Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 904

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 900 Archive 902 Archive 903 Archive 904 Archive 905 Archive 906 Archive 910

Confused new user


I'm been in contact with several of the Wikipedia editors and they have helped me understand what can and what cannot be posted/added to existing pages.

To the existing page: I would like to propose adding the following at the end of the History section:

Early high levels of breakages to EFB equipment have been addressed through the deployment of rugged protective tablet cases like the PIVOT case that is deployed at Southwest Airlines (;;

I work for a company that is referenced in these articles. If the above request is acceptable, can you explain or give me a step-by-step as to what I need to do for next steps.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJ010110 (talkcontribs) 21:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@KJ010110: I will consider this by assessing your source, and may possibly make a smaller edit to the EFB page on you behalf, but it will not - and never must - mention the product name. That would be far too promotional, and I'm not fully convinced that other editors will even accept what I might add. You have a detailed and very clear "NO!" from me to your question below (which I answered prior to to answering his one) about creating a whole article about this product. And in future, remember to sign every talk page post you publish by typing four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~) at the very end of your last sentence. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)  
 Done Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


You might not get this a lot so I hope you have a good day :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLZLEAVEMEALONE21 (talkcontribs) 20:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, PLZLEAVEMEALONE21, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, we got your post, though people only really post here if they get stuck and need help editing Wikipedia. If that happens, do come back and seek assistance.
So that we know who has said what, and when, we ask everyone to remember to sign every post to talk pages and help desks. You do that by simply typing four keyboard 'tilde' characters (like this: ~~~~) right at the end of your last sentence. Seeing as you're probably just up the road from me, I'll pop by and leave you a welcome message on your talk page, full of loads of helpful links to explain how this encyclopaedia works. Do try out The Wikipedia Adventure - there are 15 different badges to collect as you participate in this interactive tour round. Regards from Derbyshire. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

When editing articles - shall I use simple language or descriptive and fancy?

When editing, may I use words such as: Shall, Shan't, keen, peculiar, etcetera... or should I keep the language simple?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieZPP (talkcontribs) 19:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't imagine where a word like "shall" or "keen" would be used in an article; the first expresses an opinion and the second is a slang colloquialism. Peculiar is a fine word, in certain contexts, and generally we don't spell out "et cetera" if we need to use it, "etc." is usually sufficient. Otherwise, WP:TONE provides some good guidance as to the appropriate register articles are expended to be written in. Standard English (pick one national standard, however no one standard is better than any other, see WP:ENGVAR) and a neutral point of view are usually key as well. I hope that helps. --Jayron32 19:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
There are various ways to use the auxiliary verb 'shall'. In military use it is not an opinion because it is a command. A US Department of Defense specification is said to consist of "shall statements", such as "The payroll system shall generate direct deposits weekly for personnel who have requested direct deposits". Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

This article needs to be updated

hello all,

        I have updated the article about the organisation IAWRT but this updating message stays above a section that has been updated several times over more that a year, does anyone now why?

Current status Ambox current red.svg This article needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (November 2010)

Nonee Iawrtwebjournalist  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iawrtwebjournalist (talkcontribs) 04:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 
Welcome to the Teahouse Iawrtwebjournalist. If you believe the Current status section does not need further updating, feel free to remove the {{update}} tag from the section. BTW, do not type blanks at the start of a line unless you want strange formatting like above. —teb728 t c 06:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

article denied is dissapointing

rejecting publishing of genuine articles with more than enough references on wiki is highly dissapointing — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP editor and welcome to the Teahouse.
Yes, indeed, it can be very disappointing to have your efforts rejected. Your fellow editors will go to great lengths to explain how to create articles that are not rejected, but this requires some participation and flexibility on your side. Wikipedia articles are not merely about some subject that exists as specified by any old web references. Creating a new article from scratch is quite difficult and we often advise new editors to spend considerable time improving other articles (and their editing skills and knowledge of how Wikipedia actually works) before starting on a new article. This can be extremely frustrating, especially for people who thought it would be easy (anyone can edit) and quick. We lose many prospective new editors because of this, a matter of some concern. So, if you have not given up entirely, please engage with us. There are people willing to work with you. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

List Company Profile


Thank you for taking the time to read my email, my name's Assam and I'm the founder of a startup called Intvo, I'm sending this email to see if you can help me to list my company profile on WIKI. I would really appreciate the time. Kind Regards, Assam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intvo (talkcontribs) 18:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Intvo, Hey, First I got to say a thing about your username, as we normally don't allow usernames representing a group of people (I.E. a company.) Anyway, I can find no news articles about the company, so I would work on growing your startup before you make an article about it. WelpThatWorked (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Intvo. Like many people you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia does not contain "profiles" - not one, not even of Jimmy Wales. It has absolutely nothing to do with publicising or promoting any company or anything else. It is an encyclopaedia, which contain neutrally written articles, which summarise what independent commentators have already published about a subject. If we ever have an article about your company, it will not be your article, you will have no control whatever over the contents of the article, and little of the content should come from you or your company. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


Please could I make contact with Railfan23? He/she has left me a message and I do not know how to reply. Pedr Jarvis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrjarvis (talkcontribs) 15:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Pedrjarvis, I would try his talk page. Add a section by hitting the + at the top toolbar of the page. Good luck! WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Racial Classification for Biracial or Mixed-Race People

As a Biracial Hispanic American, I have always had concerns about how biracials are racially classified.

I feel that for change and progress to take place, it has to start with media and information sources such as Wikipedia, that most people turn to for information and/or clarification. I've noticed for so many years, since Wikipedia's existence (however, I realize it has been a constant for many years prior in American social culture), that this country has held onto the "one drop rule" notion, in spite of its invalidity today. However, there are still ignorant mindsets that continue to adhere to that notion and as a biracial American, I feel as though I can speak for most of us 'mixies' that we want our racial classification to be correct and accurate. I also realize that the subject of race is socially constructed, however, this is the very reason why the racial terminology should be printed and read correctly for those of mixed race, like myself.

Most of the time, when I research a famous person of black & white racial mixture, and who also self-identifies as 'biracial', I will see at the bottom of your pages, where your references are listed, that these individuals will have a reference of "African American", whereas if they have other racial mixture and classification, it will read other races or ethnicities such as, for example, "American of Italian ancestry," or "American of Swedish ancestry," etc., instead of "American of African ancestry" or "American of African American ancestry." I was pleased to see that Meghan, Duchess of Sussex was classified as "British People of African Ancestry," (It should also read in the same way since she is also an American: "American of African Ancestry" or "American of African American Ancestry") because you didn't give her the label of "African American."

It always made me wonder why other biracials aren't listed in this way? Why are they not listed as "American of African Ancestry" or "American of African American Ancestry"? Personally, I, as a biracial Hispanic, do not self-identify as "African American" because even though I have African ancestry, I am not exclusively an African American and I feel that if the racial classification is noted for other biracials you should stick to how you racially classified Meghan, Duchess of Sussex instead of saddling them with the "African American" label. Just because someone has African or African American ancestry, it should not automatically be said that they are African or African American--ESPECIALLY if they are of mixed race and they also self-identify that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exotiq88 (talkcontribs) 16:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Exotiq88, Read Wikipedia:Race_and_ethnicity WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Control editing

Guys, a simple question for those experienced with the editing process. we have up dated photo's to replace some ancient ones already in place. How do i approach this please Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscrew (talkcontribs) 13:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Back in September you were editing Palling Volunteer Rescue Service, for which you properly declared a COI in the Talk for that page. Same article? First, avoid "we" in comments. Wikipedia editors need to be individuals. What I hope a different editor can provide is guidance on how to add photos to Wikipedia Commons, and then copy those into the article. A crucial question is who owns the photos. At a simple level, the photographer is the owner and the person who donates use of the photos. David notMD (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, Chriscrew. If you personally own the copyright to the pictures, and are willing to release them under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, (which will allow anybody to reuse them in any way, for any purpose, commercial or not), then you can simply upload them to Commons (see Help:Upload. If any of those conditions don't hold, then it is more complicated. See donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

why my editing was declined

I did my editing and it was declined. you said ask it on teahouse ,now i am doing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajwa123 (talkcontribs) 15:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sajwa123, Probably because it isn't even an article WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I thought since it's their sandbox they can edit whatever they want so why was it declined? (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The edit itself went through, but the user asked for the article to go to mainspace... and that was denied of course. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sajwa123: You have some content on your User page which appears to be about you. You also created a Sandbox with the same content, submitted it to be an article and that was declined. The Sandbox User:Sajwa123/sandbox still exists, but for many, many reasons is not ready to be an article. Wikipedia is not a social media. For a living person to be the subject of an article, there has to be published content ABOUT that person, written by others. Nothing that a person writes about themselves - even if all true - can be used. David notMD (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

A Question or Comment About AFC Submissions

The OP was asking why their edit, in their sandbox, was declined. The IP then says that since anyone should be able to edit whatever they want in a sandbox, why was that edit declined? This may illustrate a misunderstanding of the AFC Submit function on a sandbox. Experienced editors and AFC reviewers know that Submit, whether on a draft, or on a user subpage, or on a sandbox, means Request Review for Acceptance as an Article. However, I think that many new editors edit in their sandbox and then Submit, without really knowing what it is that they are Submitting, without really thinking that they have written an article draft. So sometimes when a sandbox edit is Submitted and Declined, the editor may not have understood what they were requesting when they Submitted.

I am not sure whether there is anything that can be done to reduce this confusion. AFC reviewers should know that the submitter might or might understand what they are doing, and so should be patient and courteous with a confused submitter.

Was the OP requesting that their edit become an article in mainspace, or were they Submitting it because they didn't understand that is what Submit means?

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Article Origin

I was looking at the Dean Spanos article (having recently read an entertaining book about the NFL) and was struck by its vaguely PR agency-written tone. Inspecting the history, it appears to have emerged almost whole cloth from an Orlando-based IP user who has contributed similarly whitewashed articles about many other NFL executives. Is it appropriate to raise the provenance of an article in any way? Or is the right approach to simply edit where one sees a lack of objectivity? The difficulty I see with simply editing is that the structure of these hagiographic articles -- with sections like Philanthropy and Awards & Recognition -- make them resistant to adverse information without wholesale revisions. Thank you! bzzne (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bzzne: If you have concerns, you can raise the issue at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard where editors interested in investigating claims of conflicts-of-interest can help out. --Jayron32 20:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I worry I'm not on solid enough ground to allege a conflict, but I'll look into this IP's articles more and reconsider. bzzne (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Looks like sockpuppetry to me. Article created 2012. As far back as 12/2015 and as recent as 1/2019 there have been scores of edits to this article from IPs starting with 2600, 2601, 2602, 2606. Often their talk cautioned about inappropriate additions to the article. I did not check their contributions to see if there were other NFL-related edits. David notMD (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, a lot of 2606 is vandalism. Could still be socking, just not positive. David notMD (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Counting Uses of a Source?

I have seen people mention "X source has been used 20 times on the site" but cannot figure out how to find such statistics myself (and googling for instructions failed me). Can someone give me a quick pointer? bzzne (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, Bzzne, welcome. That might be something like this fascinating Wikimedia blog post which analysed the re-use of citations across all language Wikipedias. Whilst the magnitude of their reuse - and, indeed, a couple of the titles themselves - do seem surprising, I find it heartening that, as we seemingly drown amongst waves of articles on what I might call 'notable trivia', we actually see massive re-use of some weighty factual sources. Lets preface that top ten list with this interesting quote from the investigation:
There are 4.5 million unique sources in the datasets. While on average, every source is cited 3.5 times, the vast majority of sources in this dataset are used less than 500 times across wikis. Only nine “super publications”’ are used more than 10,000 times.
  1. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification: 2,830,341 citations [–1633–2007]
  2. Prediction of Hydrophobic (Lipophilic) Properties of Small Organic Molecules Using Fragment Methods: An Analysis of AlogP and CLogP Methods: 21,350 citations []
  3. The status, quality, and expansion of the NIH full-length cDNA project: the Mammalian Gene Collection (MGC): 20,247 citations []
  4. The de Vaucouleurs Atlas of Galaxies: 19,068 citations [ISBN: 9780521820486]
  5. The Complete New General Catalogue and Index Catalogues of Nebulae and Star Clusters by J. L. E. Dryer: 19,060 citations [ISBN: 9780933346512]
  6. Galaxies and How to Observe Them: 19,058 citations [ISBN: 9781852337520}
  7. A Concise History of Romania: 15,597 citations [ISBN: 9780521872386]
  8. Catalog of Fishes California Academy of Sciences: 11,980 citations, [ISBN: 0940228475]
  9. Dictionary of Minor Planet Names: 10,651 citations [ISBN: 9783540002383]
  10. National and religious composition of the population of Croatia, 1880–1991: By settlements: 8,230 citations [ISBN: 9789536667079]
And just of out interest, you might like to know which articles on English Wikipedia contain the most number of separate references. If you do, then visit Wikipedia:Most-referenced articles. I hope you find these this as fascinating as I did. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
That is extremely interesting, thank you! Who knew there were so many fish? bzzne (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
You didn't give an example but they may have used the search box on the source name or used Special:LinkSearch on an online source. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you - LinkSearch is exactly what I was after. bzzne (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Hi There,

I asked for publishing a draft for ARZAQY and here what I got (not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.).

In my opinion , it is good to share such new information about a new sources for HR for MENA market and specially for county like Yemen , which most of people use Wikipedia for searcing for new information.


Areqi85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alareqi85 (talkcontribs) 06:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Alareqi85. Sorry, Wikipedia is exactly the wrong place to document a new thing. It is one of our major inclusion policies that, as an encyclopedia—by its nature is a tertiary source—the entries in it must only provide a survey of information already the subject of publication in the wider world. We do not contain entries on things that are not yet topics of knowledge by their previous publication by third parties, i.e., writings by people and organizations other than ARZAQY and anyone connected to it in any way. Please see Wikipedia:No original research.

Though the no original research policy directly invalidates the idea of using Wikipedia to first document a topic, multiple other fundamental policies and guidelines require reliable, independent, secondary sources, treating a topic in substantive detail to exist for an article on a topic to be warranted. These include the verifiability policy (mandating that all facts in an article be attributable to previously published, reliable sources) and the notability guideline (requiring that, for an article to be warranted, it be shown that the world has taken "note" of the topic by non-trivial publication about that topic in secondary and independent reliable sources).

For these reasons, please document this, but not at Wikipedia. If in the future it gains such treatment in sources, only then might it be suitable for a Wikipedia entry. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Article review for notability

Hi guys does this article meet notability for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:741:100:1A3F:B90E:534D:3148:629E (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Not just guys. David notMD (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
For films, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (films); however, for not yet released films, etc. the relevant section of that guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films. You might want to try asking about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film since the members of that WikiProject probably can give you a more specific answer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

How do I go about replacing a low quality .jpg on an article

Hi! I would like to replace the yucky .jpg used in the page .OOO. After some effort, I found a nicer transparent .png version of the logo in the Wayback Machine. (I forget where exactly and it was tricky to find, but I could probably find it again if needed.) All the rules for Wikipedia images and copyright and yadda yadda are long and scary and so after going around in circles in the Help articles I decided to ask here: what do I do to make this page image not be a jpeggy mess anymore and how do I do it without messing up something? Is the .png I found sufficient? thanks in advance :) --Undead Shambles (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I assume that the logo is registered as a trademark, so you cannot upload a better image to WP:Commons. The existing low-quality image is deliberately low-quality under a WP:Fair use rationale, so I'd leave it as it is. Dbfirs 07:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dbfirs: Whether the logo is trademarked doesn't really have anything to do with whether the file can be uploaded to Commons; there are plenty of trademarked logos uploaded to Commons. Copyright and trademark are separate concepts and what typically matters when it comes to Commons is whether the logo is deemed to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in its country of origin and int he United States. The jpeg file File:.OOO (DotTrippleO) Domain Logo.jpg is a Commons file licensed as {{PD-textlogo}}; so, it's not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and it should be OK for a cleaner .png file to be uploaded under the same license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps I am being over-cautious. American law seems to be slightly more permissive than British law. I've striken the inaccurate advice above. Dbfirs 08:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
You might be right depending upon the country of origin; so, I apologize if my response was a bit curt. Commons pretty much never accepts logos originating out of the UK per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom or countries which follow UK practice when it comes to the threshold of originality because the threshold applied by the UK is quite low (much lower than the US). So, just because the file jpeg exists on Commons that doesn't mean it should exist on Commons. This might be a good thing to ask about at c:COM:VPC. The file would be public domain in the US though in my opinion; so, if Commons can't keep it because too complex to be public domain in its country of origin, it can most likely be uploaded locally to Wikipedia under {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Undead Shambles: You should be able to upload the png version to Commons under the same license as the jpg. The format is different though, so you should upload it as a separate file and not an updated version. You can probably ask someone at c:COM:GL to do it for you; they may be even able to create a svg version of the file. If, however, you do it yourself, I wouldn't claim it as "own work" like the jpeg uploader did because that's not really the case; you should provide a direct source for the png version and also a source for the copyright holder. For future reference, although Commons and Wikipedia are sister projects, they are separate projects with their own policies and guidelines. You can ask questions about Commons here at the Teahouse, but it might be better to ask them at c:Commons:Village pump instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Thank you! I think I'll make a request at Graphics Lab for an .svg... but should I ask for one of the original upload, or the .png I found (does it matter?)? And just so I know, when you say "direct source", would it be a link to the page I found it on in the Wayback Machine? I was slightly concerned about this since I... kinda forgot what article it was in. But I suppose the copyright holder would be the company owning the .ooo domain, "Infibeam", right? --Undead Shambles (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Referencing the same source more than once

Hi there. Sorry to bother you, but when there’s a lot of information about a Wikipedia subject in the same non-Wikipedia article (a different website), can I reference it as a source on the Wikipedia article twice, thrice etc.?

Many thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickyNelka (talkcontribs) 12:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NickyNelka. Yes you can do that, and it's relatively easy to give the reference a name, which you can then use on subsequent instances in the article where you want to cite it. You can read how to do this at Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once, but please do ask again here if you're struggling with it. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

I have been reverting vandalism a lot since I was granted rollback rights. Another right I would be interested in to fight vandalism is the pending changes reviewer right to determine whether edits contain inappropriate content. The requirements are similar to getting rollback rights. Should I apply for these rights now or should I wait? Mstrojny (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Mstrojny. I'm not an admin, but I can see that two different answers could be given to you. I am aware you have been making some useful contributions since you were allowed to return to constructive editing to Wikipedia last month. That's really great. That said, my gut reaction is to advise you to wait a while longer. You only got rollback rights four days ago. If they were seen as identical, they'd be bundled together. Keep on with the general anti-vandalism work for a while longer, and then maybe apply in six months time. That way you won't be disappointed should you be turned down now. Gaining permissions isn't a race or a 'hat collecting' process (see WP:HATCOLLECT) - it should only be done after you've carefully considered your own skills acquired to date, your motivations, and the use that you'll actually put that new permission to. I often monitor Recent Changes, and there are relatively few Pending Changes that show up, still allowing you to make a valuable contribution at Recent Changes all day long.
Having given you that advice, I could then counter it completely by pointing out that if you look at Wikipedia:Pending changes you'll see the statement that "Reviewers have a similar level of trust to rollbackers". You've clearly been given the trust to rollback, so it could be deemed reasonable to give you pending changes permission, too. In support of that view, I'd point you to the current discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer where an admin (Swarm) has said to another editor: " It does not make sense to withhold PC when Rollback has already been granted". And we do need more active, experience editors at Pending Changes. Have you got that experience, do you think?
So, what to do? Well, that really is up to you. My overall suggestion - and it is a personal one - is to suggest leaving it for a few more months of serious editing here to demonstrate that you can handle having rollback rights properly. If you want to avoid any concerns over your intentions, or any accusations of hat collecting, that really is the most sensible thing to do. But Pending Changes isn't very onerous or challenging - it does sometimes need a little bit of extra care to investigate and check the reasons for the edit, and not rush to assume bad faith editing just because it's a semi-protected article. Sometimes I can't work the pending edits out myself, so then it's best to leave it to other editors who know the topic better. Apply now if you wish; or apply later on. The choice really is yours. The decision whether to grant it to you at this time is not. Hoping this helps a bit. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I agree with your advice. I am not trying to be hat collecting. For example, I do not care about becoming an admin on Wikipedia at this time. So it would make no sense to make a request for adminship. If I did make a request for adminship, I'm sure I would not have much luck becoming one. Mstrojny (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mstrojny: That is a fair assessment, and it would take you a lot of time to get to that point but, given a few years of experience and constructive contributions, who knows? One careful step at a time. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Planning to create an account, but I'm the ip of HorsesAreNice

I'm HorsesAreNice and I'm forced to edit as an IP because my account was blocked for sockpuppetry. But I was wondering how I can create an account, even as another account by me. Do you know if I can create another account if I'm a sock, or will I have to edit as an IP for eternity? 2602:306:8BB9:4E20:E0C9:87F5:3CF1:A47D (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC) (NOTE: My IP is constantly changing, so it may not be the IP that created the account)

You are blocked and cannot edit until you are unblocked. You cannot edit with new accounts or by IP address. Continuing to do so will just reduce your chances of being unblocked. Stop editing. You are blocked. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

how to confirm my account

dear sir / madam please provide me information about how can i confirm my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudasirarghand (talkcontribs) 07:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mudasirarghand. Most new accounts will become autoconfirmed after at least four days and at least ten edits. There are occasional exceptions. For example, editors using TOR networks have more stringent requirements. Please read WP:CONFIRM for additional details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Protect article

Could someone help me with protecting an article? The page belongs to my boss and it was recently vandalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devdas420 (talkcontribs) 16:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No page on Wikipedia belongs to any one person or company, but if you tell us what page then we can revert any vandalism and possibly protect the page. Dbfirs 16:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Devdas420: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not certain which article you are referencing, making it difficult to know if protection is warranted. Note that articles here do not belong to any one person, they belong to the community, see WP:OWN. No one editor gets exclusive control over an article or any special rights to dictate its content. If you are here editing for your boss, Wikipedia's Terms of Use require you to disclose that per WP:PAID; you should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
... later ... I assume that this is about Lal Vijay Shahdeo. I note that there has been some vandalism but that it was quickly reverted. Dbfirs 16:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Is that in fact the article? Because a few hours later it was deleted as G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP. David notMD (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The article was about a film director and included this reference but I must admit that I didn't check some other facts claimed. Dbfirs 00:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes it was about that article and why was it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devdas420 (talkcontribs) 01:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Click Lal Vijay Shahdeo and read the pink field, the info is there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

My recent article was marked as promotional or an Advertisement

My recent article was marked as promotional or an Advertisement. I had read the article more 2-3 times before submitting and ensuring that all of the information are factual and back by source. However, I am not sure which part(s) in particular of my article lead reviewer to take this decision. Can you help me pin-point those areas and hence, improve my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarshah28 (talkcontribs) 05:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Sagarshah28 and welcome to the Teahouse.
Do phrases like a fast-growing and popular youngest entrepreneur, started touching many lives with his impactful, and spread happiness of yoga to thousands of people not sound promotional to you? They do to most of us. You must find a way to state the facts in a more neutral tone. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
And if he is 21 years old, is he really still "fast-growing"? David notMD (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Creating a new article

I tried creating a new article for "George Roland" made several citiations. I hit publish and hit save changes but I seemed to have lost everything. Is there anyway to get it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigliodantefam (talkcontribs) 18:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Gigliodantefam Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The only edit in your edit history I see that has anything to do with George Roland is a subpage of your userpage, User:Gigliodantefam/George Roland, but it has no content other than the draft template and no edits other than its initial creation. It could be that you edited and saved while logged out, and the content is under your IP address. Otherwise, it is probably gone and you will have to start over. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Article declined

Hello, Teahouse! I appreciate any help you can offer me. After weeks waiting, my article Draft:Brian Rosenworcel was declined, due to lack of notabilty by User:Legacypac. However, when reviewing Notability Guidelines, I find that my subject meets the criteria on at least three points: Has a record with the band Certified Gold (Satellite (Guster song)), is a member of an ensemble with at least two notable members (the other members of the band Guster have pages Adam Gardner and Ryan Miller (musician), and has written lyrics for a notable composition Satellite (Guster song) I am hoping User:Legacypac will re-consider, but I am asking for further advice on how to get my article published. Thank you so much for any help you can offer. Zuzuroo (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Carole Basinger: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The best thing for you to do would be to ask Legacypac directly what their specific concerns were; you may ask them on their user talk page. My guess would be that since you claim they meet the notability criteria, the sources offered do not currently support those claims- but it would be best to ask them. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I already explained why the decline on the page but for greater clarity I point to WP:NBAND and especially to "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." Legacypac (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Does beg the question why Brian - of all the band members - is not worthy of his own article. Is it an anti-drummer thing?David notMD (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Auto confirmation

How do I become confirmed or auto confirmed? I know it's something like 4 days and 10 contributions - which I have - but I'm still not confirmed so I was wondering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ch518 (talkcontribs) 13:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

You are autoconfirmed. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you became autoconfirmed 4 February. What makes you think you are not? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
If you are trying to edit an semi-protected page, and you can't, you need to purge the cache.--Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

How do I request a photo?

I was looking at Drvenik, Split-Dalmatia County and thought that it may be good to add something about the ferry port there. I was wondering how I could ask for an image. I was also wondering where I could get images that would not violate copyrights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jentacular (talkcontribs)

Hello Jentacular, welcome to the Teahouse. Good question. I have just been struggling today with the exact same problem - how to find properly licensed images to add to a new article I've created about a notable person who has just died. Obviously, you appreciate we can't just take images off the internet unless they are licensed under a CC_BY_SA Creative Commons licence, which permits commercial re-use.
My first suggestion is to see if any other suitable images already exist on Wikimedia Commons. If so, you can use any of them. Try, which is a category I found by clicking on the image already used in the article you refer to
My next suggestion for an article with no images in it at all is to add {{Photo requested}} template to the talk page - though I do wonder how effective these are in eliciting new pictures from editors. Here in the UK we have a superb website of images of places called which only accepts properly licence CC_BY_SA images from users. So it might be worth you checking if there is a similar website covering Croatia. I don't think the global scheme called Panoramio works any more - others may know.
Then I would do a Google Image search of the subject I wanted. So, for Drevnik, you'd get all these results But you can't use them - the list includes mostly copyright images. So then, still in Google Search, you need to click the 'Tools' option and go to 'Usage rights' and select "Labelled for reuse". Do NOT choose the option for non-commercial use as we must only look for and use those licenced for commercial and non-commercial use. That gives you this much smaller selection. I would look through them, possibly honing my search down and following their links to the source page. There I would very carefully check the licencing which MUST include a clear statement showing commercial reuse is allowed. if it doesn't I'd stay well clear.
I'd then go over to Flickr and do a similar search, filtering only those with the right licence. If I found one, I would upload it either to Wikipedia or to Wikimedia Commons, ensuring I don't accidentally claim that it's my image, and clearly stating the licence under which you are uploading it (i.e. the same one as in the source), and linking to the url so that someone can check and confirm you have not breached anyone's copyright.
I believe it is common courtesy to contact the person who's Flickr (or equivalent) image it is that you've moved to Commons and to thank them for being so considerate in the first place. I'd link to the page I've added it to, or to any new Category on Commons that I've created to put them (e.g. [ this one I've just made for my own project)
Of course, if you find the ideal image that IS flagged as copyright, or at least not clearly licensed at all, there's nothing to stop you contacting the owner and asking them to change the licence on their website, or to upload it to Commons themselves. I've done this very successfully on Flickr for non Wikipedia work I've done. But it can be long-winded and not always successful.
Finally, my one option left might be to buy a bottle of wine and some flowers for my wife, casually suggesting that Drvenik looks a lovely place for a holiday later this year, and ensure that I rememeber to pack my camera! I hope at least some of this is of use! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Jentacular (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Is referencing a minor edit?

If I add a source to an article, without changing the article in any way other than adding that source, should the edit be marked as minor? — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Puzzledvegetable: No, don't mark it as minor edit. Adding a reference to an article is not a minor edit. See WP:MINOR. RudolfRed (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk page info

Is there a good page/resource for how to communicate on talk pages? I’m looking for things that explain things like : or Actaudio (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC) and some of the “code” shorthand.

@Actaudio: WP:TALK has info on this. RudolfRed (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Actaudio: fixing ping. RudolfRed (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Actaudio: I know this has been answered already, but I would like to suggest watching Wikipedia editing basics: Talk pages. It gives you the basic information without being as overwhelming as a whole page about it. As for the “‘code’ shorthand,” it is no different than the markup used on regular Wikipedia articles. You can see Help:Wikitext for more info. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

What is the surname of Italian authors?

ie Alejandro de Acosta. I am asking coz I do not know how to footnote him. Asfn|de Acosta|2009|p=12}} or Bsfn|Acosta|2009|p=12}}. The same goes with Dutch writers (A van der B). Thanks, this is my first time at the Teahouse, so...hello everybody!Cinadon36 (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: Welcome to the Teahouse! Name parts such as "de", "di", "von" or "van der" historically denoted where the person was from (locally or family), e.g. Leonardo da Vinci literally means Leonardo from Vinci. You can read much more about it in our article nobiliary particle. Unfortunately, a clear rule does not exist for Italian names afaict. For example, Lorenzo de' Medici is usually referred to by his first name because "de' Medici" means "of the Medici family". That said, "Alejandro de Acosta" sounds more like a Spanish name, using the Spanish form of "Alexander" instead of the Italian "Alessandro". Comparing with another people of the same name, such as Mercedes de Acosta and José de Acosta, the pattern seems to be that "de" is part of the surname if the subject is not a Spanish native but not with Spanish natives. I hope that helps somewhat. Regards SoWhy 07:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Notability: Is being nominated for a Young Artist Award notable

Dear Teahouse, Is being nominated for this award notable in Wikipedia? Thank youJosephintechnicolor (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Josephintechnicolor: Per WP:ANYBIO, having won or having been nominated multiple times for a "well-known and significant award or honor" will make a subject probably notable. Having been nominated once does not even if one wanted to assume the Young Artist Award for Best Performance in a Daytime TV Series - Young Actress is a "well-known and significant award" which is doubtful. So if that's the only claim of fame the subject has, you probably should try to satisfy the general notability requirements instead. Regards SoWhy 07:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Request creation of a page which points to another page

Could Majherhat Bridge be created so that it points to the target of Majerhat Bridge? I had a talk with a approved helper, @Praxidicae: in the online chat who vehemently opposed its creation. I personally live extremely close to the bridge and can vouch for the fact that it is a common spelling mistake. Additionally multiple sources such as [1][2][3][4][5] use the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohom ⁴⁵⁷⁸⁹ (talkcontribs) 18:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


Hello Sohom ⁴⁵⁷⁸⁹ and welcome to the Teahouse.
Since Majerhat Bridge itself is a redirect, what you are proposing would be a double redirect, so would not be done.
Whether it would be helpful to create a second redirect to 2018 Kolkata bridge collapse with this variant spelling is something that could be debated, but the past history indicates that there is no consensus that the bridge itself is a notable subject. I suspect that reason may be the basis for Prax's opposition and I'd tend to agree. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, BTW, @jmcgnh: could you tell me how to in general create redirects ? Whenever I go to a redlink I am asked to use the article wizard and then create an draft article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohom ⁴⁵⁷⁸⁹ (talkcontribs) 06:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sohom ⁴⁵⁷⁸⁹, as an example Majerhat Bridge is a redirect; it contains
#REDIRECT [[2018 Kolkata bridge collapse ‎]]
teb728 t c 07:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, Sohom ⁴⁵⁷⁸⁹, I see that you are not autoconfirmed yet. When your account is four days old you will be able to create a redirect (or other page) in main space. —teb728 t c 07:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, Sohom ⁴⁵⁷⁸⁹, at last for the next few days use Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. —teb728 t c 07:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


How can I reference my article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokoekpo (talkcontribs) 11:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Beginners wanting to learn about referencing should read Help:Referencing for beginners (which was one of the links given to you on your user talk page). --David Biddulph (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kokoekpo: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a place to just tell about someone. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about a subject that meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Independent reliable sources are things like news stories or books where independent people have chosen to write extensively about the subject, and that have a reputation for fact checking. Your draft has no references at all, and it seems like it just tells about the person and their accomplishments with very promotional language. That isn't what a Wikipedia article should be. I would suggest that you use the new user tutorial(click those words to access it) which will help you better understand Wikipedia's purpose, how to do it, and what is being looked for in articles. Don't feel bad, as successfully writing a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. You might also find it helpful to edit existing articles, to get a feel for what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

New question

Hi Teahouse, It's Kanika this side. I am trying to cite news in my wikipedia article. But somehow I am not able to find an online link to that particular article in the newspaper. Do you mind helping me find a solution to this problem?

Thank you, Kanika — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waliakanika (talkcontribs) 12:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The reference doesn't need to be online. Just use {{cite news}} and fill in the relevant parameters. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Add information to the Wikipedia definition of "spirit of God"

The discoverer and founder of Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy, explains the spirit of God in her writing as follows: "...Christ, the spirit of God, of Truth, Life, and Love, which heals mentally." This appears in the Christian Science textbook, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures," on page 137 line 20. The context of these words is found in the following paragraph: 'With his usual impetuosity, Simon replied for his brethren, and his reply set forth a great fact: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God!" That is: The Messiah is what thou hast declared, - Christ, the spirit of God, of Truth, Life, and Love, which heal mentally.' On page 587 in the Glossary of the textbook, Mrs. Eddy defines God in this way: "God. The great I AM; the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-acting, all-wise, all-loving, and eternal; Principle; Mind; Soul; Spirit; Life; Truth; Love; all substance; intelligence." She explains the term Christ in several ways. "Christ, the divine manifestation of God, which comes to the flesh to destroy incarnate error." ibid. p.583. Elsewhere she states: "Jesus was born of Mary. Christ is the true idea voicing good, the divine message from God to men speaking to the human consciousness. The Christ is incorporeal, spiritual, - yea, the divine image and likeness, dispelling the illusions of the senses; the Way, the Truth, and the Life, healing the sick and casting out evils, destroying sin, disease and death. 'As Paul says: "There is one God, and one mediator between God and Men, the man Christ Jesus.' "The corporeal man Jesus was human," Eddy explains, based on what Jesus said when he called himself 'the son of man.' Further on she adds: "Jesus was the son of a virgin. He was appointed to speak God's word and to appear to mortals in such a form of humanity as they could understand as well as perceive. Also, she continues later, "He expressed the highest type of divinity, which a fleshly form could express in that age."(ibid. p. 332) On page 333, she continues with the words:"...Christ is not a name so much as the divine title of Jesus. Christ expressed God's spiritual, eternal nature. The name is synonymous with Messiah, and alludes to the spirituality which is taught, illustrated, and demonstrated in the life of which Christ Jesus was the embodiment. The proper name of our Master in the Greek was Jesus the Christ; but Christ Jesus better signifies the Godlike."

Cjmartin6486 (talk)Charles J. Martin

Sources: The King James Version of the Holy Bible and Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy
—Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The proper place to take this up is at Spirit of God. Christian Science is an existing article. A connection to it could be added at Spirit of God. David notMD (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Cjmartin6486: I'd just point out that Spirit of God is actually a 'Disambiguation page', offering links to other articles of similar name or topic, and is not an article in its own right. So, you would need to find the right target article to discuss this at, and definitely not on the Talk page for that DAB page.Nick Moyes (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
My apologies. Anything you wish to write about Christian Science should be on that page or its Talk page. David notMD (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please help?

Hello, could someone please help with Draft:Mark Biltz? I believe there is sufficient coverage and that there's no denying Pastor Mark Biltz's notability. I require help with the intention of eventually moving it to the main article space. --Omer Toledano (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

If it's true that "there's no denying Pastor Mark Biltz's notability", you ought to be able to establish this notability, by citing reliable published sources with in-depth discussion of Blitz. I've checked the first few sources cited in the article, and they say very little about him, rather, they report what he has said (ref. 5 doesn't even mention him). What counts for notability is what others have said about him, not what he has said. Maproom (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Unless there is confirmation that the recent lunar eclipse caused or signified a great disaster to Israel (besides still being stuck with Netanyahu), Blitz is not notable. David notMD (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia page from scratch - How does one create a wikipedia page from scratch?


How does one create a Wikipedia page from scratch?

Can you copy and paste a page from another one that has been set up on a similar basis? For Instance, there is a page titled, 'Australia at the World Athletics Championships' , and I want to create the same page for Greta Britain's performances at the World Athletics Championships'.

Can anyone help?

Many thanks, TheScribe1965 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thescribe1965 (talkcontribs) 14:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you might have a look at Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the World Championships in Athletics. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft page - Sharon White artist


Can you kindly advise me where I'm going wrong? I'm drafting a new Wikipedia page for Sharon White, a mixed-media artist - here's the link -

Sharon has an Art degree and initially taught at secondary schools for 17 years. She then left to set up her own studios and has exhibited in London and the UAE. She has opened her own studios and toured the UK for Breast Cancer Care who commissioned her to create art and 'art heals' workshops.

My first submission has been refused ....can you please guide me as to where I'm going wrong?

Many thanks,

DeanoJD DeanoJD (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

DeanoJD, None of the refrences are independent reliable sources. Get some better ones, and you should be good WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Easier to look at Draft:Sharon White (artist). And I agree on quality of refs - need better than blogs and interviews. David notMD (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone help?

I was editing wikipedia, when then, the pictures can't load. What can i do to fix this? --TheWinRat (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thewinrat, I am hearing reports of issues with the system. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 17:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
See WP:Village pump (technical)#All images broken?. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@TheWinRat: All systems have now been resolved. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 17:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)