Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 905

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 900 Archive 903 Archive 904 Archive 905 Archive 906 Archive 907 Archive 910

Permission to create new pages

Hello! How can I get permission to create new pages/translate articles from Russian into English? Now once I try to publish the translation I get the message "An error occurred while publishing the translation. Please try to publish the page again. Error: You do not have permission to create new pages." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariaafp (talkcontribs) 13:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Your userspace draft at User:Mariaafp/Andrey Fomin has no citations, so is not yet suitable to be an article; please read WP:References for beginners. Other useful advice is at WP:Your first article and WP:Translation. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I added some links and the page has a lot of references. Unfortunately I cannot understand how to make citations in the translation itself.

You need to change those references to in-line citations by moving them to the statements that they support. I can't read Russian, so I can't really help with this. Dbfirs 18:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Article deletion and account absence problem

Dear Teahouse users,

I was working on the article "Modern Stochastics: Theory and Application". It was accepted on 7 March 2018, and deleted on 28 April 2018 (information on that can be found here). I asked the administrator about ways of improving the article (here), but authorization (account absence) problem appered. It has been a while since my question. So, should I wait for the answer from the administrator? Or are there other ways of getting the article back quicker?

Many thanks for your help. -- (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. The article was deleted as promotional because it contained non-neutral language like "world-famous and recognized scientists" and "distinguished academics and researchers from over the world". If you set up a Wikipedia account, I will restore the article as a draft for you to continue working on, as long as any future changes comply with the neutral point of view and other core content policies. Contact me on my talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

In "View History", Can I View Edits for Just One Section?

When I visit the "View History" tab of an article I see all the edits that have been made. Perhaps I am reading a person's biography. Is it possible to see just edits made to the section on "Education"?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindaPenn04 (talkcontribs) 08:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is possible, mainly because many editors make changes across multiple sections. That said, there are ways of searching to find the date when a particular text string was made. See Wikipedia:WikiBlame for details of how to use the WikiBlame search tool. regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
repinging LindaPenn04. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@LindaPenn04: There is no general way to do this. If the editor clicked the section edit link at a section called "Education" then the edit summary will usually start with "Education" in grey text. Your browser may be able to search for strings in the page history with Ctrl+F. This doesn't find edits where the editor clicked the Edit tab at top of the page. It can also fail if the section has changed name since the edit was made, or if somebody edited a subsection with a different title. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll probably use CTRL+F when that's available. LindaPenn04 (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

wikipedia guidelines

My edit to the Brent W. Coon page was reverted because it wasn't seen as "constructive." The sources I used were from a reputable newspaper that spoke about Brent Coon's community involvement by using his firm to provided resources for wounded veterans. How are we not allowed to add edits having to do with community involvement? This is a Wikipedia page that speaks directly about Brent W. Coon and should reflect what Brent W. Coon does on a daily basis, whether that involves his law firm, family life, or companies he owns.

Under 'unintended consequences,' Brent Coon is now being appraised at Article for Deletion. David notMD (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Harold Keith Box, The Father of Canadian Dental Research

Dr. Harold Keith Box, Professor of Periodontology at the University of Toronto, was the Dental Scientist who identified the real causes and treatment of Periodontitis (Pyorrhea) in 1924. Should he be mentioned in this article?

Regards Gary Box65.92.192.197 (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that you can cite, then by all means. Matt Deres (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


Hello! I am wondering about how to handle links within an article. As an example, I looked up "Document Management System", and in the last section, "Document management software", there are several hyperlinked terms that I think are totally unnecessary (chances are there are more throughout the article, but I'm just dealing with this one section). "Electronic", "businesses", and "industry" are hyperlinked and I don't think this adds anything to the article itself. Is it a reasonable edit to go in and unlink these terms? I see this a lot, and I often want to apply this kind of edit. Please provide some input on this.Jkgree (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jkgree and welcome to the Teahouse. Making edits such as these is okay: having links to common words or a very excessive number of links is preferred: see MOS:OVERLINK. Links to other Wikipedia articles are useful, but can be unhelpful or distracting if used excessively. Cheers, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Rubbish computer, but I read about overlinking, and what you said does not at all match what I understood. I read MOS:OVERLINK as saying that such overlinking is not preferred. If you'd care to explain, I'd be interested.Jkgree (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jkgree, I meant edits to remove the overlinking. Cheers, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


Tell me how Bangladesh Premier League is GA, when nothing is in the talk page and not in the GA list of Sports and recreation? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The template was added to the article in this edit, so you may wish to ask the editor concerned. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
As there is no record of a GA nomination being made or any evidence of a review, I have removed this template. The editor, in the same edit, also added a protection template that was swiftly reverted by a bot. Bungle (talkcontribs) 21:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Kafr Hassan Dawood Archaeological Site

I have attempted to create a Wikipedia site for Kafr Hassan Dawood Archaeological site on Wikipedia. I have discovered this page on Wikipedia ( and wish to add the more detailed description per information drafted by Dr. Lawrence Stewart Owens and Dr. Geoffrey Tassie (archaeologists who are planning to excavate further on this site.

I need help as my previous attempts have failed with no reply. Help would be deeply appreciated!!!

Lisa Triemstra on behalf of Dr. Lawrence S. Owens (Birkbeck at UCL) and Dr. Geoffrey Tassie.

Here is the draft of their article:

not the place for the text of a draft

Kafr Hassan Dawood From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search Kafr Hassan Dawood

Shown within Egypt Alternative name Tell Hassan Daud; Ezbet Hassan Dawud Location Egypt; Al Sharqia Governorate; Nile Delta

Region Lower Egypt, VIIIth Lower Egyptian nome

Coordinates 30°30′59″N 31°51′0″E30.51666°N 31.850000°E Type Cemetery, settlement

History Periods

Dates Predynastic, Protodynastic, Early Dynastic, Late Period, Ptolemaic, Late Roman Period 1. 3,500 - 2,750 BC 2. 640 BC – AD 450 Kafr Hassan Dawood (also known as Tell Hassan Daud or Ezbet Hassan Dawud) is an important archaeological site in Northern Egypt. It is located in the Wadi Tumilat, 50 miles (80 km) east-north-east of Cairo in the eastern Nile Delta. Kafr Hassan Dawood (KHD) is particularly known for a very large cemetery dating to the Predynastic, Protodynastic and Early Dynastic periods, in addition to some Late Period to late Roman Era cemeteries and habitation. The site covers approximately 38.5 hectares (95 acres).[1][2][3]

Contents • 1Archaeological history • 2The Settlements • 3The cemeteries • 4Evaluations • 5References Archaeological history[edit] The Local Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) had been aware of a large site at this location since 1977. A proposed development project in the area let to a series of test pits being dug. The results led to the site being declared archaeological land in 1989, the land reclamation project being rejected accordingly. From 1989 until 1995 the site was excavated by the local SCA. The site was re-evaluated by SCA staff and visiting scholars from University College London (UCL). A joint UCL/SCA project took place between 1995 and 1999, with a key emphasis on bioarchaeology[1]. In 2017 the site was placed on the Ministry of Antiquities’ list of endangered sites, due to agricultural encroachment, development and rising water levels. Test excavations in Spring 2018 confirmed that the site still held great potential. Full-scale excavations are due to resume in 2019. The settlements[edit] The early periods are solely represented by funerary remains. The site was first used as habitation during the Late Period; the archaeological remains include a series of mudbrick-circled pits and silos, located towards the east of the main cemetery. However, relatively little research has been carried out on these materials. The site was resettled in the Roman Period, and significant architectural remains are located towards the western edge of the site. This, similarly, has been relatively underexplored. Given the size of the earlier cemetery (see below) it is likely to have served a large settlement; however, this has not yet been located and probably lies beyond the north-east border of the cemetery.[1][2][3]

The cemeteries[edit] Previous excavations have recovered a total of 1111 graves from the cemeteries. Over half (769) are Predynastic to Early Dynastic (3400-2750 BC), the earliest dating from Naqada IID, and later exemplars from Naqada IIID (Dynasty II). A further 352 interments dating from the Late Period to the late Roman period have also been recovered. The sheer number and generally high standard of preservation – along with the associated artefacts and grave goods – make this one of the most important early cemeteries ever discovered in the Delta. The early graves, in particular, are of great interest to Egyptologists, archaeologists and prehistorians, because they cover the period of early state formation. They show cultural evolution and extensive regional contacts, and reveal important developments in Egyptian social organisation. [1][2][4] Grave form changed through time. The earliest (Predynastic to Early Dynastic) graves were usually oval or rectangular mudbrick-lined pits, 1.0 - 1.5m long and 0.5 - 1.0 m deep. The deceased was typically tightly flexed, head pointing towards the north, the face towards the east, and interred with utilitarian grave goods such as ceramic vessels. What are presumed to be elite tombs were much larger, and contained artefacts made from gold, semi-precious stones and copper alloy; hand-ground stone bowls were also recovered.[1][2] The two largest and most elaborate tombs – dating to the beginning of the Early Dynastic – measure 6.0 x 4.0 x 1.0 m, would have originally been covered with tumuli, probably with offering niches on the east side. Judging from grave goods, the site seems to have reached a zenith of affluence during the First Dynasty, probably due to the fact that the site sits on the trade network connecting Memphis to the South Sinai. Elite items include cosmetic palettes, bone bracelets, bifacial chert knives with integral handles, beads made of carnelian, gold and amethyst, and sundry other items of personal adornment. Some graves and items can be attributed to the reigns of specific early kings such as Ka and Narmer, whose serekhs were stamped on pottery vessels.[1][2][4][5] The Late Period to Roman era tombs are primarily simple rectangular pit graves measuring 2.0 m long and could be up to 2.0 m deep. A few contained child burials placed in large pottery amphorae. Grave goods were rare, although items of jewellery sometimes occurred, along with coins and amulets. Animal burials – primarily cattle and ovicaprines – are also present.[3] Evaluations[edit] The scale of the cemetery and the number of valuable items – especially copper pieces – indicates that Kafr Hassan Dawood was socially, economically and strategically important. The finding of the names of both Protodynastic and First Dynasty kings in the copper rich area of the south Sinai suggest that KHD was on an important artery of the interregional exchange network going between the capital region of Memphis and the south Sinai.[2][4] References[edit] 1. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Hassan, F. A., Tassie, G. J., Tucker, T. L., Rowland, J. M. & van Wetering J. F. L. 2003.Social dynamics at the late Predynastic to Early Dynastic site of Kafr Hassan Dawood, East Delta, Egypt, Archéo-Nil 13: 37-45. 2. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Hassan, F. A. Tassie, G. J., Rehren, Th. & van Wetering, J. 2015. On-going investigations at the Predynastic to Early Dynastic site of Kafr Hassan Dawood: Copper, exchange and tephra, Archéo-Nil 25: 75-90. 3. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Tassie, G. J. & Hassan, F. A. 2017. Kafr Hassan Dawood from the Late Period to the Late Antique, Egyptian Archaeology 51: 14-17. 4. ^ Jump up to: a b Rowland, J. M. 2014. Interregional exchange: the evidence from Kafr Hassan Dawood, East Delta, in A. Mączyńska (ed.) The Nile Delta as a Centre for Cultural Interactions between Upper Egypt and the Southern Levant in the 4th millennium B.C.. Poznań: Studies of African Archaeology, vol. 13, Poznań Archaeological Museum, pp. 255-282. 5. ^ Tassie, G. J., Hassan, F. A. & van Wetering, J. 2017. More potmarks from the Predynastic to Early Dynastic site of Kafr Hassan Dawood, Wadi Tumilat, East Delta, Egypt, in B. Midant-Reynes, Y. Tristant & E. M. Ryan (eds.) Egypt at its Origins 5: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic to Early Dynastic Egypt”, Cairo (Egypt), 13th-18th April 2014. Leuven – Paris – Bristol [CT]: Peeters, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 260, pp. 713-737.

On-Line Sources Kafr Hassan Dawood On-Line - Categories: • Archaeological sites in Egypt • Tombs of ancient Egypt

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaJ13324(talkcontribs) 22:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This isn't the place for the text of a draft, so I have collapsed its display. All you need to do is to link to your sandbox draft at User:LisaJ13324/sandbox. You will need to format your references as inline citations (and correct the rest of the formatting), so please read Help:Referencing for beginners and also the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
LisaJ13324 I cleaned it up a bit. User:LisaJ13324/sandbox TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft Page - Fairytale Brownies

Hi everyone, I’m trying to get my first article published ( but I’m struggling to understand what’s important enough to be included in the article. I was kind of basing the format/information included off a similar company's page, Dancing Deer Baking Co..

For example, a sentence like “In 2012, the company reported using 180 to 672 pound of chocolate per day to bake an estimated three million brownies.” Do stats like this help convey the scope of the company’s size/influence? Or is it more like a “fun fact” that can come off as advertising for the company? The current draft version has a lot of information I found while researching, but I want to trim it to only what’s deemed important before resubmitting the draft. Any specific comments/advice or links to resources would be very much appreciated. Thanks! --Evecera29 (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Evecera29. On the whole, Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says about themselves. Uncontroversial factual data like dates and places are OK, and if something they said about themselves has been widely reported (by independent sources, not just because their press releases have gone widely), then that might be encyclopaedic. But the great majority of an article should be based on what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about it. I doubt that the statistics you mention would qualify - note that on the whole we would rather not take a company's word for how much their business is worth. --ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Evecera29 I tweaked the article to make it less promotional and hopefully help get it approved. The company seems to be well known in Arizona - the question is whether this notability transcends the region, to meet WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much ColinFine and timtempleton! I will make sure multiple independent sources have reported on a number before including it. As far as notability, the company has won a few regional and international awards. I didn't include them originally for fear of making it too promotional, but do you think it would help to include those? --Evecera29 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Evecera29If the awards are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article(s), I'd include them but not in the lede - perhaps in the history, rather than a standalone awards section. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

How do I lock a page?

Hi I wanted to ask how I lock a page. I tried to edit Howie Long's height from 6' 5" to 6' 4" because he was measured 6' 4 1/4" at the combine but it was changed back to 6' 5". Is there a way I can lock the page so no one can edit the information because it is accurate?

Thank you,

Ian Young — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian656787 (talkcontribs) 23:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ian656787: Pages are only protected in cases of disruption or vandalism (see WP:RFPP). You need to provide a reliable sources for changes you want to make. Please discuss at the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


User Howwee said this on my talk page. I don't think his intent was to vandalize Wikipedia, but I don't think his edits were constructive. How should I respond to this user? Mstrojny (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mstrojny, explain to them that content in Wikipedia must be verifiable to a published reliable source. —teb728 t c 00:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Can one edit a rejected draft or only resubmit?

When a draft page has been rejected, is it better to resubmit with a (hopefully corrected) full revision or suggest small edits/additions as one might if it was a live page? Can you edit piecemeal to a draft or only something in the public space? Thanks for your time. GGSloth (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@GGSloth: you can absolutely make edits to a draft, and you certainly should, as this is the only way you can make the corrections to whatever it was that caused the article to be rejected in the first place. Editing a draft uses the same system as editing articles in the mainspace. You're encouraged to split up edits by task so that it's easier for other people to review your work (and because it's a good habit to build as an editor), but there's no actual limit on edit size, and since it's in the draftspace, you're likely to be the only person actively editing it so edit conflicts are less of a concern. signed, Rosguill talk 23:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) GGSloth Welcome to Teahouse, I believe the above refer to Draft:Redfish API. Since you are a WP:PAID editor which you have disclosure in your user page and article talk page, you would edit the declined draft but do bare in mind the content need to strictly adhere to (1) neutral point of view (2) no puffery or WP:PROMO in the content and (2) content claimed needs to support from sources provided without tweaking it to better the article and (4) no violation of copy right infringement -write the article in your own words. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 23:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both. That's very clear and very helpful. I apologize for not posting this at the top.

GGSloth (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, GGSloth. As a paid editor, you have an obligation to be rigorously neutral and encyclopedic in your writing style. All editors do, but paid editors are not given the slack that is extended to new volunteers when they make minor mistakes. Consider this paragraph you wrote:
"Both human readable and machine capable, Redfish leverages common Internet and web services standards to expose information directly to the modern tool chain. Redfish specifies a RESTful interface and utilizes JSON and OData to help customers integrate solutions within their existing tool chains."
That entire paragraph is promotional marketing jargon that conveys no useful information to the reader. "Leverages" sounds impressive but means nothing. RESTful, JSON and Odata is a just bunch of jargon unless it is explained and/or wikilinked. "Integrate solutions within their existing tool chains" is typical high-tech industry marketing language that is worthless to the average reader. Worst of all, that entire paragraph is unreferenced, so it violates the policy Verifiability, which is one of our three core content policies.
The following paragraph includes a reference that says: "Redfish: A New API for Managing Servers" and nothing more. You are expected to provide complete bibliographic information. The publication is InfoQ, the author is Abel Abram, and the publication date is August 6, 2015. Add complete bibliographic information to all your references.
Wikipedia allows paid editing, but only under strict standards which includes subjecting paid editing to heightened scrutiny. You are expected to produce work that is in complete compliance with our policies and guidelines, especially the neutral point of view, which is the most difficult policy for paid editors to comply with. But you must comply with it. You are getting paid to edit, so it is not right for you to turn to volunteer editors to help you do your job. Just do your job correctly from the very beginning. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Empty market-speak garbage like that is nine times out of ten (I mean that literally, that often) a copyvio; it is here, taken from this page. I'll go warn, RevDelete, etc.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 • Scratching my bead a bit. I ended up deleting Draft:Redfish API under G12, where the content you excerpted above had been added, but I'm not sure how GGSloth is connected to it--he/she made no edits to it under at least that username.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, @Cullen:. You are under a misapprehension. I did not write the draft. I have, as @Fuhghettaboutit: noted, not made any edits or suggested any on the talk page. I agree that the rejected draft is unacceptable, and bad in a number of ways. Notability is certainly not its only problem.
I added the COI disclosures because I will be suggesting edits, with the goal of aligning Wikipedia's and DMTF's goals, to the extent possible, for the mutual benefit of both. When it's not possible, I try to educate them about why. When it is possible but needs work, that's our job.
Thank you for your detailed comments on the page, some of which had not occurred to me. I'll add them to the list. I am trying to deal with problems one at a time, so that I can readily see where I am making mistakes.
I am aware of and have studied the policies and guidelines for verifiability, neutral PoV, and "no advertising" (I forget the proper name for that). It is my intention to comply with all of them.
Again, thank you for your time and effort. GGSloth (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, @Fuhghettaboutit:. Thank you for pointing out the copyright violation. I suspected that much of the draft was taken from DMTF stuff and would have checked. I failed to do so because I felt that trying to correct everything that was wrong with the draft at one time was not the best approach for me. I prefer not to multi-task. I intend to try to deal with it one problem at a time. Earlier respondents to this topic seemed to endorse that approach as reasonable.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you have deleted the draft. I'm not sure how I can possibly improve it to a point where it could be accepted without a draft to work on. I am not asking for anyone to do my work for me, especially if they're not getting paid. I simply want a way to, for example, try to correct an external URL link, and see if I can get that right.
Actually, I'm not going to do that first. I'm searching for notability sources first, since that is the sine qua non of articles. Without that, it never goes up in the first place, if I understand this correctly.
Thank you for your time and patience. And please let me know if I got this indention for replies thing wrong. GGSloth. (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── GGSloth, I'm guessing it's not intentional, but rather an ingrained behavior; your reply above is so laden with marketing-speak it sounds like you're trying to sell us a used car. If you cannot communicate semi-privately (meaning not for publication in the actual encyclopedia) without marketing overtones, I might suggest you are not the one to be writing this article. John from Idegon (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Problem citing offline sources.

Hi Teahouse, It's Kanika this side. I wish to cite news in an article that I am currently working on. But the problem is that I am not able to find an online link to that news in the newspaper. Do you mind helping me find a solution to it?

Thank you,

Kanika — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waliakanika (talkcontribs) 06:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Waliakanika. It is nice for a source to be online but not necessary. Just cite the author, title, newspaper, issue, etc. Omit the url and access date. —teb728 t c 06:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello Waliakanika and welcome to the TeaHouse. Sources do not have to be available online. You can cite it using the normal {{Cite news}} template, and leave the URL= parameter blank. (Don't delete it, in case somebody finds an online version in the future.) You can read more about this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Definition of published, which says "It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
You asked this question yesterday in the section #New question, and it was answered there. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Template on my userpage

Dear Wikipedians,

I have joined the community and look forward to make notable contributions to the encycopledia.

While writing my first text on my user page and talk page, I experienced issues with formatting. Instead of formatting and styling my page, it simply shows a link named template.

Could someone please help me out? Thanks.

Dotsonti (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse Dotsonti. You didn't save anything to your user page or talk page; so we can't see what you wrote. But one possibility would be that if you wrote {{something}}, that would be interpreted as a transclusion (i.e. call) of Template:Something. —teb728 t c 10:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

third party sources

I have a question about an article I created but was declined here [[1]]. I understood third party sources to be those who are not affiliated with the party the article is about and as for notability, texts about the subject in question. I thought the newspaper articles that I have meet those requirements. However Robert McClenon declined the article as the sources are "not in depth" and "are what the organization says about itself." (User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Tepito_Arte_Acá) He also suggested coming here for help. If this is the case, could anyone give me an idea of that kind of information that is missing? Thank you.HicksW (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


The draft in question is Draft:Tepito_Arte_Acá. Do any other experienced editors want to comment on the draft and either on what the author can do to improve it or whether I should have accepted it? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

First, Yo no hablo Espanol. It's borderline in my opinion, but I would accept it. Consider copying some of the content and references from Daniel Manrique. This would strengthen the article. Would need to acknowledge that content was copied. David notMD (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
User:HicksW - Please expand the draft as advised by User:David notMD. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I copied text and refs from the Tepito article to create a section. I believe this is a useful addition to the draft, but leave the final decision to HicksW. I did not copy in content from the Daniel Manrique article because I have no idea what would be a useful addition. David notMD (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I know enough about the subject to add info about Daniel Manrique. I did not think to do it as I thought it would distract from the main topic.HicksW (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@David notMD: I added the section on Daniel Manrique. Too long? OK?HicksW (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I suggest submit it. Drafts are not rejected for being too long.David notMD (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@David notMD: @Robert McClenon: Sorry for the Q but how do I do this. I click on the resubmit button but the source editing page that appears looks nothing like what I would expect.HicksW (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@HicksW: Yes, use the resubmit button. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Done. Thank you.HicksW (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Declined article.

Dear Teahouse friends,

I am currently writing an article about the Norwegian artist Ross Kolby but it has been declined as it does "not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

I do not understand that as I have inserted links to numerous articles about the artist in Norwegian media as well as an article in British media. The articles are not "passing mentions" but full stories about the artworks and the artist. Could you help me understand?

I was inspired by a Wikipedia article about another Norwegian artist Sverre Malling that has been accepted. Could you help me understand in what way my article is diffiret from this one?

Best regards,


Constituto (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Constituto: and welcome to the Teahouse! I have looked at Draft:Ross Kolby and compared it to no:Ross Kolby, the bokmål version - it looks like your English-language article is a translation of the Norwegian one. That is not a problem (though there should be a note about that in an edit summary - see this information), but it's worth keeping in mind that different language versions of Wikipedia are different projects with different rules and guidelines. One problem with the English-language draft is that there is quite a bit of information that has no source. You should only include information that you can provide a reliable independent source for. The sources should also be added as references with footnotes rather than as links in the text. I would agree with you that Kolby is most likely notable - the notability criteria for painters are found at WP:ARTIST and he seems to meet criteria 3 and 4, from what I can make out. But the article doesn't clarly show that in its current form, partly because there is so much unsourced information that the bits that are sources, and that show notability, are lost. --bonadea contributions talk 10:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Constituto. I find that your subject is notable after a bit of research, so I encourage you to work on it. I have edited some parts of your draft and added some info as well. I hope this is fine (You can see the details of the changes in the article's history and you can always revert them if you do not find them appropriate). Some of the changes will show you the format for citing sources. Regards, Darwin Naz (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bonadea Thank you so much for your time and advice. I will try to clean the article and only use information that is linked to sources. It seems that the question of Kolby being notable is solved, as both you and also user Darwin Naz finds him to be notable. I will be most grateful for further advice when I continue on the article. Best regards, Constituto Constituto (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Darwin Naz Thank you so much for your adivice. And thank you for your edits! I will indeed continue my work on this. And I will be most grateful for your further help, if you might find time. Best regards, User:Constituto Constituto (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Can I now re-add artwork that had been nominated for deletion?

Artwork I created and uploaded to the Commons was nominated for deletion-

To the best of my ability, I've made the case that I did create these images. Is there any barrier to my now re-adding them to the article they were created for?- AWCzarnik (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, AWCzarnik welcome to the Teahouse. Nice to have contact with you again. Right now, please don't add those images back in to any article until a deletion discussion has run its course. It will only aggravate the situation. I have voted 'keep' there, as you will have seen. Like you, I've been inordinately frustrated by the sometimes small-minded attitutude of some editors who control images going on to Wikimedia. But they do do it for the right reasons - namely ensuring that nobody's work is used by another person. I think there may be some tweaking needed to how you described the attribution, but who knows what the folks over at Commons will do - we are completely separate bodies. I am sure that someone over at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab or Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Image Request might be able to assist in any future graphics need for chemical formulae. And if you need a quick block diagram thrown together, I'm sure I could manage the simpler ones for you if you really get stuck. I should mention that it is possible to insert an image like a jpg or png directly into English Wikipedia (only), rather than upload it first to Wikimedia Commons. The folks over here at Wikipedia do tend to take a much more relaxed and pragmatic approach to image concerns.
As an aside: years ago (well before the advent of fancy computing programs) I co-wrote a paper with an Australian botanist, and it was the lack of being able to produce a good quality map suitable for publication that held up the appearance of that paper for absolutely ages. So I understand your frustrations. Similarly, I'm sorry to see that Draft:Czarnik v. Illumina was deleted because of copyright concerns. Do make sure that doesn't also apply to your sandbox, but the fact that your draft was deleted for COPYVOI, whilst a bit of a serious breach of our policy on content rights, shouldn't stop you from keeping the remaining content in your sandbox and allowing other editors to assess whether the legal precedent that I think your case set in changing US law is notable enough, or not. Regards from the UK (I would say 'Bon voyage' but I'm not sure if I can justify the translator's fees!). Nick Moyes (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Nick. You are 'one of the good guys' in the WP universe. (Plus the things you've done in your life are remarkable!) Re: the 'copyright violations', that Editor got it wrong. All of the material he felt were violations are actually in the Public Domain; public documents created by courts- public institutions. That's the next thing on my list to try and get sorted out.- AWCzarnik (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
There are an awful lot of 'good guys' (and girls) here on WP. I'm nothing special (but don't tell the missus!) Nick Moyes (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

what is the meaning of life

TELL ME PLEASE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rl233530 (talkcontribs) 16:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe that it is 42. Schazjmd (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Try to be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations. --Jayron32 16:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Or maybe you prefer To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women. --Jayron32 16:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Meaning of life (disambiguation). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
But don't forget hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Why is this question asked and answered in the Teahouse? Eschoryii (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
See the Wikipedia article titled boredom and come back if you have any questions we can clarify for you. --Jayron32 19:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
How about the Meaning of life article. I too must be bored. No question today Eschoryii (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC) @Jayron32: I do have a question. Did I successfully ping you? Eschoryii (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I've concluded that the meaning of life is to help others when you can, and to accept help when you must.- AWCzarnik (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
[2] #SINGER: Is there a point to human strife? Or is it all simply absurd?COMPUTER: Finding file: “the Meaning of Life”... A fatal error has occurred. BOTH: Please check and retry James Booker fan (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Is it right to write about the conditions of the railway stations in Wikipedia

This is the link to the Wikipedia articles, about a railway station in India, when i edit article he says that...

This description is standard for railway stations in India. It appears in more than three hundred articles.

my argument is that, this line shouldn't be written in this Wikipedia articles...

The platforms are not well sheltered. It lacks many facilities including water and sanitation.

when i delete these lines he says.. these and revert back these lines

This a description for 500 other railway station. A reference is required to delete this text.

Is he correct ?? Rocky 02:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocky 734 (talkcontribs)

Rocky 734 (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Rocky 734 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is probably correct that several hundred articles are written in a similar manner, and that if one needs to be changed, they all should be- and that should only be done if there is broad consensus among editors that it should be. I'm not certain of the best place to begin such a discussion if that's what you want to get into, but you might start on one article talk page with a formal Request for Comment. Others might have better suggestions. 331dot (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rocky 734: Another possibility is to post a message, essentially similar to your message above, at WT:WikiProject Stations. Deor (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rocky 734, 331dot, and Deor: verifiability is easy. The cited reference in Patia railway station backs the claim up, so it should stay. In contrast, neither of the references at Mancheswar railway station support what's said there, so it should be removed. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 03:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all for your kind reply Rocky 734 (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)



We fixed the wikipedia page for Bonetti Kozerski and I hit "publish changes" back on Jan. 22, 2019. I logged back in today to see if the wikipedia page has finally been accepted and published, but I still see it in the drafts. When will it be up for review again of the new changes?

Thank you, Bonetti Kozerski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillaro Valley (talkcontribs) 15:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Your question has been asked and answered at WP:Help desk#publish. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi there I created an article and I have already published it. After I "publish" the sandbox, how much time does it take to be on Wiki ? Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnb174 (talkcontribs) 16:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Dnb174, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft is "published" in the sense that anybody in the world can see it - the "Save" button was changed to "publish" for that reason a while ago. It is not published in the sense that it would be part of the encyclopaedia, and it will not be until somebody moves it to main space. The recommended way for a new user to make that happen is to submit it for review, which you can do by pasting {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top. However, there is no point in doing so at present, as it will not be accepted, because it has no sources. Wikipedia is simply not interested in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the Internet knows): it is only interested in information which has been published in reliables sources, and articles must be based entirely on such information. Please see your first article and referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright issue

A majority of the Machaela Cavanaugh page was removed due to "copyright" but campaign websites are not copyrighted. They are public information. Why did this happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthabauman (talkcontribs) 17:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I believe that unless the campaign website specifically states that its content may be reused for any purpose(in other words, is compatible with Wikipedia's license), it can't be reused here. We can't assume anything. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Samnthabauman. In most countries, all published information is automatically copyright, unless the owner of the copyright has explicitly said otherwise. Public domain means something quite different from "publicly available". --ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Column sizing

On List of Ackley Bridge characters, the spacing on series 1, 2 and 3 is different, and I can’t seem to fix it. The "1" column appears to be double the size of the other columns, and it looks odd. Although it’s not a huge problem, it’s really bugging me that they’re not the same size.

Can anyone help with this?

Joesimnett (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Joesimnett, It appeared the word Recurring was forcing it a bit wider. I expanded the cell size accross all the tables, so it looks nice. WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


Where and when will the meeting held in Pretoria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chathyoka (talkcontribs) 18:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Please specify which 'meeting' you are referring to. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Chathyoka: Are you referring to a Wikipedia meetup? The scheduled events are at RudolfRed (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

How do I tell if an article has been approved or rated?

I know about the rating system of articles but where do you actually see if it's been rated or what the rating is?

Also, if an article is live it must have been submitted, correct? I haven't had any activity on this since I wrote it so I just want to double check I did it right. Actaudio (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Actaudio, and welcome to the Teahouse. Article assessments may be added at any time by an interested editor, via a template put on the article's Talk page. Your article hasn't yet gone through New Page Review, so you may receive feedback via that, though the process can take some weeks for volunteers to get around to. Unless it's clearly a stub or a start class article (and yours is the latter), I tend to leave assessment of pages I have created to other uninvolved editors. I have just made a couple of small edits myself to show you it is visible (but not yet Google indexed until reviewed), and there is quite a bit you could do right now. If you wished you could add an {{Infobox person}} template, add birth and death dates, and improve the citations. The obituary, for example, has entirely the wrong title, as has the piece from Audio Record magazine. Forgive me if I don't spend time offering more detailed feedback or suggestions as I'm rather busy right now working on improving an article of my own that I've just created. Maybe others may wish to add to this reply. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes This is extremely helpful. Thank you so much! Actaudio (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

And no, Actaudio, just because an article is live does not mean it has been submitted. The AFDAFC process is voluntary. Some editors move their own articles to main space (I would not advise this except for experienced editors who have a good understanding of the requirements for an article). And in earlier times, we were much less careful, so there are many thousands of articles which if they were submitted today would not be accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@ColinFine: I think you intended to say AFC rather than AFD? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, thank you. Corrected. --ColinFine (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@ColinFine How can you tell if an article is submitted, then? I see the options in the "move" dropdown menu. Or, what next step should I take next knowing that I've done what I can with this article? Actaudio (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The history shows that you created it directly in mainspace rather than submitting it through AFC. As was said earlier it is awaiting New page review; it is one of 3474 articles awaiting review. All you need to do is wait. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Got it. For future, is it faster to submit through AFC? Or what is the best procedure? Actaudio (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
No, Actaudio: it's probably slower, because there is a backlog of reviews waiting. The advantage of AFC is that the article only gets into mainspace once it's actually been accepted by a reviewer, so it's unlikely to get deleted: this could happen if you moved it directly and people thought it wasn't suitable. Conversely, if a subject just isn't notable, you'll get told so the first time you submit it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Actaudio, Hi, Do note an article will need to go through review in regardless it is submitted via new page or AfC and both have huge backlog. The different is that via AfC, there will be a communication/comments from the reviewer if the draft article is declined and advise will be given to solve the issue if the subject is notable. Do note even if the article is accepted via AfC or new page and if the subject is not notable, it will still subject to be nominated for deletion (AfD) in later stage. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk)

We have a serious case of Vandalism

The page about Hun Sen is not objective and is written by anti-Hun Sen (CNRP)-supporters. Can that page be cleared and locked, so that it does not look like Wikipedia is trying to defame a public person?

Also be advised that many of the sources mentioned are from news-media that CNRP controls and are generally not regarded as trustworthy.

I don't really care how angry people are, as long as they are able to keep their personal interests and agendas out of Wikipedia.

DotPeter (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  • It looked to me like you were trying to remove content sourced from The New York Times, which is regarded as reliable, if sometimes opinionated. The information you removed calling it "Irrelevant" definitely was not. See WP:RS/P and WP:NPOV. Do you have some kind of relationship to him? [Username Needed] 14:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, POV editing is not vandalism. They are two different problems. [Username Needed] 14:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
At Hun Sen an IP deleted huge amounts of the article, DotPeter removed a small amount, and a third editor - Dynamo128, User page says from Sicily - restored perhaps all of it, again. May need eyeballs from editors familiar with Cambodian politics. David notMD (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is vandalism, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Do not try to "win" a content dispute by Yelling Vandalism. You may get blocked. A better idea is to discuss the contentious edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Appropriate References

Hello, Is using a wikipedia article for a reference in another wikipedia article appropriate or acceptable? Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

No. See WP:CIRCULAR. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
... but if one article has good references that are appropriate to the other article, then it is good to copy the references to support corresponding statements. Dbfirs 23:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Contesting information published on Wikipedia

What does one do when Wikipedia has published incorrect data? There are two biographies that contain misinformation - Madame C.J. Walker and Annie Malone. There are many verifiable sources that will support my contention, including videos, books and museum exhibits. How does one go about contesting biographical information published on Wikipedia?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DinaMcIntosh (talkcontribs) 03:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Not here. For example, at Annie Malone you could make changes to the article, using these refs in support, but in proper reference format. And/or on the article's Talk page, you could start a new section, propose changes to the article, and provide the references. David notMD (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Redirect that doesn't seem to make sense

"Pokemon Global Link" redirects to Pokemon Black and White and I don't think that it should for several reasons. For one thing, the Pokemon Global Link is its own separate service that is used in other Pokemon video games and is not exclusive to Pokemon Black and White. I would also argue that it qualifies as notable, several verifiable sources mention its existence or have articles about it itself.


There's also 32 million results for the search term "pokemon global link" through Google. Clovermoss (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Some other examples

Even if there shouldn't be an article on it, I don't think it should be redirected to Pokemon Black and White. Clovermoss (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Clovermoss, the place to discuss the deletion of a redirect is WP:Redirects for discussion. —teb728 t c 06:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Re-review Draft:Eclipse Theia

Hey everyone,

unfortunately my article got declined again. I submitted it several times and it always gets rejected by the same person. Of course the editor had some good reasons to decline the article, especially the first times. But by now I changed many things and I don't understand why it is still being declined. It is based on 16 independent sources and still it says that the article is not notable enough for Wikipedia. When I try to get in contact with the reviewer, I don't get an answer anymore. He stated before that he doesn't like supporting contributors who are getting paid and of course it is understandable. Anyways I disclosed my job information and would like now to contribute a relevant topic to Wikipedia. I would be thankful, if one of you could read through my article and let me know, if I can improve anything and how I can get the article published. Thanks in advance ChristinFrohne (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, ChristinFrohne and welcome to the Teahouse. I wonder if you wouldn't mind if I were to turn your question on its head, please?
I did try reading the article, but got lost after the lead, so would you mind coming back to us to explain clearly and precisely how Eclipse Theia meets our notability criteria (laid out at WP:NSOFTWARE), and then link to the independent sources that demonstrate this? All I can find was organisational links and brief insider magazine articles, none of which we establish notability, in my view. And what is its relationship to Eclipse (software) and Eclipse Foundation.
To me this and Draft:Typefox both looks to be non-starter articles, trying to use Wikipedia to raise their profile, and you probably ought to offer your fee back to your client. But I'm happy to be proved wrong. Over to you to demonstrate that... Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey Nick Moyes, thanks for your feedback. Let me answer your questions: 1. Relationship to Eclipse: Eclipse Theia belongs to the Eclipse Foundation and it licensed under it. The Eclipse Foundation "is an independent, not-for-profit corporation that acts as a steward of the Eclipse open source software development community."see Wikipedia entry

2. Client Fee: As stated in my profile, I am an employee of Typefox. The IDE I am talking about, is an open-source project, so there are no monetary advantages by publishing it here. And yes Typefox took part in developing the IDE.

3. Draft:Typefox: I agree with the feedback, that I got for this article. The company is yet not relevant enough to have its own Wikipedia entry. That is why I dropped that entry.

4. Stating notability & reliable sources: IBM is stating that their IDE is based on Theia (, The Cloud Shell code editor from Google is using Theia (, Eclipse Che (which also has an article on Wikipedia) is changing its dev environment to Eclipse Theia (, according to WP:NSOFTWARE the sources have to "indicate that it stands out from the crowd" - source claims that it belongs to the top 3 IDE for Javascript, also said on WP:NSOFTWARE: "It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown.",,

I hope I was able to answer to all your questions. Do you still think that Eclipse Theia doesn't meet the notability criteria? Any concrete suggestions for me to improve? I am appreciating your honest help ChristinFrohne (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@ChristinFrohne: Whilst recognising the technical nature of this topic which is a bit outside my comfort zone, I still don't see enough in your sources to indicate notability - just insider posts, organisational blogs and nothing in-depth. Whilst nothing should detract from how useful it might well be in the real world, I don't see enough evidence to demonstrate how it, above a million other useful things, merits an encyclopaedia article here. At best, add a line to the Eclipse page and create a redirect. I don't propose to respond further - you get paid for engaging with us and seeing this through, whilst the volunteers here do not. Sorry - I feel this is a non-starter for you. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Thanks for your feedback. I have some last questions: How do I do a redirect with this page, as it is still a draft? And I guess I can not just add a line about Theia on the Eclipse article. How to do I get in contact with someone familiar to the product? I really appreciate your afford to help me out ChristinFrohne (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)