Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 923

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 920 Archive 921 Archive 922 Archive 923 Archive 924 Archive 925 Archive 930

Problem With Permissions When Trying To Run The InternetArchiveBot To Fix Dead Links Automatically

Hi. I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia, so am looking for a bit of help with automatically fixing dead links using the InternetArchiveBot please.

At it says:-

"You can use this bot yourself by browsing the history of any page, and clicking on the "Fix dead links" link in the "External tools" section at the top of the page."

but when I click the Fix Dead Links link at:- I go to:-

which tell me:-

Permission error The action you are trying to perform requires the analyzepage permission.

This permission is obtainable with the following groups: basicuser, user, admin, root, bot

My account page at:- tells me I'm not a member of any groups.

Could you please let me know if there is a way of becoming one of these groups, or whether I should have the permission to run the Bot?

Thanks Shalso (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I see from the history that you fixed dead links successfully. So, do you have this problem now? Ruslik_Zero 18:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik0. Thanks for your reply. I've been manually editing the page to fix dead links, but wanted to have permission to run the AIBot on any page I find dead links on. It looks like you managed to successfully run it on the Climate Engineering page one minute before your comment above to create the following revision:- which automatically fixed 3 of the dead links, so thanks for doing that. Do you know how you got permission to run the AIBot and do you know how I could also get permissions please? Thanks. Shalso (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Shalso, Hey, so I believe you need to be at least autoconfirmed in order to use it, and it appears you have just earlier today hit the requirements. Does it work for you now? WelpThatWorked (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi WelpThatWorked - Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately still not working. When I go to and click Fix Dead Links I go to which still tells me "Permission error. The action you are trying to perform requires the analyzepage permission." and I'm still not a member of any groups at Do you know who would know how to fix this? I have asked the Lead Developer of the InternetArchiveBot - cyberpower678 - this question on his talk page as well.

Shalso (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Shalso, I’m going to answer here so other teahouse helpers know this. Per, you can see the list of user groups that exist there and what requirements need to be fulfilled to get them. You are actually shy 1 edit of obtaining the basic user permission. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Cyberpower678, Thanks for the answer. I've just created my user page which has put me at 10 edits and so now I'm in the the autoconfirmed group. It looks like I have to have been registered more than 10 days in order to be in the basicuser group from what it says at so I think I have have to wait 5 more days and it should then work. It would be good to have just a sentence or two at the top of the page explaining how the system works. I did study that table at but couldn't really understand what it was telling me. It seemed to be dynamic and so I thought it was telling me my current user group status, so I couldn't understand why I wasn't already a basic user. Now I understand that it is telling people the date they have to have been registered since and the minimum number of edits they have to have done in order to become a member of a particular usergroup.

Shalso (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Shalso, try going to the tool again. You should now be in the user group. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind. You are right. You still need to wait 5 more days. I’ll just add you to the group myself. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I added basicuser to your account. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Using a table from a journal article

I recently tried to implement a table from a journal article ( ) into Bwiti but was slapped for copyright stuff n junk. I added a citation but I'm not sure how I could "paraphrase" such a table. I suppose I just need to ask permission from (the journal? the authors?) - I don't know where to start with that process (nothing obvious at the journal link). Any pointers? (There's a ton of great information in the journal - it'd be a great boon to get some of it in wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle Kost (talkcontribs) 16:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa, the goddess of copyright infringement, has rightfully smitten your contribution. You can paraphrase content from the journal article but not use the table. Remeber to sign your comments by typing four of ~. David notMD (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
"ok"....tildetildetildetilde Kyle Kost (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Re-stating the question because I guess I wasn't clear. Are there any suggestions on how I could ask for permission? Said table is the best way I can think of to visualize the rituals and their lineages. Kyle Kost (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Kyle Kost. You would need to get the copyright owner (who may be the author, or may be somebody else) to agree to license the material under CC-BY-SA. See Donating copyright materials for what steps you would have to ask them to follow. --ColinFine (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you ColinFine. Will see what I can do. May just try to digest/regurgitate the article some more first. I promise I mean well! Just a nooby noobin' it up over here tryin' not to be much of a pirate. Yarrrrrgh Kyle Kost (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Vijay(actor) article admins especially cyphoidbomb quite annoying

I am new to Wikipedia legit users like me who wants to contribute to the Vijay(actor) article were unable to do so becoz of the unnecessary high protection level and the article remains outdated. even though if I contribute in the talk page of the Vijay(actor) article there is no response. so this is how Wikipedia works it sucks. somebody please do the needsome. regards Fgassh (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fgassh: Welcome to Wikipedia. The only edits from you on Talk:Vijay_(actor) that I see are from today. You just need to be patient. Consider working to improve articles that are not under protection. RudolfRed (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
To RudolfRed and any other interested parties, Fgassh was evading a previous block. The master account was Bothiman. I don't dispute that I'm annoying, though. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
But you are our kind of annoying. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

How to contribute in a debate?


The article is now subject for deletion, I would like to post an answer and contribute to the debate but I don't know how to get in touch with the person who nominated the article for deletion. If you could you please help on where on the talk page I can post my reply? I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you and best regards, JoanneNaoum (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, JoanneNaoum. Welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for your question. You do not need to get in touch with the nominator; that would be pointless. The way to do it is to follow the link in the 'speedy deletion'notice which will take you to the deletion discussion. (It's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salim Sfeir). There you should present your reasons against deletion. But, better still - and this is a very good idea - whilst under discussion, do work immediately on the article to show that this person does meet our Notabilty guidelines. I have just flagged up that the huge list of honours and awards is totally unsupported by any references. I'd suggest you swiftly aim at working on these so as to persuade others who will come to this discussion over the next seven days that the article should be kept. At a quick glance, I suspect that it should and will be. But there's more work you can do to make that more likely. Do it now - even better if you do it before contributing at the discussion! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your prompt response and feedback and the flag to help me with the article. I will get on it right away! Nick Moyes
Hello, JoanneNaoum, and welcome to the Teahouse. The notice on Salim Sfeir has a link to the deletion discussion, which is the appropriate place to discuss the possible deletion. Do have a look at WP:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! (which is linked to in the edit notice on the discussion page) before you enter the discussion. The discussion shows that the nomination was made by RHaworth, and you can communicate with them on their User talk page; but unless you have something to say to them specifically, it is better to discuss on the deletion discussion page. --ColinFine (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your prompt response and feedback, I will improve the article and get right to the discussion page. Best regards! ColinFine

JoanneNaoum (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I create a new stub form?

a — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetroManMelbourne (talkcontribs) 21:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

MetroManMelbourne, it is not clear what you are asking. Could you explain to me what a stub form is? Mstrojny (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Mstrojny Sorry, I said it wrong. What I meant was a new stub type e.g. the Berlin-U-Bahn stub type. How do I Create another one? MetroManMelbourne (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
MetroManMelbourne, you might find WP:YFA useful to you. Also, in the future, please add one more colon when to reply to a message. See Help:Talk_pages#Replying_to_an_existing_thread for more information. Mstrojny (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@MetroManMelbourne: new stub templates (categories) are proposed here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 10:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Title has been italicised

I have noticed that a part of the title of my sandbox page has been italicised. I am not the one that has done this and I don't know why it is like this. Catinthedogs (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Catinthedogs: It's because you included the {{Infobox album}} in it. The template assumes the page title is an album title, and as such it should be displayed in italics, hence it includes {{Italic title}} which causes the effect you see. --CiaPan (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Catinthedogs: The documentation at Template:Infobox album shows you can add |italic_title=no to avoid this. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This user sandbox page

Hi, I was looking at random places when I came across this user sandbox page. I think that some other editors are acting as if it was an article, and putting some templates there that should not be in sandbox pages. I do think that the content in this sandbox could be a possible article, but it is not yet and those templates should not really be on there. Catinthedogs (talk) 06:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Catinthedogs: The sandbox page appears abandoned, its main author has not edited it since July 2012. However, the account is still active (most recent edit in February 2019), so you can easily ask them at their user talk page. :)
Or just ping them here, like this: ping.
Anyway, could you specify which templates 'should not be in sandbox pages'...? --CiaPan (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Templates such as {{Jamaica-athletics-bio-stub}}. Catinthedogs (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, the categories that the page is in are assuming it is an article, and the page shouldn't really be in those categories. Catinthedogs (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Catinthedogs: The bio-stub template inserts the article into the Category:Jamaican athletics biography stubs, which may actually be inappropriate (although I think it doesn't harm when a sandbox appears in the stubs category). Other categories' links are all 'deactivated' by a colon character inserted just before the word 'Category', so the sandbox is actually not included in those categories, just links to them.
Anyway, the Hansle Parchment article exists since July 2012‎, and its initial contents is an exact copy of the sandbox. So I suppose there's no need to fix any detailed real or suspected problems with the sandbox and instead just delete it. I'm going to make it a redirect to the article soon. --CiaPan (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
DONE. Replaced the sandbox contents with a redirection to the article. --CiaPan (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


I've clocked 10,000 tonight, I am curious, Do I get a notification of my 10,000th edit? I haven't gotten any. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No, you don't receive notification of particular edits. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Ta da!!! for your 10,000 edit. David notMD (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
You do get one for your 100,000th edit. --bonadea contributions talk 07:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: mw:Help:Notifications/Notifications types#Milestone says: "1st, 10th, 100th, 1,000th, 10,000th, 100,000th, and 1,000,000th edits". Special:AllMessages supports this and says you should get MediaWiki:Notification-header-thank-you-10000-edit. Some of us haven't passed a milestone since the notifications were added in 2016. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah - I think editors should get one at 10k and then one at 50k, too. I once had a boss who deployed a very similar and ludicrously-logarithmic scale of giving positive feedback. Anyway, I left you a barnstar as a consolation prize for not getting an automatically generated notification! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Leopold and Loeb

Some IP was vandalizing this page by changing the names and dates, but I wasn't able to undo all the vandalism because the IP made many edits in a row to prevent me from doing so (very clever). If you're an admin, mind helping me change it back to the unvandalized version and also blocking the IP? The turn of events o (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@The turn of events o: Page now reverted to version of 24th February - something you can do yourself if you want to. Would you check article to ensure it's now OK? I very rarely issue an "only" warning notice, but seeing eight consecutive bad edits, plus your attempts to engage and stop them, I felt it appropriate in this instance. It does not need an admin to warn another editor (we usually go through four levels of increasing severity in an attempt to encourage an editor to change their editing habits. After that, you can then report an editor to WP:AIV (Administrator intervention against vandalism). But if you see it happening again with this Ip editor, it'll be OK to go straight to AIV, I feel. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Query (related to Wikipedia's response to "terror/attacks" incidents in general)

This is a general question (even though the question is triggered by today's terror incident I am not discussing that specific event, this is a general question, I request answers are kept general too)...
When an attack happens (bomb/suicide car attack/gunman anything), the Wikipedia page in question gets so many quick edits even if it is semi-protected. The amount of misinformation that this could result in is considerable even if the edits can be reverted very fast. Even aspects such as picking up content from primary sources seems irrelevant at times like these... (say a secondary source which just has a video of the statement by the "terrorist" but nothing else and every media source is using the same video to draw conclusions during the initial few hours) At times like these, for rare incidents like these... shouldn't the page be fully protected, at least for a few hours and everything needs to go on the talk page first in proper sections (nearly all of them have similarities so a pre decided format isn't too difficult to start off the article and then can be adapted later once the protection is lowered).
Wikipedia is shown first on Google search, and should not be a cause for further spread of misinformation, as humanly possible within the limits which we wikipedia editors function.
Has there ever been a proper discussion related to a mechanism of what admins need to do for such pages? Like if an incident like this happens... for the first two hours... the page will be fully protected... no matter what? If there is a discussion, please could you direct me to the link. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Like in a plane... all those who sit at the emergency exits are given a briefing. Is there a briefing (article) for admins related to this? I think there should be. And every admin has to confirm they have read it before they finally become an admin. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@DiplomatTesterMan: I am not an admin, but can probably address some of your concerns. Firstly, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and content should be based on reliable sources. In any unfolding major news story, even the mainstream media inevitably get only part of the story right and parts of it wrong at first. Any notable event is flagged with a notice alerting readers to the content relating to an unfolding event. I genuinely don't believe many people go first to Wikipedia to find out the news of a breaking event - they search news stories online, or turn on 24hr news programmes. The Wikipedia page about today's heartbreaking tragedy appears on my Google search only on the second page of results. News media are rightly up there at the top, and completely fill my first page of search results. Major breaking news stories attract a large number of editors who watch an article closely, and will soon remove unsubstantiated content - probably far faster than on a page about one of last decade's major events. You ask about protection: Wikipedia, as you know, is collaborative. We have a policy (SEE WP:NO-PREEMPT) which is not to protect a page by default, nor are we censored. Talk pages are usually very active at times like these. I remember being at home in the UK very late one night, patrolling new page creations, on the night the Grenfell Tower fire broke out in London, but before anything was on the TV news (which I had only just watched an hour before). My first reaction was to think it odd to start an article about a building on fire, and checking online I found only one or two news stories at that time. Pretty soon innumerable news stories emerged and I was impressed by how well the Wikipedia story evolved and changed as the news itself evolved and changed. You can check its page history for yourself if you're interested. So, whilst admins need to be (and are) aware of their responsibilities to prevent damaging or scurrilous content being added, they don't need to lock down pages in my view. Admins aren't the ones in charge here - the broad community of editors is. And IMHO that community works well together and does an amazing job in ensure developing news stories are covered fairly and responsibly. That said (and assuming you have your system set to highlight admin contributions) just look how many admins edits were made in the first hours of that evolving story in London, and note, too, how the single line new page was created based upon a Guardian newspaper story. I think we get the balance pretty good here. I am sure there will have been numerous past discussions on how we should handle such events, though I'm afraid I don't have the time to search back through our archives to find them for you right now. Is there a 'briefing article' for such event? Well, yes, see WP:BREAKING. The community appoints admins based on their confidence in how that editor has demonstrated their ability to interpret and implement policy and guidelines. Admins are no different from other editors, except in their access to a few tools to mop up people's mess if they do make it. In general, I feel the community of editors here collaborates very well to cover and patrol developing news stories. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)    
Nick Moyes, thank you for taking out the time to respond to this. I had not come across the importance of WP:NO-PREEMPT before but I understand how important it is now that it has been pointed out. And when you write that the... " community works well together and does an amazing job in ensure developing news stories are covered fairly and responsibly." I agree with you here. With regards to - "assuming you have your system set to highlight admin contributions" I do not have this turned on. I will search for it in preferences just now and do that. Thanks again for this reply. This not only helps with my general understanding of Wikipedia, but also will help in how I deal personally with such pages in the future. I guess Wikipedia has this covered. Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, I am just observing how the lead is going back and forth on today's incident. It is a fight but yeh, Wikipedia's mechanisms work. I have to be patient too. As for the example you provided, Grenfell Tower fire, I will go through it. Thanks. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@DiplomatTesterMan: I've just remembered that 'Admin highlighter' isn't a setting in Preferences; you have to install it yourself as a user script. See WP:User_scripts/List#Discussion_oriented. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes:, thanks again. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I have installed it. User:DiplomatTesterMan/common.js. Hopefully correctly. I did check if the highlights are happening and they are. This is a totally new way to look at edit histories. Thanks! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Just one last small point. You had written - "The Wikipedia page about today's heartbreaking tragedy appears on my Google search only on the second page of results."... When you had typed your comment I checked and yes at that time it was on the second page. I checked again now. I is on the first page, still near the bottom but it has already reached the first page... in around 75 minutes... DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@DiplomatTesterMan: You should note that every single sentence in that new article has at least one reference to support it. I haven't checked the sources, but have corrected one clearly incorrect minor statement, and (wrongly) deleted one statement from a person whose opinions on this matter I immediately thought was of no relevance, but on reading more carefully, it was. Impressively, someone reinstated it before I had the chance to reinsert it - so I left a dummy edit to acknledge my error. So there are eyes on these articles, and a page like this now rising through search results shouldn't be an issue to us. Quite the opposite: we can be proud we are collaborating and collating good quality content, based (one hopes!) on good sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Wow, you bring up a good point; this can become a serious issue in certain instances. The turn of events o (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It mostly becomes serious if unsubstantiated statements/allegations are included in articles, or if names are released inappropriately. That's why we have policies of removing such content, and even revdel-ing them if necessary.Nick Moyes (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
That's kind of my fault :). I declined the request for full protection Lectonar (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


What specific terms consist of incivility (or is it uncivility). I was told off for referencing to a female editor by term broad. I thought the term was innocent enough but apparently an admin admonished me for it. Is this platform some hyper politically correct platform ? Did I experience an anomaly ? What are the rules regarding uncivil terms ? Oofric Stormbloke (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Calling a woman a "broad" is extremely insulting on a collaborative project and you will definitely be blocked if you persist with this type of behavior, Stormcloak EthnoNationalist. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Explain how it is offensive. I don't see it in the slightest. The term has been used for decades with no negative connotation. 22:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormcloak EthnoNationalist (talkcontribs)

  • Yeah, insulting editors is a no-no. Calling a woman a "broad" is considered a sexist slur considering its equivalent to "hoe" or "slut" in several cultures. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 22:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Broad wasn't meant as an personal attack. It's merely term I use for female when the other terms get too stale. Also reference the cultures where broad is a slur.

  • The southern United States, as well as the New England area, in paticular. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 22:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I was born,raise, and live in Georgia. Never have I heard broad being considered offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormcloak EthnoNationalist (talkcontribs) 22:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

To Stormcloak EthnoNationalist your experience - or lack of it - is not a good place to start in this. The term is demeaning and derogatory and has been for decades. Take today as a learning experience and be more circumspect in the future. MarnetteD|Talk 22:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Stormcloak EthnoNationalist Please do not use two different signatures in the same thread. Editors should not have to search for who is making what comment in a thread. MarnetteD|Talk 23:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict):@Stormcloak EthnoNationalist: Incivility and insults often depends on context they're used in. This edit of yours is reprehensible. That's no way to initiate any contact with a person you do not know. It's arrogant, sexist, derogatory and suggests some sort of superiority over another person that you don't actually have. So be advised to act respectfully in future. I would also point out that, whilst removing old edits and warnings from one's talk page is acceptable, immediate blanking suggests indifference and disinterest to the advice and warning of experienced editors. I don't fancy any editors chances of remaining unblocked if they show the sort of attitude that you have in your 2.5 hours here and use terms like 'damn feminazis'. Oops, whilst drafting this I see you've been temporarily blocked by an admin. Please come back with a better attitude and a mature desire to collaborate in a civil manner, or don't come back at all. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The briefest of searches reveals that the term broad (synonymous with prostitute, promiscuous woman and later woman) has an etymology, which while confused, probably relates to both a physical description of a woman's figure, while having roots with the term "abroadwife", meaning a female slave whose enslaved husband has a different owner. In this case it could have pre-civil war origins, which might very well be familiar to those around Georgia, and if they aren't they certainly should be to someone who is motivated to discover and compile knowledge - i.e. a Wikipedia editor. Given the ease with which this information can be acquired, why would you double down on your use of the term and not apologize, after having discovered that the term may well have offended a fellow editor? Edaham (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Consider that this was actually a conscious effort to attack Wikipedia and test the response. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 08:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
And now indefinite blocked - account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page, sandbox deleted... David notMD (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Approval criteria

Which criteria is being used to approve an article or page on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandlaxoki (talkcontribs) 06:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Amandlaxoki, and welcome to the Teahouse! I see that your draft for Amandla Xoki at User:Amandlaxoki/sandbox has recently been rejected because the topic is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. For details, please read through Wikipedia's notability guideline, which is also summarized at WP:42. If you can produce at least 2 independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of Amandla Xoki, then the draft will be eligible to be published. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 08:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
And you really should not be writing articles about yourself. Emeraude (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Removing a template

Wow, thank you all so much for your insights and tips. Thanks especially to @NickMoyes [[User:Nick Moyes|Nick Moyes] for your time and patience! I see that I have a LOT to learn about -- especially the how-to's of citation. It's definitely a start. An overwhelming start, but a start. There will be more questions from here.

One right off the bat re: "It's no good, for example, saying he was commissioned by the Colonial Symphony to compose Simple Live in 1990. We need editors to insert a reference to allow others to verify what has been added." I have no idea how to source that information. For instance, the Colonial Symphony is defunct and they have no online presence. Yet this was a significant gesture in New Jersey's music community. And that's just one instance.

I will also need to figure out how to *objectively* verify Sampson's contributions to classical music. I'm aware of two DMA dissertations that focus on it, but more from academic perspectives such as harmony and compositional techniques. Those documents may not even be available for public access. Sigh.

Incidentally, the person whose name is similar to mine is my husband; Sampson is a friend/colleague. I will disclose these things first and foremost.

Thanks again. I want to be a worthwhile contributor to the Wiki community. Lbatchelder (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Lbatchelder (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Teahousers. I'm really confused about why my article (David Sampson (composer)) is tagged for additional citations. I think I used plenty of links and citations to internal and external sources throughout the article. I'm ashamed to say that I don't understand how to remedy the issue and remove the template, as I am lost when it comes to code.

I've checked various resources including Maintenance Template Removal and Help:Template and so on, down the rabbit hole, and just can't figure out what to do.

Would really appreciate it if some kind, patient soul could walk me through this. Many thanks.

EllBee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbatchelder (talkcontribs) 19:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Of the last 18 sections, one has a reference. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Lbatchelder: Also check out both WP:MUSICBIO for notability requirements, and WP:RS for more info on proper sourcing. One place to start to find sourcing could be David Sampson (composer)#Selected reviews, where I see there is media coverage listed but the info isn't formatted as proper citations. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Lbatchelder: Put simply, the article doesn't have enough inline citations to support the factual statements that you've added to the article. So you needn't worry about how to remove the template; you need to start the learning journey about how and why we add citations. May I advise you to start with Help:Referencing for beginners?
It's no good, for example, saying he was commissioned by the Colonial Symphony to compose Simple Live in 1990. We need editors to insert a reference to allow others to verify what has been added. Whilst this might be stuff you/they happen to know to be true, if you/they can't demonstrate it is true, it should not be included, no matter how much one would like to. Usually it is friends and work colleagues who know these things and insert them into articles, but can't prove them via reliable sources.
To that end, I should say that if you do happen to know, employ, or work with the subject you're writing about, then you would have a Conflict of Interest. We then require editors to be transparent and make a declaration according to the guidelines set out in WP:COI. I say this partly because I noticed a person with a very similar username as yours is listed as working alongside Sampson. On the offchance that this is you, it doesn't stop you editing the article; it simply declares, upfront, any involvement/knowledge/friendship or financial commitment to that person. (And, if the latter, see also WP:PAID for how to declare that, too). The thing I'd suggest you also focus on is finding reliable sources that have written about him in detail, or the awards he has won. I'm sure from the body of his work, he would meet WP:NBIO or WP:NMUSICBIO (these are two shortcuts to our key pages about how we assess the 'notability' of a person), but I would like the article to be less a resume of every one of his works, and more about him as a notable person, or how he is recognised for his great contribution to classical music. The lead, for example, is really far to short for the length of this encylopadic article, and could be used as an effective summary of why he is 'notable'. It's not yet all that clear in the article. Finally, we often recommend that new editors work through our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure to understand how things work around here. I'll pop by in a moment and leave a welcome message full of useful links to get you started. Best of luck, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

PolicyPitch/IJCSN Journal

I was going to put this on the talk page of the article in question but I doubt anyone would even check there.
At the article PolicyPitch, it appears that the whole article is talking about another subject: "IJCSN Journal". At one point, it had content related to PolicyPitch but was all switched out to talk about IJCSN Journal and hasn't been dealt with since. I did a quick google search for both PolicyPitch and IJCSN Journal and they appear to be completely different things. I'm not too sure what to do from here :( Thanks StaringAtTheStars (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@StaringAtTheStars: For info: The page appears to have been usurped in 2013 with this major edit. Sorry I don't have the time to help further, though others will, I'm sure. My gut reaction would be to revert it back to the earlier, correct version, but would want to spend a little more time taking care that was actually the best course of action. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@StaringAtTheStars: The edit which made this change was done by a new user (Editorijcsn (talk · contribs)) and is the only edit the user has ever made. The username suggests a connection to the organisation whose details overwrote the original content. The edit is tagged as originating from 'gettingstarted', which is the system that gives new users a suggested article to edit. The intention is that they make a small edit but maybe the new editor, in their ignorance, thought that it was OK to replace the entire article text with something else? Exactly what happened will never be known for sure because the editor has never returned, but it's clear that the article now bears no resemblance to its title. I'll revert it back to as it was before the edit in question. Neiltonks (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: @Neiltonks: Thanks both! StaringAtTheStars (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

When can I use a company or organization website as a source?

What about when a company or organization publishes something about themselves, like the number of employees, or positions that the employees hold? Based on my reading of Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources, these are non-independent sources, but for example, all of the citations for the Association for Computational Linguistics page are from webpages published by or affiliated with the organization. NappingLlama (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that that article needs either some independent sources that shows it is notable or deletion. Generally though, see WP:ABOUTSELF. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, WP:ABOUTSELF is useful. I've really been struggling with this because ACL is the biggest professional organization in my field, but I can't find any news articles that are independent. There is some coverage from university news, but mostly about academics getting their research accepted in the ACL Conferences and Journals, so this also seems non-independent. I've run into similar issues for many academic organization topics. From my perspective, they are notable, so I want to make the topic stronger by adding better sources. But maybe they aren't notable from a wider perspective? NappingLlama (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
NappingLlama, it's a general academic problem, see for example this [1] article about a recent Nobel-prize winner. Unless ACL gets caught smuggling cocaine from Russia or something, there won't be much press. On the plus-side, the article doesn't appear promotional, that's good. Perhaps you can find something helpful in WP:Notability (organizations and companies), but as you noted, we really want those independent sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

moving a page

I want to move a page from sandbox to article but get the message below. No article exists with the name of the person.

The page could not be moved, for the following reason:

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.

Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask for the page to be moved.

Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplewriter (talkcontribs) 15:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Purplewriter, What page did you move it to? I suspect to tried to move it to a page named sandbox, witch already exists. The article itself is lacking, please wait and improve it. WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
There was an old draft by Megajakeroo, declined. For this reason your draft designated Draft: Nadine Epstein (2). A bigger problem is that is an existing article Moment (magazine) with a redirect, so that if anyone searches on Nadine Epstein their search is redirected to that article. My hope is that someone with more experience than I can fix this. David notMD (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Did I correctly create an account for my organization?


And thank you for your help. I created an account for my organization. I wanted the user or login to be easily transferrable and generic if someone within the organization takes over admining a couple of years from now.

I am willing to create an account under my personal name if that is better for wikipedia. The website for my organization is under construction and I have not asked my site devoloper if I need a static IP and might not have one. My account is Breitenbush Cascades, and I created an account using an email address from my organizations domain.

I serve as president to the organization: Friends of the Breitenbush Cascades. It is an Oregon state non-profit.

I want to create these pages; Friends of the Breitenbush Cascades, Lower Breitenbush Hot Springs, Cathedral Forest Action Group, and a page pertaining to the civil disobedience logging protests to protect the Breitenbush watershed, and I would like that to be separate from the friends page because I have to partner with other organizations that might not want to associate with our historic past.

As an individual user I make use of wikipedia and I do occasionally donate. My time and ability to learn wikipedia is limited but I want to be a good wiki citizen.

Your help is much appreciated, Woody — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breitenbush Cascades (talkcontribs) 17:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Breitenbush Cascades: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. What you have done is expressly forbidden by the username policy; accounts cannot be that of an organization, shared, or passed to a successor; accounts must represent specific individuals. You must request a username change by going to Special:GlobalRenameRequest immediately. You must also review conflict of interest and paid editing; I will provide information about this on your user talk page; but in short, you should not attempt to do what you want to do. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

oh, boy, I am definitely over my head and apologize to the wikipedia community. I think I have a learning disability when letters numbers and characters combine. Can I just delete the account and create an account under my real name and start over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breitenbush Cascades (talkcontribs) 18:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Breitenbush Cascades: Accounts cannot be deleted, but they can be renamed as I describe above. You may also just abandon your account and create a new one, but I would post that you were doing so on your current account and then indicate that you had a prior account on your new account's user page, so that you avoid accusations of abusing multiple accounts. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
And don't worry about having used a "forbidden" username, it's a common mistake. You can have the org-name as part of the username, but it has to be something like "Kim at Breitenbush Cascades" or "Breitenbush Cascades employee7". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Separate from the required name change, I did searches on your four proposed topics (Friends of the Breitenbush Cascades, Lower Breitenbush Hot Springs, Cathedral Forest Action Group, and the civil disobedience group). I do not believe that any of them have enough independent, published content on-line or not to meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. David notMD (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Archive editnotice

Is there a way to make an editnotice that will appear on my user talk archive pages, but not my user talk page? — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Answered at Wikipedia talk:Editnotice#Archive editnotice. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)



Hi IP 2605:E000:9346:9E00:8F3:E7D6:14B:6568. There is an article for Brody Stevens and was added to Wikipedia in March 2010. So, I'm not sure why you weren't able to find it. Perhaps you misspelled his name when you were searching for it? Finally, please don't type in all capital letters when posting. It's considered to be the equivalent to shouting at someone when posting online, and there's no real need to "shout" at the Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
My guess: the IP complainer typed the name in all capitals, which of course would not find a match.--Thnidu (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Thnidu: My guess: your guess is wrong. Linking is case-sensitive in Wikipedia (except the first character), but searching is not. --CiaPan (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @CiaPan: Aha, thank you. I knew about linking and thought searching was similar. --Thnidu (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)



@AppleDumpling111: Please do not make any more posts anywhere on Wikipedia by typing in capital letters. This is seen as SHOUTING! and is not acceptable practice. We cannot answer questions like these - we are here to assist with problems editing Wikipedia. Why not Google your question, or ask at the Ref Desk? Regards. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Re:AppleDumpling111 Sorry, I meant to say Reference Desk. I advise you to create your userpage and explain why you edit in this way. You must never use Caps in articles. As you can read answers in lower case, I'm surprised you feel caps is needed for typing. Have you investigated your computer's accessibility options, or changed your screen's display size? Nick Moyes (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)w

How do I connect with wikipedians interested in current events?

I've created a news aggregator based on Wikipedia references: Cited News. It relies on Wikipedia articles having properly formatted references, particularly dates.

What is the best way to find wikipedians who are also news junkies? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltvedt (talkcontribs) 19:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Saltvedt, welcome to the Teahouse. All I can think of are:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers and WP:ITN. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

My Article

How do I re-find my article draft to view the changes and edit it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddidas (talkcontribs) 14:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Maddidas. If you click on the "contribs" in your signature at the end of your post, you'll see that the only edit you've made to an article was this one you made to Cameron Das. Is that the "My article" you're trying to find? Just going by the similarity between your choice of username and the information you tried to add to that article, I'm wondering if you're really a relative of his. If you are then, you really should take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide because you would have a conflict of interest when it comes to content about him on Wikipedia, and you shouldn't really be editing any content about him except as explained in WP:COIADVICE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Possible this editor created a draft before registering for a User name. Possible to recover a draft created as an IP? David notMD (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Maddidas: User talk:Maddidas says some of your edits have been suppressed by Amorymeltzer. This means they are only visible to users with a special oversight permission. I'm an administrator and cannot see them. If you don't have a private copy then you could enable email at Special:Preferences and try asking for an email copy at User talk:Amorymeltzer. Some of the content was apparently too revealing so don't save it again in Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

How do you revert an edit?

How do you properly revert what someone’s done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathew hk (talkcontribs) 17:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Which article and edit?--Quisqualis (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Just out of interest - Mathew hk (talk)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Mathew hk. There are many methods for reverting. If you simply want to remove the most recent edit from an article, open the "View history" tab and click "Undo", being sure to leave an edit summary such as "revert vandalism" or " not in the reference". You can also manually edit the article, removing incorrect or inappropriate content, again leaving an informative edit summary. Please read Help:Reverting and WP: REVERTING for more detailed information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you trying to revert the "{User 100,000 edits}}" on your user page? Or the"{User Wikipedian for|year=2019|month=3|day=15}}"? It's highly improper to have then both.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Changing Incorrect Information

How does one go about changing an error? Also, how does one go about removing and replacing the error's footnote? The location is:,_1972_(Wednesday) — Preceding unsigned comment added by THO2 (talkcontribs) 16:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, THO2! please tell us what error you are seeing. Thanks--Quisqualis (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
THO2, I checked what you're trying to do. The link you have goes straight to:
You don't have permission to access /cgi-bin/view_details.cgi on this server. Apache Server at Port 80

Ten may be the correct number, but, with an invalid source citation and no idea how to cite sources (see your Talk page), you cannot make that edit. It will be reverted. Get a better source citation.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Look at my edit and read Wikipedia:Inline citation.It's quite simple, but you need to learn it.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Imagine

Can an uninvolved administrator review the discussion listed in the heading of this post? Djm-leighpark says that I might be disruptive editing. I understand that disruptive editing can lead to a block. I was blocked before for a different reason. Am I at risk at being blocked again? Should I worry that I will be blocked again? What is the best course of action I can take with this editor? Mstrojny (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

How long does it take for my question to be answered? Mstrojny (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
As long as it takes an uninvolved volunteer admin with an interest in the matter and enough knowledge to help to see what is needed and respond. Britmax (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Britmax: Would it be appropriate to post this thread to WP:AN instead of here? Mstrojny (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mstrojny: I think you're overreacting. Djm-leighpark simply cautioned you about making changes (the suggested move or merge) without getting consensus first, because your statements made it sound like you were just going to move or merge it, if you weren't going to be able to delete it. Your AfD has only been posted for two days -- be patient. Schazjmd (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Schazjmd: Sorry about that. I did not mean to be impatient. What I will do instead if the consensus is to keep this article, is to open up a discussion on the article's talk page and like you said before, a consensus first. Mstrojny (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure how to proceed

The Southern Lord Records article is an obvious press release. It needs reduction to a factual article (opinions/speculation removed) with better references.

I’m on the iOS app, and I don’t see how to flag an article for review, but it needs work from a better editor than me.

How do I bring this to the attention of a more experienced editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galapogosian (talkcontribs) 23:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Galapogosian: You can place the {{Cleanup-PR|date=April 2019}} tag at the top of the article. This puts an article message at the top. For more information on use cases for this template, see Template:Cleanup-PR. For information about article message boxes, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Article message boxes. GeekInParadise (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Our first contribution was deleted...wondering why

You may want to read Wikipedia:Username policy before proceding.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Trying to edit external links


There is a Wikipedia page about me, Bill Jones (musician). All I am trying to do it now edit the external sources. This shows my website which is defunct from around 2002. I am just trying to update this to my website which has been active since then, which is, and to put a link to my Youtube channel.

So, my edit was removed under my username BillJonesFolkSinger. So my husband tried under his username Whisperchrissy.

Now messages about how he is not allowed to do this either.

I am not trying to advertise, I am trying to make the links correct and the information correct. This information feeds across to other things, like the BBC Music artist profiles via MusicBrainz, and I am trying to make sure it is correct.

Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whisperchrissy (talkcontribs) 18:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Whisperchrissy: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As you have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest(please read that link), what you need to do is make a formal edit request on the article talk page(Talk:Bill Jones (musician)) explaining your situation and what you want to do. If you just want to change an already listed(but incorrect) website to a current one, I don't see a problem there(without knowing any more than I do now). 331dot (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Whisperchrissy: I have added the revised external link for you but the article has no sources, so I have proposed deletion, you need to supply multiple in-depth coverage in reliable sources, NOT your own website. Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Whisperchrissy, the word that Theroadislong left out there was "independent". I don't believe they are saying that your website is not reliable, but that Wikipedia requires most sources to be independent of the subject of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)