Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 617

deletion
i wrote a short article about my friend website it was deleted do you mean i can not talk about a good website and advertise  in your site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthjoy2016 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what we mean. Wikipedia should not be used for advertising. Maproom (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not allow articles on subjects until they have been written about elsewhere in independent WP:Reliable sources. Those are the rules of an encyclopaedia which is what Wikipedia aims to be.    D b f i r s   09:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Where can I make my own Wikipedia page
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizneyfreak (talk • contribs) 04:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, ! If you can explain what you mean by "your" Wikipedia page, I would appreciate that! Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . If you mean "Where can I make a page about what I am interested in doing as a Wikipedia editor?", you are welcome to create your User page for that purpose. If you mean "Where can I create an article about me?" the answer is, Please don't. Autobiography is very strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, and all articles should be based almost entirely on reliably published sources independent of the subject. Are there books or articles about you, written by people who have no connection with you? If there are, we say that you are notable (in Wikipedia's special sense of the word) and there may be an article about you - though you should not be the one to write it. If there are not, then no article about you will be accepted, however it is written; any more than an article about me would be accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to know how to modify the onluxy page i created, in order to pass the audit
I would like to know how to modify the onluxy page, in order to pass the audit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnluxyOnluxy (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomhu2017 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . There isn't really an "audit", but pages that are promotional or constitute advertising are generally quickly deleted. Pages that violate other policies are often deleted also. Text such as "A Millionaire Matchmaker Club that facilitates communication between interested singles who like all things Luxury." which was present in Onluxy before it was deleted, are very promotional.
 * Also, user names that are also the names of businesses, or that imply shared use, or are promotional, are not permitted. DES (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see on looking further that your user name is not User:onluxy, but is actually User:Tomhu2017. Please do not imitate a standard signature with a user name other than your own. DES (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look further, I think you'll find that the user's username was indeed User:onluxy at the time of the posting, so the signature was valid at that time, but the user was renamed subsequently after being warned that the original username was unacceptable. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct, . I should have checked further. Of course a rename will have that effect., my apologies for this mistake. You did nothing incorrect in regards to your signature.DES (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

EDITING A PAGE
I JUST EDITING A PAGE BUT ITS NOT COMING UP, WHY Maduagwuifeanyi (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. You created Importance of office equipment recently. New articles are not indexed by search engines such as Google until they are 30 days old, or until an experienced editor has "patrolled" them, whichever comes first. In this case, however, the new article was deleted as an effective duplicate of the existing article Office supplies, and more importantly, as a copyright infringement of . Please do not in future copy text from other websites into Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text except as a short quote, marked as such, attributed to the author, and cited to a source. The one exception is donated content. But that process licenses the text for anyone to reuse or modify in any way at any time, and must be done by the copyright holder of the original. It is usually not the way to go. Generally one should rewrite content in one's own words to place it in Wikipedia. DES (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits not detailed enough
Just spotted a red link ("cembalon") on the page for "Those Were the Days (song)". From the context ("The hammered dulcimer, or cembalon") I realised that the correct word was "Cimbalom" which already has its own wiki entry - the article starts "The cimbalom is a concert hammered dulcimer". Is this enough to accept my edit? If not, what need I do to get the edit confirmed? Laury Burr (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi if you simply correct the spelling of "cembalon" to "cimbalom" the link will automatically be fixed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Roger is correct. In general there is no need to have any edits "confirmed" -- they will be displayed as soon as you save them. (A few pages have "pending changes protection" where an experienced editor must confirm changes. Those Were the Days (song) is not one of those pages.) DES (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Changing an article to a redirect?
I've just edited Kingdom of EnenKio to get everything sourced to a RS. In the course of doing that, it's ended up as a stub, rather than the usual Lead/Body format. Normally, I'd leave it at that.

However, the article on Wake Island includes a section on the Territorial claim by the Marshall Islands. Although a separate issue (as the Marshall Islands are a real country, whereas the KoE is an internet fraud micronation), it includes a paragraph on the KoE. I've edited that as well to add refs, and now it's substantially the same as the KoE article. The only real difference is the quote in the KoE article, which isn't really necessary in an encyclopaedia.

So, is it alright to just blank the KoE page and redirect to the section on the Wake Island page? Or should I go through a deletion process? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, and Welcome to the Teahouse. Any editor may convert any article into a redirect at any time, if the editor honestly believes this will improve the project. Similarly, any editor may revert such a change, or may convert any redirect into an article,  if that seems to be an improvement. No deletion process or other special process is needed in either case. The history is preserved, so no deletion has happened in the sense that Wikipedia uses that term. Go right ahead. Of course if you think there is likely to be controversy, a discussion on a article talk page might be a good idea, first, but there is no standard form or process for such a discussion (well there is the RFC process as there can be for any talk page discussion, but often that is overkill.) DES (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Cheers ! Bromley86 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

How do I rename the title?
Hello. I would like to rename the article title mini-bar to minibar, which is far more used. How do I do that?

I looked for this info and could not find it. After manoeuvring trough a jungle of information, I found that this is (for some reason) called Moving a page. However, that tutorial seems outdated, as in Step 2 it tells me to click on the "Move" link on the bottom of the page, which I could not locate (that link is probably removed from the template in an update).

Thank you, Amin (Talk) 13:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. In step two of the directions on Help:How_to_move_a_page, you need to look for a move look near the top of the page to be moved. Then in step three there is a move button near the bottom of the pop-up form on which yu enter the move destination and reasons.
 * It is called "moving" since it has the effect of moving the article from one "place" to another, and also by analogy with the MS-DOS (and later Windows) "File Move" function, which also acts by renaming a file, but can "move" it from one folder to another. DES (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. I can't believe I misread the tutorial, you're right LOL. So I located the Move link and filled the page out.


 * However, the move could not be complete because of an error: "a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.". I think the problem is that Minibar already exists (it's a redirect to Mini-bar).


 * What is the logical next step for me? Is there a way I can delete the redirect, so I can then retry completing the move? Thank you. Amin (Talk) 14:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The next logical step is to make a request over at WP:RM/TR so an admin or page mover (such as myself) can perform the move, if they feel it would be uncontroversial. Alternatively, you can ask one of us personally to perform the move for you. Sky  Warrior  15:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hello again, . I have done the move, while preserving the history of a different article hidden under the old redirect. Thanks for drawing attention to this. DES (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , Thank you. The next time I will know how to perform a Move, or if there's is a barrier, request help from a page-mover. Amin (Talk) 15:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

How do I revive an archived discussion on a talk page?
Hello, I would like to add a comment to an old discussion on a talk page, it doesn't make sense to start a new topic. But the discussion is now in the archive. How do I revive it? Thank you Libby EMAcomm (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the old discussion has been archived, start a new discussion section on the talk page, and include a link to the archived section, with a mention of the previous discussion. DES (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

ghost signature in question box
I have a question to ask here, but first: The question box has the following at the bottom in washed-out blue:

apparently a ghost from the question at the top of the page. Refreshing the page doesn't change it. I'm pretty sure it should be fixed. --Thnidu (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you're seeing that (I'm not), but this is related to 's post at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Table of contents?
I've noticed that some talk pages don't have tables of contents, why is this so and how do I resolve it? The Verified Cactus 100% 18:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A table of contents is automagically generated when a page has four or more properly formatted section headings. The TOC can however be supressed by placing on the page. Conversely a TOC can be forced on a page with fewer than four sections with , however such exceptions need a good reason. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 18:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Analytics of external links
Hello, If I add an external link to a Wikipedia page, is there a way I tell if/how often it has been clicked? Thank you Libby EMAcomm (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, it is not possible to check how many times an external link has been accessed through Wikipedia. We can't check it on Wikipedia, and because all links from Wikipedia automatically add the nofollow attribute, the host of the target website can't know which requests have come from Wikipedia either. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Piping Feature
What is a piping feature in Wiki editing and how it should be used? Is there an article or link for it? AtulR (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi AtulR. Here's a little trick. Almost anything you see in the interface and much lingo you hear bandied about here will have a page at whatever the word/phrase is, appended after "Wikipedia:" Note also that "WP:" works the same as "Wikipedia". Here, Pipe (WP:pipe) as well as piping (and all the other titles here) will land you at the page Piped link, which should explain this issue. If after reading that page you have any remaining questions, please come back and ask. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Saving New Articles
I'm midway through writing a new article and don't know how to save it. Seems simple and I'm sure there's an easy fix. Thanks for help BenjaminLemley (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, BenjaminLemley. Below the editing window is a button labeled "Save changes". That should work to save changes either to an existing article or a new one you've just created. (I'm assuming you're not using visual editor or working on a mobile device. If you are, please indicate.) However, I highly recommend that the writing process itself take place off-wiki; otherwise, there's always a chance of losing the only copy of what you've written. You can use a basic app such as TextEdit (Mac) or Notepad (Windows) or a word-processing app (just make sure that curly quotes or smart quotes are disabled) and then paste your work onto a Wikipedia page. It looks as if you may already have had a page you created deleted. You can use your sandbox for early drafts and for practicing things like saving pages. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   04:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Enquiring about source of information
I would like to write articles on local festivals, towns and chiefs in Ghana that has ancient origin. When reference are not already in the internet. Can I refer to some other sources like text books? Not be known — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aziz Baako (talk • contribs) 08:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, . Of course you can. You might want to read our article WP:VER, esp. section WP:SOURCES. I hope they will answer your question. If not, please ask again. --CiaPan (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

can you help me to create page
thank you for invitation, can you help me to create page for one great painter. I would send you information Daemon Datim (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello,, have you seen Your first article...? --CiaPan (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As of 'a great' painter, please see some of most important Wikipedia policies at WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO, also Autobiography. --CiaPan (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Date preferences?
Hello again, Teahouse hosts,

I have a question about date formats. According to MOS:ENGVAR, The English Wikipedia prefers no major national varieties over the language of any other. These varieties differ in a number of ways, including…date formatting. However, MOS:DATEFORMAT includes a specific list of what formats are acceptible. Which should I refer to? Best, Alt3no: Discuss — 03:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Alt3no. I believe the suggested formats in DATEFORMAT encompass the usual ways of expressing the dates in various parts of the English-speaking world. Have you noted a discrepancy or omission? Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   04:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No. I've just noticed a generally casual nature in which dates are used in articles. While the manual of style outlines what formats should be used (i.e. 2 August 2001; August 2, 2001, among others), are there certain formats that should never be used (i.e. 02 Aug '01; that one seems rather obvious)? Should dates like that be reverted, even? Or should they be left alone, as it's possible that they may be included as per MOS:ENGVAR? If it becomes evident through a talk page discussuon that the editor who used this format comes from a country or region where use of the format is relatively common, should it be left alone? Or should it be converted to the common English format?


 * Sorry if I'm throwing out alot of text. Best, Alt3no: Discuss — 14:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * MOS:BADDATE says "Do not abbreviate year". Any of the formats at MOS:BADDATE should be corrected. The formats should be consistent within the article, as stated at MOS:DATEUNIFY. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That pretty much covers my question. A comfortable forum, this Teahouse is. Best, Alt3no: Discuss — 14:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Can anybody help me with notability assessment?
I'm having this issue with the page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPMobilePack and I'm not sure if I should remove the notability template or not. It looks fine to me, but I would appreciate a second opinion. Cborodescu (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The article cites 17 sources, but most of them are not independent, and so do nothing to help establish the subject's notability. Those currently numbered 5,7,8,9 may be considered enough to establish notability, I'll leave it to others to judge. Maproom (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Definition of "unconstructive edits"
Lately, I have been editing pages to allow for easier navigation from one Wikipedia page to the next (i.e. linking pages through chronology). But fellow users have been reverting these edits and calling them "unconstructive" (which isn't a word) and "warning" me.

I am not using these page link additions as sources for the articles. I merely was adding them to allow other readers easier access to other related pages. Is this frowned upon by Wikipedia? And if so, why? Mariacricket (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I looked at the most recent warning on your talk page. Please read Manual of Style/Linking, which indicates that we do not include wikilinks in section titles, which is what you did in that case. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with all of our guidelines regarding use of wikilinks since you seem to be having problems in that area. By the way, "unconstructive" is a word. I think that you should have received a more detailed explanation. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the Oxford Dictionaries definition of "unconstructive". Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Maria. Since you've never heard of unconstructive, but it's a really common English word (and based on your post above I am guessing you're a native speaker), I bet you will experience the Baader-Meinhof effect over the next two weeks and see it multiple times (outside of Wikipedia) now that you've focused upon it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That effect happens to me all the time. Incidentally, Mariacricket, you're in good company: my browser also doesn't know that "unconstructive" is a word, and redlines it whenever I type it in an edit window. This is unfortunate because I'm a horrible typist and might just have spelled it wrong. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   15:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

May I know why are everyone deleting my articles.
If am I doing anything wrong, please let me know. I want to write many articles but they got deleted after some hours like Origin of the Moon, Why Mars is red, Why do tornadoes produce hail etc, except Quake (natural phenomenon) K. Badri Vishal (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey K. Badri Vishal. It looks like your article was deleted under criteria WP:A1 and WP:G7, because if was not sufficiently intelligible, and/or lacked sufficient context to be able to identify the subject of the article. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Abellaite is the only article deleted. The  first time was because it only consisted of "H2O" and the second was because you blanked the page yourself;  this is normally an indication that the creator of the page wants the page deleting.  I'd caution you against creating articles like Why Mars is red etc because topics like this have probably already been covered.  The colour of Mars is discussed and explained at Mars surface color.  You must also make sure that any additions you make are supported by sources, your edits to other articles have been undine because you have failed to quote the sources that support what you wrote.  The use of verifiable and reliable sources are key Wikipedia policies that must be adhered to. Nthep (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about Obama article -- education summary -- meaning of heading.
Hi,

It's a query about an "education summary" table in the article "Early Life and career of Barack Obama", which includes columns with the heading "type", listing below: "public" or "private". It isn't clear to me what this heading means. When I tried to compare it to details of the education of other US presidents, the articles (I saw) didn't use a similar table to provide the information.

To put this into context: I'm British and I went to the entry as a user to check a claim I'd heard that Obama's education was somehow undisclosed, and this had been compared to the manner in which Trump's tax returns are not made public. I wanted to see what was known and verified about his education.

So the meaning of this heading in the table was relevant but ambiguous because "type" can mean different things. Does it mean that the establishment was a private or public school or a privately funded degree/course as opposed to something else? Or does it mean that details about the entry are not made public? If the former, it seems open to misinterpretation by those who are searching for evidence of a lack of disclosure. If the latter, it seems to give insufficient detail for a judgement to be made about the relevance or type of lack of disclosure, especially since there's no opportunity for direct comparison with other presidents.

Which leads me to other thoughts: why is the information presented in this way for this particular article? Is it an effort to create a compromise where there has been a lot of discussion over wording?

It's a huge subject, I'm sure, and I'm sure this chart will have been discussed at length somewhere, but I don't know where to find that discussion -- my wiki-editing career has never really got off the ground, so please forgive me for not knowing how to look into the history of this myself. I did give it a go, but it's so vast.

My query can be boiled down to a simple question: What exactly does that heading mean?

And a secondary question: Can the meaning be clarified in the table or article? (Not by me.)

Please forgive me for any failings of procedure.

Gateteller (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The main article (Barack Obama) gives a summary in running text, but the article Early life and career of Barack Obama has the information in a table. In America, a "public school" is state-funded.  Perhaps you are confused because the term is used differently in the UK.  A private school requires payment by some individual or organisation for someone to attend.  There is no secrecy about the information.  How could this be made clearer?  Possibly by linking public and private?   D b f i r s   09:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The difference in meaning in the UK wasn't the problem. It's the lack of clarity in the heading itself. Whether it relates to the funding of the education or some kind of lack of disclosure. Funding was my first guess, but I could see that there was an ambiguity that could lead people to believe it was telling them something else entirely, especially if they were actively looking for that kind of thing.

Could "Type" have an asterisk which leads to a footnote directly under the table saying "educational funding" or just "funding"?

Maybe "Funding" could be added to the column heading. Gateteller (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The appropriate place for such discussions and suggestions is on the talk page of the article, so in this case Talk:Early life and career of Barack Obama. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm sorry about this -- and sorry for forgetting to thank the earlier respondent. I just don't have time at the moment to go back and learn how to get into the talk pages and relearn the way to use the code etc to do that (I did all the tutorials but I've forgotten) and it's a such a huge article and very daunting. I only have time for this type of comment right now, so if someone else isn't able to take it up and clarify that heading, we'll just have to leave it for the moment.

Thanks anyway. Gateteller (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone familiar with the America school system would be confused, and only someone looking for conspiracy would see those words as having another meaning, but I've found an appropriate link for each. Are there any other articles that use a similar table?   D b f i r s   11:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is a classic example of terminology inexactitude on Wikipedia. In the UK, a public school is in fact private and fee-paying.  What Americans would call a public school is in the UK a state school.  It's a trap we all fall foul off when editing by forgetting, or being ignorant of, possibly different meanings outside our own environments and why we should link when confusion is discovered. Nthep (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. That's what I pointed out above.  I've now linked to clarify for those of us on this side of the pond.  Wasn't it Winston Churchill who first used the term "terminological inexactitude"?    D b f i r s   16:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I wanna translate articles from English to other languages and vice-versa.
Hi! I wanna translate articles from English to other languages and vice-versa, but unfortunately I cannot because of the error. There is written that (Left upper side) the tool is restricted and something like that. The whole message is described below: Translate page - Note: This utility is currently restricted to extended confirmed editors on the English Wikipedia, see WP:CXT for more information. Please, help me. Vatanifardin (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That tool is restricted for good reason. We had a lot of problems with people mass posting unedited machine translations to the English Wikipedia. Machine translation loses crucial context and often makes substantial errors. An unedited machine translated article is generally worse than having no article at all. We also had issues with editors translating articles that do not meet the English Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion, such as availability of proper reference material. Each project sets its own inclusion criteria, so the fact that an article exists on another language Wikipedia does not indicate that it's acceptable here. If you are fluent in both English and another language, you will need to do your translations by hand, ensuring to maintain context and retain the information the article in the other language is trying to present, and you will also need to go to the effort of making sure the resulting article in the other Wikipedia is acceptable by English Wikipedia standards. The same is true of translating an English article to other language projects. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC).
 * I will add to 's reply that since you have been here for three months,, you will get Extended Confirmed status once you have made 500 edits in English Wikipedia. The point of that is that you might be expected to have a better understanding of English Wikipedia's policies when you have made 500 edits (at present you have made six). --ColinFine (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above, you also need to make sure that you credit the source article when translating it, as outlined at Translation. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for such a detailed explanation.

Vatanifardin (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Ohhh. Forgot to mention. It is about templates in infobox Vatanifardin (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism and protection
Hello. There are two connected pages about Baku Higher Oil School. A month ago one of them was edited. The editor was kidding. How to prevent such actions and how to protect these pages from vandalism? I browsed Internet, and found a passage about page protection. However, I cannot see the word protect on the web page. Please, help me. Vatanifardin (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can request page protection at WP:RFPP. However, there must be an ongoing problem with a page for it to gain protection.  A single instance of vandalism a month ago won't result in page protection.  RudolfRed (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank youVatanifardin (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do make sure that the vandalism has been reverted though,, which can usually be done using the "undo" link next to the offending edit in the article history. Out of interest, you state that there are two pages about the school. One is at Baku Higher Oil School. What's the name of the other one? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Uploading Photo
How to upload a photo when an admin has deleted a photo already? 112.198.75.89 (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If an admin has deleted a photo, it's probably because it was uploaded in violation of the copyright owner's rights. So instead, you can upload a different photo which is not restricted by copyright, perhaps because you took it yourself and are willing to release it. Maproom (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please tell us what photo. Almost every question that does not tell us what the post is actually about makes it impossible to provide a tailored answer. It may be that it was a photo intended to be used under fair use but did not have a proper rationale. It may be that it was an image from the Commons but needed to be uploaded here instead. Maybe it lacked licensing but was actually in the public domain. The possibilities are numerous.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I wanna translate a passage, but I have a problem with infobox.
I started to translate the biography of a scientist, but has experienced problem with infobox.

There is a huge message that appears:

Please, help me. Vatanifardin (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Where did you see that, ? Because although we have a new article on Elmar Eldar oglu Gasimov (well, actually we had two, there was another at Эльмар Гасымов), I don't see any problem with the infobox there that would give the sort of "huge message" you saw, and I don't see that you have made any edit to it. I see plenty of other problems with that article, though, and will probably move it to draft space – I think it is likely to be deleted fairly quickly otherwise. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Now at Draft:Elmar Eldar oglu Gasimov. Just in case there's any confusion, we also have Elmar Gasimov. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Justlettersandnumbers, one of them is dedicated to the sportsman, while the other one is dedicated to the principal of university. It seems that these two passages have confused you. I have a problem in sandbox. I wanted to create a similar infobox (and created), but after a few moments all the text created by me turned into a bunch of numbers and letters. Could I paraphrase and explain the issue?

Vatanifardin (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Additionally, please delete the word draft. It seems someone forgot to delete the word draft from the heading. Vatanifardin (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Ohhh. Forgot to mention. It is about templates in infobox Vatanifardin (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Ohhh. Forgot to mention. It is about templates in infoboxVatanifardin (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the az:Elmar Qasımov (Eldar oğlu) article in Azerbaijani Wikipedia? --CiaPan (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I looked at your sandbox before anything else, . It's about someone called Fardin Vatani, and it doesn't have an infobox. What I was asking is where you saw the messed-up mixed-language infobox about Elmar Gasimov Eldar that you have quoted above – it doesn't appear ever to have been in Draft:Elmar Eldar oglu Gasimov, which when I posted earlier you had never edited. And no, I'm not at all confused by the different people called Elmar Qasımov, they are clearly distinct. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines
Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and I must say it is not a user friendly experience. I don't even know how to write on someone's Talk page. I keep getting notices that my article on Makari de Suisse doesn't adhere to the guidelines but I followed all of the guidelines when writing it. It's not advertising or promotion. Can I get assistance on where I can make improvements? Also, I've tried to add photos several time and the page doesn't accept them.

Thank you!

Maya Mhbrown102 (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello. I'm sorry you haven't had a good experience. You can write on a user's talk page just as you wrote on this page; if you look at the article edit history, there is a link to the user talk pages of anyone who edited it.  Regarding the article, it appears to be a basic company listing; it will need independent  reliable sources indicating how the company is notable. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You appear to have a conflict of interest with respect to this company. That's another not-particularly user-friendly WP policy to wade through (along with WP:RS etc.), but the specific paragraph that you need to read is here.  Bromley86 (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC).

Improvements
Why does it seem difficult to post an article titled Quantum Existence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allyhall321 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I can tell, no one has ever tried. There is no article on Wikipedia by that name, nor has one ever been deleted. Nor is there any current draft by that name. Nor have you specifically ever made any contributions to any article with any name similar to "Quantum Existence". At least not under this username. It is possible that such an article was renamed and later deleted, my checks wouldn't find that. You could start such an article, but first check for the various existing articles which mention that concept. There are several. If you go ahead, I suggest that you use the article wizard to create a Draft. DES (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Confused about section headings in "Appendices" (notes, references)
Hi, so this is the version I originally had written:, and after discussion in IRC with a more experienced editor this is what the article currently looks like (Specifically see §§ 6-8).

I'm still confused about why what I had was unclear before and was hoping someone could explain the WP:MOS to me because I thought I understood it. Based on WP:CITESHORT, which was linked in WP:FNNR, it's okay to have a section called "References" where you have the full citation information for any references which you referred to with shortened footnotes. Specifically I was basing my formatting off. It's unclear to me the benefit of changing the citation footnotes to read "References" and the references to read "Further Reading."

I think perhaps I also had complicated things in this article because I separated out important articles which I referred to often (in shortened footnotes) and which I wanted to group together for the readers' convenience from other references which I cited maybe once or twice. So first I want to clarify that having a section like this is okay. It's not a prototypical "Further Reading" section because I do refer to these sources with in-line citations, but I didn't want to drown out the most useful references with the full bibliographic information for everything I cited which would have happened if I used only shortened footnotes and then had all the references' bibliographic information in a single section.

I realize I might not be super clear at the moment with what I'm asking; I'm just very confused as to the "right" way to name these sections. Thanks for any advice,

Umimmak (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow that is an article and a half, congratulations. I'm not sure why the section headings were changed like they are either.  I'd go with WP:FNNR as the guideline and have:
 * footnotes as you already have using notelist
 * references using reflist
 * The sources used in References if you have used shortened footnotes. I would:
 * a) bullet the list rather than indent, and
 * b) put all the sources in here. At the moment some of your shortened footnotes link to Armstrong's works that you have in the "Selected works" section so clicking on the link is a bit of a lottery as to where you end up in the article. If this means some appear in both sections I don't think this is a problem.
 * Links to books you think add further information but you haven't used in the references or footnotes.
 * Nthep (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * a) bullet the list rather than indent, and
 * b) put all the sources in here. At the moment some of your shortened footnotes link to Armstrong's works that you have in the "Selected works" section so clicking on the link is a bit of a lottery as to where you end up in the article. If this means some appear in both sections I don't think this is a problem.
 * Links to books you think add further information but you haven't used in the references or footnotes.
 * Nthep (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nthep (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks . All of the works I have in the "Selected works" section are also referred to in shortened footnotes, so if I had them both under References and Selected Works it would be completely redundant (except for the link to Lilias Armstrong bibliography. I know that WP:FNNR suggests the Works section should go above the "See also" and the "Notes and references", but could I maybe have two subsections of References: "Selected works by Armstrong" and "Other references"?


 * Something like::::
 * * explanatory footnotes
 * * citation foofnotes
 * * explanatory footnotes
 * * citation foofnotes
 * * citation foofnotes


 * Also to clarify the explanatory footnotes (what I had previously had in a section called "Remarks on transcription" should be in a subsection under References? The s aren't really references, per se.


 * (P.S. Thanks! This is my first article, so I'm glad it seems to look mostly decent on your end) Umimmak (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't separate the sources into two parts, Armstrong and non-Armstrong. If her own works have to be cited then their place is among the sources, the alphabetical listing of the sources will almost separate them anyway.  If those are the only contents of the "Selected works" section then that section is superfluous and can be replaced by a section simply called "Works" with the link to the bibliography article. "Works/Selected works"  sections are meant to be part of the text i.e. the subjects most notable works and discussion about them, not part of the references.
 * You can put the Footnotes at level 2 before the References, as discussed, if you wish or put both at level 3 under an overall level 2 heading "Notes and References", there isn't a preferred style so it's really down to what you prefer.
 * One other comment, about bundling references and citation overkill. This is very much personal preference as I'm not a fan of bundling references so, for example, in my opinion her appointment to Reader isn't a major enough point to require four references even if there is a fifth with a different date. For major, possibly controversial points, then more than one citation is needed/desired but not for small stuff. Nthep (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * With respect to your last point, if the sources were all in agreement I'd only have one source but since there disagreement among the sources I figured it would be best to just present all the information. That said I think I made that footnote slightly less cluttered by adding another sentence. Umimmak (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Can a new user get help editing?
the page title: List of Micronations Entry to be added: 7OD Satanpope (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Micronations is an area that is continually spammed by people trying to add their pet projects. If you have some reliable sources (in short, newspaper articles), then put those in your request on the talk page and someone will add it.  Bromley86 (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Creating Articles
Hi, I wrote an article using the article wizard about a week ago, but when I search for it, Wikipedia says it doesn't exist. How do a make it public and published? Crystal Blue (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Crystal Blue, welcome to the Teahouse. You created Should we change our number system? two days ago (three in some time zones). Do you refer to that? It was deleted with rationale "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Duodecimal". Deleted pages can only be seen by administrators like me. It looked more like an essay than a Wikipedia article satisfying Neutral point of view and Verifiability. If you want a copy then I can post it to User:Crystal Blue/sandbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Poisons in Alternative Medicine

 * Anybody want to help me on my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Poisons_in_Alternative_Medicine

I need constructive criticism and advice. It'd be great if someone adopted me.

I don't want more people to be slow poisoned cos of Alternative medicines. I hope this page will give people the info to learn about the Truth about Alternative medicines. Userbaba (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * See the section above, where the topic has been discussed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk)

I have added the video. There is no actual debate on the Bhasmas page if bhasmas contain mercury. Other than a religious anon claiming that Bhasmas are created by the almighty through people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNo9NeMFAzc

Will my page survive and evolve or be deleted? (Poisons in Alternative medicines)
I am very dumb now cos I got lead and heavy metal poisoning due to ayurvedic medicine. I don't want this to happen to others. So, I'm creating a page called "Poisons in alternative medicine". I can't write or research well cos I'm very retarded. I will write as well as I can. Maybe I will also post it in Skeptic Wikis. Will someone on Wikipedia be able to help me. Will the page survive. Userbaba (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, ! I'm happy to tell you that I think that what you want may already exist (and so you may not need to write a whole page for it)! If the draft you are referring to is Draft:Poisons in Alternative Medicine, the information you seem to be looking for (that Ayurvedic medicine can contain heavy metals and cause heavy metal poisioning) exists on the Ayurveda page, which you seem to have an interest in the information being on. Here is a quote from the Ayurveda article (lede, third paragraph, fourth sentence):
 * "Close to 21% of Ayurveda U.S. and Indian-manufactured patent medicines sold through the Internet were found to contain toxic levels of heavy metals, specifically lead, mercury, and arsenic."
 * As for the Bhasma article, which you also seem to have an interest in the information being on, I can't find solid evidence of Bhasmas sometimes containing heavy metal poisoning. However, there is a discussion on Bhasma's talk page regarding whether or not this information should be added to the article.
 * If you have any questions, please let me know, and I will try to help.
 * Thanks!
 * Noah Kastin (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This video shows the preparation of Swarna Bhasma(Gold ash). Mercury is added in the middle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNo9NeMFAzc at 1:04. The guy pours mercury and mixes it with gold. That is enough proof for me. Userbaba (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Most bhasmas use mercury for purification. I will try to find sources. The bhasma page may contain sources on how Bhasmas are prepared. Userbaba (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Ownership of article
I have attempted several times to edit an article and am instantly reverted by entrenched editors. There is a fairly obvious political slant to the article as it stands. For example, last year, someone attempted to add information to the article, and the information was rejected with the reason "needs better sourcing". 6 months later, I found several reliable sources for the information in question, attempted to re-add it, and was then told it is "not relevant". Goalposts continually change in order to keep the article as biased as possible. Also, this is not a typical "wikipedia is biased" complaint. This is a blatant situation. There are 4-6 long term editors who (if you look at the talk page) have been doing this for years now. You can check the talk page archives (20+) and immeidately see what is going on. Why does no one stop this?

I understand wikipedia has become a political battleground, but is there anything I can do? I am a novice user so I am ensure if I should have an RFC, or if there is some better way to at least bring this stuff to light. I am afraid to list the entry here because I will then be known as a troublemaker and will have even worse problems. 2602:301:772D:62D0:5094:A630:D021:1D2D (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you possibly point us at the article in question so that it's easier for those coming along to quickly glance at it? Thanks in advance. - <b style="color:#ff5d00">NsTaGaTr</b> (<b style="color:#F00">Talk</b>) 21:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to email someone if that's ok. Otherwise it's going to get back that I am the one who sent people to take a look at the aritlce.  2602:301:772D:62D0:5094:A630:D021:1D2D (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You could register an account, and use that account to tell us what article you're complaining about. IP addresses can be traced (sometimes), but registered accounts can't be, unless they choose to reveal their identity. Maproom (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * IP editor, while it would be improper to hand-pick people favorable to your point of view to send them edit a particular article, it is totally fine to mention it here. If some people around an article behave like a mafia and do not want any outside attention, they are the ones who will get in trouble. (But yeah, per Fuhghettaboutit below, take a look at Cromwell's rule.) Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 13:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sunlight is what we're about. If you were to email it, it would still need to be aired openly, so it's no use. Without knowing what this is about, it's impossible to tell if you might have a valid concern or not. I see valid concerns. I also see lots of editors who have drunk the Kool-Aid of "alternative facts", ignore the actual meaning of neutral point of view and WP:WEIGHT (which does not say present both sides of any issue, but says that significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, are included "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"), and want Wikipedia to promote fringe politics, theories and conspiracies. My experience is that about 90% of the time when someone says six editors have ganged up on them citing policy to keep out material, it turns out it's the latter scenario. But Again, I have no idea what this is about, and I can't see any solution that does not involved taking this out of the hypothetical with specifics.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to say it, but I can not 'check the talk page archives (20+)', because you didn't say which article's talk page I need to check. --CiaPan (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on drafts
Where, if any, is the correct place to request feedback on a draft I am currently creating? Sarina Kakusareta ("Sam") (Talk &#124; Contribs) 11:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to User:Sarina Kakusareta/Drafts/soundodger+, simply press the Submit your draft for review! button, and the article will be reviewed by one of the reviewers at Articles for Creation. This may take 2–3 weeks. The Articles for creation process is highly backlogged. Please be patient. There more than a thousand submissions waiting for review. Mduvekot (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I more meant 'feedback, without submitting it' - I don't think it's ready for creation yet, but would like some people to look at it to see if I'm articleing correctly. Is there a place for that? Sarina Kakusareta ("Sam") (Talk &#124; Contribs) 13:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My very brief feedback would be that you need to cite some independent sources that discuss the subject of the article in some depth, . Otherwise, when you do submit it for review, it will likely be rejected as not establishing notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the history section should be written in prose, not bullet points. It also needs to cite sources. Basically, what I'm saying is, add sources! Cordless Larry (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Nonfree book cover image on author page
Greetings, I'm a fairly new editor who recently started the Marcia Joanne Bennett author page. I had a low-res infobox image there including the cover of one of her books, which was recently removed by an editor who said the use was a content violation that didn't require much discussion--so I thought I'd ask here, where such questions are more encouraged. Ms. Bennett was notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but she is a fairly obscure author, and I doubt that her individual books will ever have their own articles. I felt the image added a worthwhile element. The article is certainly poorer for its absence. Is there any recourse here? If not, can you direct me to any resources that describe how such Wikipedia policies are created? Thank you, I appreciate you taking the time! Best, Stevenarntson (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. The comment by was a bit more definite than i would have put it, but Wolfowitz is a very experienced editor, and i wouldn't say the comment was wrong. There is nothing in Non-free content criteria that absolutely prohibits such use, in my view. The key issue would probably be criterion 8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
 * You could ask for a second opinion at Media copyright questions. DES (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DES, I will ask over there! Best, Stevenarntson (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I asked for help on my talk page
Dear Teahouse. Would an editor be so kind to help me with the questions on my talk page. I would like to start editing ASAP, I read the guidelines the whole afternoon and been lurking Wikipedia for a while but have been to scared to edit. Thanks. Andrea353 (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)