? (I have read WP:DP but I am struggling to come to a conclusion one way or the other). Or is there something else I should do? I want to help but don’t know where to go next with this. Desertborn (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Flame front seems very short, I don't mind looking through but it may want deleting. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 16:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Must have been looking at wrong thing. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 16:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I've just realised what's happened, the article in question has now been redirected to a better article. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 16:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I have made boldly it into a redirect to Premixed flame there wasn't enough content fora stand alone article and what there was was unsourced. Theroadislong (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for creating the redirect! (And for helping me learn a good way to handle this type of situation. I can see that the redirect was better than either deleting or trying to fix). Desertborn (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## Why I didn't create

--Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Вадзім Медзяноўскі and welcome to the Teahouse. It's unclear what you're trying to ask here; please be more specific. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## American College of International Physicians page

I just created and edited the article that should be linked to the list of one of the entries for what ACIP stands for, however, I'm not able to find how to link the material to what the page in reference, for that reason, we will highly appreciate your help in letting us know how to work the process to make it happen.
In advance, for your time, help and consideration, we thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvgg6226 (talkcontribs) 17:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mvgg6226: Sorry but your draft article at User:Mvgg6226/sandbox consists almost entirely of copyrighted material. This is a copyright violation; Wikipedia cannot allow copyrighted material, even if it's only meant to exist for a short time to develop a proper article. You must express the content in your own words without copying or closely paraphrasing the original material. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## Editing "E H Carr". Can I suggest changes rather than make the change? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Carr

In Wikipedia article for E.H. Carr, the following appears under "early life". At Cambridge, Carr was much impressed by hearing one of his professors lecture on how the Peloponnesian War influenced Herodotus in the writing of the Histories.[5] article is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Carr

I am no expert in this area but believe "Peloponnesian War" should be "Persian Wars". Have read Carr but not Herodotus.

As I understand, the Histories were written in 440 BC and the Peloponessian War began 430 BC, ~5 yrs before death of Herodotus. The Persian Wars (by lookup) were from 499-449 BC.

Can I submit this as a suggestion, or do I go ahead and edit? I could be wrong somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John10k (talkcontribs) 18:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Be bold and make the change unless there is an established consensus against it as long as you're changes are reliably sourced. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 18:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## Create a summary box for a bio page

Hello gentle and wise folks ... how do I create, please, the little summary box that sometimes appears at the top right corner of the page with details like name, parents, spouses, offspring, etc (in the case of a person) or various other details for other topics? Much obliged for your help!Mecla (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, Ive just spotted this. {{Infobox person}} should be the one you're looking for. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 18:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
There are also various more specific infoboxes listed at WP:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes and at Category:People and person infobox templates. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia was kind enough to create a page on my new position but it is incomplete and I would like to know my staff can reach out to for including more personal background information, adding service record, awards, etc.

Thank you,

Greg Slavonic Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower & Reserve Affairs)

405-641-9013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8D00:15A0:5591:6398:A28F:13BF (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Greg. Thanks for asking, rather than just getting them to plough in and do it. The thing to realise is that the article Gregory J. Slavonic is not your article: it is Wikipedia's article about you, and you have no control of the content. You and your associates are strongly discouraged from editing the article; however, you or they are welcome to suggest changes on the talk page Talk:Gregory J. Slavonic: if they add the template {{edit request}} (with the double curly brackets) somebody will come along and decide what to do about the suggestions. Any information to be added must appear in a reliable published source (personal knowledge, and unpublished information, are never acceptable in a Wikipedia article) and as far as possible in a source wholly independent of you. (I actually think that the existing article is a bit light on independent sources, and of those, News OK really doesn't have very much information. The rest of the sources, while reliable, are primary sources: the foundation of Wikipedia is what people unconnected with a subject have chosen to publish about the subject. If your staff can suggest any further independent sources for information about you, that would be helpful too).
If your staff want to go ahead with this, they should consider creating accounts: it is not required - they can edit without logging in as you have done - but it's easier to track who is responsible for edits. If they do create accounts, they should be individual (sharing an account is not permitted), and the account names should not suggest that they are "official" for anybody or anything. They may use their real names (as I do) or make up pseudonyms as they wish. They should then read about conflict of interest and paid editing before they do anything else. It would be helpful if they read referencing for beginners as well: suggestions will be easier to deal with if they include citations to sources; and while these do not have to be properly formatted on Talk pages, it would be easier if they were. --ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
P.S. "Wikipedia" does not create articles. An editor Iowajason created the article about you back in September. AntonyZ added a big chunk, and TheRoadIsLong deleted content that was not appropriate or not adequately referenced. David notMD (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## from sandbox to get it 'out'

dear people try to get the written text into www - I mean public. so after ... I did it in sanbox .. and then? what to do? anyone konws how to do this THANKS + who can read this + are you answering to the email adress?

send bottom or where to is it sending???? public???? I donT understand how to contact you ---its like since so long - I had done everything + a person tilt it- because I put my photo from me inn

love Micha Das Bach — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gewaechshaus (talkcontribs) 17:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Micha, welcome to the Teahouse. I have good news, and I have bad news to give you. Firstly, the good news : another editor (MarkZusab) has helpfully added a 'submit template' to your sandbox page which would allow you to submit your article for review. You would simply click the blue 'submit' button for another editor to be prompted to review it ...a process that can take some weeks, as we are all volunteers here. We don't give out personal email addresses or communicate in that way - everything is done openly online here.
But there is very bad news, too. The article you have written about yourself is far from being acceptable to Wikipedia. You are not allowed to use Wikipedia to promote your artistic or business activities. As far as I can see, none of the references contribute to the essential requirement of demonstrating that you meet our notable artist requirements. Although they demonstrate that you have been busy over many years as an artist, and that you have participated in a number of exhibitions, they are not sufficient in my view. What you need to do is include detailed references to reliable independent sources that have written about you in detail and in depth, or to demonstrate that your work has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
The other bad news is that you very clearly have a 'Conflict of Interest' (COI), which you must declare. Wikipedia strongly discourages users from writing articles about themselves. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and follow the instructions for declaring that connection if you are set on having your sandbox reviewed by our Articles for Creation team. You should also read WP:YOURSELF to understand the reasons for not pursue this self-promotional path, and to let other, non-involved editors writing about you instead.
I have not commented on the lack on inline citations or the somewhat artsy-style of writing, which is non-encyclopaedic in tone.  Resolving those can come later. I have left a 'welcome' message on your talk page with more links about contributing when you have a COI. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## Improperly marked my first two edits as minor.

My sincere apologies but my first two edits I classified as minor when the difference is more than superficial.

I've attempted to locate the option to uncheck minor edit but have been unable to do so.

Am I missing the option or will it require the assistance of a more senior editor to make the change on my behalf?

Thank you.

Vcpecon (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vcpecon: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for being vigilant. This isn't something that can be corrected, as far as I know. Just be more careful in the future. RudolfRed (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Noted and thank you for the quick and helpful reply. Vcpecon (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## Disambiguation

Can you create a disambiguation page for zip-line? It could also refer to Zipline International, Zipline Creative , and Zipline Safari. Mstrojny (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Done --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: Is there a primary topic to zip-line? If so, can you format the page so that it shows the primary topic like this one. If not, can you move the page to the appropriate title? Mstrojny (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz, David Biddulph, and MarkZusab: Because the disambiguation page is created with the compound word form, is it OK to move the title of the primary topic from Zip-line to Zipline? Mstrojny (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The title of the primary topic article should be determined by how it is most commonly referred to in reliable sources. If you want to move it, I would recommend not doing so yourself but suggesting it on the article talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I have created an RM here. I personally have no opinion on whether the move should take place, but if you are interested in joining the discussion, please feel free to do so. Mstrojny (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mstrojny: David Biddulph and MarkZusab beat me to it, and made the change you suggested. As for how to treat the variations in spelling (zipline vs zip-line vs zip line), I don't really have an opinion. (Well actually I do, but my opinion is that it's a trivial matter, so I don't mind whichever way it goes.) --Gronk Oz (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

## How to start?

What can I do here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkguyash (talkcontribs) 21:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello I am a newcomer to Wikipedia! Sorry for my bad grammar.. My textbook of Mathematical analysis told me to prove ${\displaystyle \left\{n\sin {\frac {180^{\circ }}{n}}\right\}}$ converge. Of course, it converges to π, then the proof says "Let ${\displaystyle t={\frac {180^{\circ }}{n(n+1)}}}$", then it started to use the monotone bounded sequence convergence theorem to prove it is convergent. But how did it get t?