Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 633

How Do I get Editors to Weigh in on a Page Up for Deletion?
Hi! I am a new editor here, and one of my first pages I am working on needs some input from experienced editors.

The page was created as part of the Women in Red project last year. Recently, one specific editor has taken issue with it and recommended it for deletion, now there is a discussion open, but few editors visiting the page to weigh in.

Perhaps I am naive, since I am new, but I think the page should live. How can we get more editors to visit the page and give their opinion on whether or not this page should be deleted? It seems wrong to delete it without an even-sided discussion.

Here is the link to the page. Please help if you can, or do let me know how I can get more eyes on this.

Thanks in advance for all of your help! A-voice-for-women (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there, a good way to get more editors involved is to look through the pages edit history and see who has contributed to the article in the past and then contact them on their talk pages explaining what is going on. Also be sure to get involved in the discussion yourself as well and who knows you may be able to convince the person who flagged it for deletion that it is worth keeping. Even if you don't win this time around though don't be disheartened sometimes unfortunately that is just the way it happens but there is a lot you can contribute to. Regards EvilxFish (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, EvilxFish, I appreciate the info and encouragement! A-voice-for-women (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Trouble with WP:CSD#G11
I've been building a page for Accelo on Wikipedia as a fun side project (Draft:Accelo). I'd love some tips on what can be removed or modified so that It's not overly promotional. Indycould (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Your draft article is completely filled with promotional language, and almost every sentence needs to be rewritten from the neutral point of view. If you are having trouble seeing this, then perhaps you are too close to the topic.


 * Consider this bizarre sentence fragment, which is referenced to highly promotional content on the company's own website: "After success with the Department of Planning and Environment (New South Wales) and other Professional service oriented SMBs (Small and medium-sized enterprises)." The article is full of similar jargon and promotional phrases and completely lacks neutrality. Nearly ever sentence has similar problems. Your draft should neutrally summarize what reliable sources with no connection to the company say about the company. Promotional language in Wikipedia's voice is forbidden here. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Cullen! Indycould (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

How to change project rating for a particular article
Hi, first I would like to thank all the hosts for their continuous support without which new editors would struggle. Various articles are rated by projects in terms of their importance and quality. For a few of these they seem quite outdated, for example a "start class article" is actually full of information and is clearly not a "start class". Also for some I feel as if the importance rating is wrong as yes in the past it was a very niche area but today it is more mainstream. Is there a way to get the project ratings changed? More precisely is there a way to get the ratings changed for the chemistry project? Thanks EvilxFish (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with an article's rating, then be bold and change it. There is no "rating committee" or formal review process for any rating below "Good Article". shoy (reactions) 18:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks if I change the rating on the page will that also update it on the project page or will I have to do that manually? EvilxFish (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about the boxes that look like "Chemistry articles by quality and importance" on WP:CHEM, those templates get updated automagically by a bot once a day or so. No need for you to do anything. shoy (reactions) 18:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks I made the change I wanted to in the template at the top of the page. Obviously it hasn't updated on the chem project page yet but will wait a few days to see if it worked. The help was much appreciated, regards EvilxFish (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Help on adding information to Bobby Osborne's existing page
Valerievalpal (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)I have information with references to add to the existing Bobby Osborne page. I would like to give the information to someone for review. Some of the information is so old that I have pdf's for references. Whom may I send this to for suggestions and review?Valerievalpal (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse.  The best place to discuss additions to the article is on the talk page of the article.  Copyright material has recently been removed from the article, so please don't add that back.  At present, the article has no references at all, and this is unacceptable on Wikipedia, so please help to find some, but try to find independent WP:Reliable sources.    D b f i r s   20:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why Fred Barstenstein's published book and Billboard Magazine are not good resources. So many of Bobby Osborne's resources are very old. There has to be a way to resource this information. Please help if you are willing. Thank you so muchValerievalpal (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * By the way, I do appreciate your response!Valerievalpal (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If Fred Barstenstein has published a book on Bobby Osborne then that would be an excellent reference, but the book is presumably still in copyright, so text cannot be copied from it. Information should be stated in your own words, then each fact should be referenced to the appropriate page of the book.  See WP:Referencing for beginners.  I'm not sure about the status of Billboard Magazine but if there is an article about Bobby Osborne (not just an interview) then please use that as a reference too.    D b f i r s   20:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Semicolons
I've noticed using semicolons seems to be frowned upon here at Wikipedia. How many semicolons is appropriate for a page-length article? 4-5? 20? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seymour Richards (talk • contribs) 20:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no rule about the number of semicolons, but simple sentences are often better because they are easy to read. If a sentence requires a semicolon, then use it, otherwise avoid that punctuation.    D b f i r s   21:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a draft
I recently wrote my first article draft and was wondering where I can get feedback on what to improve in order for the article to get approved? Taylorlaties (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse.  I've added a reference section to User:Taylorlaties/GameChanger Products, but you need to find independent WP:Reliable sources to establish WP:Notability.  A company's own website and publicity material does not establish this, and should be used very sparingly.  There is some advice on your talk page about a possible WP:Conflict of Interest.    D b f i r s   19:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your response. Did you move my article from my userspace into a draft space? I just want to make sure it isn't deleted while I am working on it. I also went and found more external references. Any more feedback is much appreciated!!


 * It was who moved it for you, and also added a submit button so that you can submit it for review when you have finished adding references.    D b f i r s   21:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Article creation help
Can I get help making an article about The Bedroom Tour Playlist? It's notable because it charted in the Billboard Hot 200 and one of its songs went gold. I could also add some things about its critical reception. Note: I tried making the article before but it got reverted. Ish Ya Boy (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Bedroom Tour Playlist was not deleted, however it has been converted into a redirect. The versions you edited did not demonstrate its notability. You should first read our guideline on the notability of music. You would also do well to read Your First Article, Wikipedia's Golden Rule, and referencing for beginners. You will need them all if you are to go forward. You are, in effect, trying to create a new article, which is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia. I urge you to use the [[WP:WIZ|article wizard to create a draft under the articles for Creation project. When and If that draft is reviewed and approved by an experienced editor, the reviewer can move it to replace the current redirect, and merge the history.
 * here are some steps to follow in this process:
 * First, review our guideline on notability, our specific guideline on the notability of music. Consider whether this playlist clearly meets the standards listed there.
 * Second, read Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
 * Third, Disclose your connection with the subject, if any, in accordance with WP:COI. If you have been or expect to be paid for editing or edit as part of your job, you must follow WP:PAID. This is absolutely required, omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing. 
 * Fourth, Gather sources. You want independent professionally published reliable sources that each discuss the music in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop, an article will not be created. Sources do NOT need to be online, although it is helpful if at least some are. The independent part is vital. Not press releases, nor news stories based on press releases, or anythign published by the composer/performer him- or her-self or his/her affiliates. Not strictly local coverage. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the org in detail. But those significant sources are needed first.)
 * Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in your case with the conflict of interest it is essential.
 * Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
 * Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is rejected, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
 * Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. The approving reviewer will do the rest. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm making a draft of it. Ish Ya Boy (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

My first edited article
Well, I was, this is my first edited article when I'll did it.Gregory R (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * What? HillelFrei  • talk •  22:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's pure gibberish. Gregory R, what in the world are you talking about?...if anything. --Thnidu (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * my understanding is that Gregory R received a notification from the Teahouse after their first edit and subsequently came here The Verified Cactus 100% 21:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So, that's what brought them here. But that string of English words
 * Well, I was, this is my first edited article when I'll did it.
 * is not English. These pieces make sense by themselves — "Well", "I was", "this is my first edited article", "when", "I'll", "did it"— but nothing bigger does. --Thnidu (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

About registration and citation formating
Hi guys, I have two small questions, hope it's not too much (and forgive me for my poor English)

1. If I register on Wikipedia, can I carry all my edit history made on this ip-adresse account? I know it's a small thing, just wondering if that's possible...

2. Is it possible to at least somewhat automate citation formating using wikipedia tools? I use Zotero personally in writing papers in my native language. Does Wikipedia has some native tool similar to Zotero? Or do I have to format citations manually in all their entirety?

Thanks in advance! 194.67.216.222 (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! On your first question, creating a new account would have its own edit history and edit logs (for example edit count). So, no, your edit history will still remain associated with your ip-address, and not with the new account you create on wikipedia. Onto your second question, yes, automatic formatting can be done in order to cite any information. In the edit mode, just click on to the "cite" button on the bar which appears at the top. After that, just paste the url of the citation in the bar. After that, click the "generate" button, and then the "insert" button. Bingo! if you check it out, you would be able to see most of the information filled up, including the web access date, authors names, and such. However, on occasions, you have to create it manually, and on yet other occasions, few fields are not filled up.(However, it would work in most cases.) Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that you can export citations from Zotero in Wikipedia format, IP editor. See Citing sources with Zotero. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's also a host of others that make citing easier and automate the process to some extent. See Help:Citation tools. Refill is very useful and Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books is invaluable. All of them require human twiddling to make their output proper though.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Can I use images from another language's Wikipedia?
Can I use images from, say, the Finnish Wikipedia in an English Wikipedia article? If so, how? The Verified Cactus 100% 21:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again The Verified Cactus. Of course, if the image you see in use at another language Wikipedia is actually an image from the Wikimedia Commons, then it will work here natively, just like it works there. But if the image has been uploaded to that Wikipedia alone, there is no way to display it here without separately uploading it here (or to the Commons, if it bears a suitably-free copyright license or is in the public domain). Although people sometimes upload images locally (to this or another language Wikipedia) that are suitable for the Commons, if they are not suitable for upload there, that usually means the file is either being used under a claim of fair use (which has different rules on different Wikipedias), or (unfortunately not uncommonly), are copyright violations there. So you can't assume just because an image is in use elsewhere that it would be proper to upload here. If the germ for your question is a specific file, if you tell us what it is and where you want to use it, we can probably tell you whether it would be okay for upload here or at the Commons. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 00:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Michael Repoulis Article
Hello, Please guide me on how to improve and reach wikipedia standards on my article 'Michael Repoulis' Thank youDance of a Nymph (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . The draft in question is User:Dance of a Nymph/sandbox/Michael Repoulis, which is completely unreferenced. The draft article cannot be accepted in its current form. Please read and study Your first article, and follow its excellent advice. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . Have you read Articles for deletion/Michael Repoulis, as referred to in an AfC comment? Based upon that discussion, it appears this individual is not notable and so no article is possible. The only way to rebut this is to address the basis for deletion which was lack of evidence of notability; that is, for you to find published, reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of him, and that write about him in substantive detail—and then cite them in the draft. The three links in the prior sentence are often hard to unpack—often result in new editors looking for and citing sources, but not useful ones. This page may help clarify this issue. Please be aware that no quantity or quality of prose will help; only finding the existence of these types of sources, and substantiating that existence by citing them. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

need advice on the formatting
Hello Editors, I'm working on my sandbox....Draft:Dennis Blalock, and have come to the point that I need to ask for more help on the formatting. Would appreciate advice on how to improve it...and especially how to add a couple more items to the Content box that had been there but were deleted somehow...?? Can't seem to add them back. I hope to add a topic of 10 "testimonials" (with a link if that will be permitted) and also links to 6 interview "videos"...which I think are important to adding much insight into his art and other philosophies. I have been using the 'visual editor' so far. I am waiting for the copyright license number before starting to add the 24 images (or can I start that job before that? The captions are already there.) Of course I probably should get the text approved first. Looking to hear advice on how to proceed at this point.Elisabet Stacy-Hurley 23:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabet Stacy-Hurley (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is where us nerds will be comfortable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisneyKyles12 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Dennis Blalock seems to be a fine local artist and you are writing a very interesting article. However, to have a Wikipedia article an artist has to already be well known and have made a major contribution, not just known locally or have had a few shows overseas. The criteria are at WP:ARTIST. He does not seem to have had the type of museum exhibits or gallery representation that meets these criteria. Before you go any further you need to see if you can find two or three in-depth articles about the artist in publications that are completely independent and are not by family or friends. They need to show that he meets the criteria. The rest of the content and formatting do not matter until this is satisfied. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

'Michael Repoulis' Biographical Article - Please Advise
Hello Cullen, I have been trying to write a biographical article on Wkipedia 'Michael Repoulis' and it keeps getting rejected. Can you please have a look at it and advise me. Thank you.(Dance of a Nymph (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Please see the section above, where an answer has already been provided. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I found lack of information on RSU Wikipedia page
Hello sir,

I just found Raksha Shakti University on wikipedia and there is no any valid reference.
 * Wikipedia Page URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raksha_Shakti_University Deadline43 (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Much of the unsourced material has now been removed. Is there a question about the existence or status of the institution?   D b f i r s   08:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Who's the boss?!
Hi there, I'm brand new to Wikipedia, just started adding content this month. I'm a bit puzzled by how this online community works. Hoping someone can clue me in.

I received a "talk" message from someone, didn't introduce him/herself, but wrote: "Hi! I've undone some of your edits." Never asked who I was, what I was doing, why I was doing it, just started taking down the content I had added. I engaged in dialogue, wanting to understand how the guidelines (there are no firm rules, the pillars tell me) are applied and met with what seemed like snarkiness and even hostility (hey, what about the treat others with respect and civility guideline?!)

So is there some hierarchy here? Are there Wikipedia "police" who engage by immediately removing what you've done? Am I now shunned or something? How does one enter this community?

Thanks! Kdndocent (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. No one really is the "boss" here at Wikipedia. There are more and less experienced editors, but the experienced ones do not have any more powers or rights at normal editing than anyone else. FYI is a quite experienced editor.
 * A relatively few editors are "admins". I believe something like 1,300 of them are currently active. They are trusted with a few extra tools, but have no extra rights in editing.
 * It is not common for editors to introduce themselves. An editor's signature on a talk page includes a link to that editor's user page or talk page, usually both. From there you can learn a good deal about the editor, and you can also see a list of all of that editor's edits. If you want to learn about who is talking with you, that is the usual way.
 * The statements of on your talk page were accurate. I haven't (yet) reviewed your edits in detail, but uncited content can always be removed. (Personally I prefer to use a cn tag first, but that is not required.) As for "likely to be challenged" that does add to the need for a citation, but once any content has been removed (or tagged), it has [been] challenged, and so needs a cite. I have to go, but will return to comment further here in a few hours. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . I've read the talk page discussion. Twice. I can't find one bit of snark there. Nothing at all. And really, quite the opposite. The post you quote the first sentence from sounds like it could have been a prelude to something hostile, but reading the rest of it, I see none. What I see is a really friendly (and informative) series of posts, cluing you into highly relevant information about edits you have been making – edits that do conflict with core policies, guidelines and community norms – without any high handedness involved. What am I missing? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again, . I suppose that the exchange replied to with  might have seemed a bit snarky. But in fact, although Wikipedia's citation conventions are modeled on those of academia, they are significantly different. Things which would be taken for granted and need no citation in an academic paper or book are routinely cited here. Partly that is because in an academic setting one has some trust in the author --whose reputation is on the line, after all -- and so minor points are not cited. Also, Academic conventions  areose in an era of printed on paper publications, where conserving limited space was important. That is not so on Wuikipedia, which has influenced our style. But mostly it is a way to preserve some accuracy and authority when anyone can edit, and no one has credentials. You say that you have a PhD, for example, and i suppose that you do. But there is no easy way for me to confirm it. There has been a prominent case in the past of a person claiming a number of significant credentials here, which turned out to be totally invented -- but this was only found out after he has been a prominent and respected editor for years. So now people pay little attention to an editor's stated qualifications.
 * As for the guidelines, no rules here are absolutely rock solid, but some are much firmer than others. (Well "Do not infringe copyright" is pretty much rock-solid, as is "Don't make legal threats".) Verifiability (a policy and not just a guideline) is one of the more solid ones. It is fine not to cite statements that you think are uncontroversial and unlikely to be challenged. But if someone does challenge them, you need to cite it before restorign it, or convince others on the article talk page that a citation is not needed. (see You don't need to cite that the sky is blue) Often such a discussion will consume more effort than simply providing the citation will.
 * Editors here disagree and dispute one another's facts all the time. People are not "shunned" because of it, nor is reverting or challenging uncited facts considerd uncivil or a personal attack. It is fine to write . It is not acceptable for someone to write.
 * One enters the community by starting to edit, making mistakes, getting opinions on what is acceptable, and learning how this place operates, and how to fit in -- and perhaps eventually making a few changes, by example and persuasion. For example I received a talk page message which included the following when I was new here That felt a bit hostile to me in tone at the time, and if you look at User_talk:DESiegel/archive1 you will see some others, but I wasn't shunned, and i stayed around. (Then there was the author who was so incensed that I added sourced negative comment to the article about him that he compared me to those inmates in the Nazi concentration camps who assisted the guards. However he didn't get much support.) Do feel free to jump in, and if someone reverts to ask why, but if a legit reason is provided, don't take it personally.
 * And finally, internal museum records that are not available to the public are not "published" and so cannot be cited as a source here.
 * Do feel free to ask further questions here at the Teahouse at any time about how to to work in Wikipedia. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In view of your position at the museum, you are probably easily able to publish the information that you hold, then it would be available to be cited.   D b f i r s   08:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , my first edit to your talk-page was ; I'm sorry you did not find it a sufficient introduction. I'm inclined to agree with that my "could you not observe them?" comment could have been better phrased. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Future of user accounts
what happens to accounts of dead users? Sinner (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Nazim Hussain Pak. See Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

What to do in the case of no free photo for an article
If there is no copyright free photo for an article, can I upload a low resolution (151×194) version of a copyright protected photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikshya (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * What article would the picture be for? -A la d   insane   (Channel 2)  21:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * it is not required that every article have a picture. Copyrighted images can be used only if they fullfil all of the 10 provisions of Non-free content criteria. Many images will not pass this test. Images of a living person will almost never do so. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Is it possible for you or someone else to take a photo and release it under a suitable license for Wikipedia?

Mtbu (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

IP adress block, no account creation
My IP is block what should I do now to open my IP? Admin set no expiry date and no account creation.(Hide07 (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse.  You can simply log in using your account, as you have just done.  Why do you need to create a new account or to edit without logging in?    D b f i r s   07:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Hide07 - Perhaps you have been editing from an IP address, and the IP address range has been blocked due to vandalism or some other sort of abuse. Perhaps you have the mistaken idea that you preserve your privacy better by editing from an IP address than by using your newly registered account, which you presumably created due to the IP block.  Actually, you are better off editing from a registered account, and may continue to do so.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with Articles Creation
Hello, I am having a bit of trouble with my draft. I submitted it for review but it was declined. I wanted to know what I can do to change it in order to make it accepted for publication. My draft name is Draft:Dr. John J. Maalouf.

Thank You

Ryanmardini24 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. Based on the message you got when the draft was declined, you apparently copied content from elsewhere to your draft, which is not permitted as it is a copyright violation.  To have an article about this person, you will need to write about them in your own words, indicating with independent reliable sources how the subject is notable. You may wish to read this page for users writing their first article to learn what is being looked for and a basic idea of how it is done.  331dot (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for you're advice. Is there any way you can take a look at my sources and see if they are reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanmardini24 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the sources in your draft, I can say that press releases are not considered reliable sources(which appears to be most of your sources); Wikipedia is not interested in what someone(or their employer) says about themselves, but what others say about them. Basic directory listings probably aren't either(especially if they are user-editable).  331dot (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You will need independent reliable sources that indicate how the person is notable; these criteria list what is being looked for generally. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

How to ethically involve more editors in a discussion?
Is there a way that I can bring more attention to a talk page discussion in an ethical way? I know that there is some form of discussion board somewhere in Wikipedia but could I get a direct link. Feel free to shoot me down if I am doing something not considered tactful. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I take it that this is about Talk:Kombucha, is that correct? You seem to have several editors discussing there already. You have been told that rearranging the layout to more closely resemble other beverage articles is fine, provided that the fringe medical claims are featured prominently (which means they should be at least mentioned in the lead section, in my view). You have also been told that content changes might be more problematical. You have also been advised to make smaller incremental changes. I am not sure what you think additional editors would add to this. If you have a specific issue that you think needs wider input, you could start a Requests for comment, but that really requires a specific focused issue to give a useful result. Also, it is not guaranteed to attract large numbers of editors, you never know. There are many discussion boards and notice boards, but most are for specific issues or sorts of problems, and none seem to really fit this case that I can think of. You could ping editors who have been active on the article in the past to join the article talk page discussion, but be careful not to do so selectively, choosing only editors likely to agree with you. Instead choose all editors who have made significant contributions, or who have made such contributions within a given time frame, say the past 6 moths or past year. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , you can try to put a neutral request (that´s the ethical part, to avoid WP:CANVASSING) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink, something like "I´d like to ask for more eyes/opinions at the Kombucha Article layout discussion." There´s also a Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Beverages Task Force (I swear I didn´t make that up), but it´s been quiet for a couple of years. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the assistance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Why does a "mandala" in the Wiki Rigveda defenition only refer to it as a hymn?
In Sanskrit, as I understand, Mandala means, "circle." As I was taught, it was a geometric representaion of the universe and a tool for meditation - for example, the Buddhists and Hindus often made highly complicated designs and focused on meditation and focus for the particular design - in order to reach a higher form of consciousness. My point being - that the Wiki article refers to the mandala only as a hymn used in the Rigveda (and other vedas), somewhat similar, but excluding the mandala as a tool for meditation - as a representation of the universe (or possibly, multiple) as we know it. I do not claim to know everything, but I would like someone to study if my teaching was incorrect - other sites include the designs as a meditation path. Am I incorrect? Please adviseAv8r67 (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We have an article Mandala. Is it not accurate?  Have you found an error in some other article?  The Rigveda article is specifically about hymns, so you would expect that meaning to be discussed.   D b f i r s   20:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Are some countries not accepted on wikipedia?
An article i contributed on wikipedia "Kang Quintus" the volunteer supervising me on the page has said Nomination of Kang Quintus for deletion and also added articles from Cameroon are relatively rare and the country is under-represented here.I have humbly appeal on talk page for the article but no one has make any comment. I want the article to be review so that i know what is lacking to improve it.

Thanks a lot everyone.Abanda bride (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Ther are no countries which are "not accepted" on Wikipedia. What was said at Articles for deletion/Kang Quintus was that since articles about Cameroon are relatively rare, we need more of them. Therefore the volunteer is reluctant to suggest deleting Kang Quintus, but there do not seem to be the sources needed to demonstrate that this person is notable. If you wish to comment on this, the place to do so is the deletion discussion, at Articles for deletion/Kang Quintus. You might want to read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Our guideline on the notability of biographies before commenting. Basically what is needed is independent published reliable sources that discuss Kang Quintus in some detail. If you can find and prevent several such sources, the article should not be deleted. Otherwise, it quite likely will be. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

edits not working
My business edits will not updateCaitlinhellrung (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. In this sequence of edits you removed a number of source citations, removed some sourced content, and added a good deal of new unsourced content, all without any explanation in the edit summaries or on the article talk page (Talk:City Museum). These changes were all reverted in this edit by , an experienced editor here, with the summary . You then made this edit which removed cited content, replacing it with quite different content, and altered the citation, again with no explanation. That edit was reverted by in this edit with the summary
 * So the problem is not that your edits "did not update", it is that two different editors have reverted them. Following the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, your next step should be to discuss your changes and the reasons for them on Talk:City Museum. Ideally the editors there (including you) should seek a consensus on which (if any) of your changes to make and how. Failing that, dispute resolution is available. But the article talk page is the place to start, Please remember to discuss politely and to assume the good faith of those you discuss with. They should do the same. I have not reviewed the details of your edits nor the sources, and so I have no opinion on the actual merits of your desired changes. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * One further point,, to add to Cullen's and DES's answers: I'm not quite sure what to make of the phrase "my business edits", but I'm guessing that it means you are in some way connected with the business (City Museum) and believe that you therefore have some say in the contents of the article. I apologise if my guess is wrong; but if I am right, please understand that neither you nor the City Museum have any control over the article, and indeed are strongly discouraged from editing it directly. As explained at WP:Conflict of interest you are welcome to suggest changes to the article (preferably with citations to independent sources) but should not make them directly. --ColinFine (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Help Me
hello pls help me to creat the tv series and movies like us.Eduardo.jocson (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry,, I'm not sure what you are asking. If you are asking for help in the difficult task of creating Wikipedia articles, please read your first article. If you are asking about creating TV series and movies, then I'm afraid that the help desk for Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for that question. --ColinFine (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Creating a Page
I commonly watch this tv channel called FE-TV, but I realized there was no page for it on wikipedia, how can I make a page for it?Dylanr2002 (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Writing an acceptable new article is difficult but not impossible for a new editor. You can start by writing a rough draft in your sandbox. Make efforts to improve existing articles, so you can learn how things work in smaller chunks. Read and study Your first article. Gather a list of URLs of independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this channel. Summarizing those sources is how articles here are written. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

User Pages
I have a quick question to ask users of Wikipedia.

How do you put those blocks that are like "This user is a fan of...?" I REALLY wanna put that on my user page! Please respond ASAP!

Thanks,

WarriorsFan30112335 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorsFan30112335 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Please read Userboxes for complete details. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Why was my article deleted?
I submitted an article on a restaurant called Taro and it was deleted, despite the fact that i cited it and have created an article exactly like this before ([franco manca]) and it was not deleted. Stan traynor (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The reason for deleting your article on Taro is explained here. I think you're lucky that Franco Manca has survived. Maproom (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

A moderator (?) is constantly removing my contribution, even though i believe it's legitimate. I tried to contact him three times -he ignored all attemps.
Hello guys, I am a big noob here. I also am not that fluent in English, so forgive me all mistakes.

So I added a sentence and removed another in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project (You can see most recent contribs in history section). I cited 5 sourced in the article+plus I linked 2 russian wikipedia articles about the topic in the edit summary. Then this guy comes along: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel0Wellby_sch and removes my article, writing a post in my user/talk page. No problem, he took it as if i was vandalizing wiki - a mistake! - I thought. I wrote on his user/talk page my objection to his removal, but he plain ignored it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daniel0wellby#https:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FSoviet_atomic_bomb_project In the scope of the next hour I tried to contact him three times, he ignored it, but reverted my attempts to reinstate the edit. You can see the evidence here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:194.67.216.222#June_2017_2

He didn't answer to any of my explanations about why I added my edit. He also didn't provide a reason for removal apart from the standart copy-pasted message.

It really was a frustrrating experience, and I also don't know what to do. What do I so in such situations? Who do I contact? 194.67.216.222 (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * has only made 32 edits and is certainly not a 'moderator'. We don't have moderators, but there users who need tens of thousands of edits to become Administrators, they are the only one who can block anyone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply! But what do I do if someone is continuosly removing my edits? On top of that that person with 32 edits gave me 5 warning about 'inappropriate edits' on my talk page! Can he ban me? Do these warnings matter?
 * 194.67.216.222, I'm afraid you have been edit-warring all over the place, not simply in your dispute with . It's not going to end well. When your edit is reverted the first time, you need to take it to the article's talk page and start a discussion. Do not simply remove material with a claim in the edit summary that you know better or that the Russian Wikipedia supports your view. No Wikpedia in any language is considered a reliable source. From what I can see, virtually every one of your edits was inappropriate—removal of text with reliable references, removal of reliable references themselves, addition of unreliable sources, serious violations of the Wikipedia policy on  biographies of living persons, e.g. . You have been edit-warring in multiple articles, including LGBT history in Russia, Soviet atomic bomb project, Kursk submarine disaster, Ukraine, and Alisher Usmanov resulting in the latter two articles being semi-protected. I strongly urge you to read the guidance at the pages I've linked in bold. Voceditenore (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see you are so butthurt over you loosing argument about Gorky, that you've not only found this question of mine, but also decided to try and write something up. Okay, let's start First of all, you came to this page from another argument with me about Gorky and homosexuality. Hence, I am not surprised that you are opposed to me, even though you are trying to appear neutral, you are doing it very badly. First, all of my edits were sourced. The gorky edit we've argued about was specifically so, because it was about what was written in his specific article, which I read and linked to you, yet you ignored it. Equally so, all the other edits were sourced and cited, as was the edit that sparked my whole contribution.


 * Also, you are a master of strawmens, aren't you?
 * «Do not simply remove material with a claim in the edit summary that you know better or that the Russian Wikipedia supports your view. No Wikpedia in any language is considered a '''reliable source'»'


 * Perfect strawman. You completely ignored 5 articles (not wikipedia articles, just articles) that I provided as a source.
 * «From what I can see, virtually every one of your edits was inappropriate—removal of text with reliable references, removal of reliable references themselves, addition of unreliable sources, serious violations of the Wikipedia policy»
 * I am sorry, who are you to judje them to be 'inappropriate'? Because you don't seem to provide any proof, do you?
 * Not to mention that I was edit-warned 'several times' by the same warner over the same edit.
 * I would argue a bit more, but there's clearly no point since you are apperently just butthurt over our argument over Gorky, and i've done my part in convincing other wikipedians as to why they shouldn't trust your comment.
 * Shame on you. --194.67.216.222 (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, I reverted your edit at LGBT history in Russia (which you immediately reverted) after reading your complaint here and checking your other edits to see what was going on before replying. I then came here to outline the wider problems I found before you arrived at my talk page with yet another unpleasant message. You are of course entitled to your opinions, but your aggressive language when people disagree with you will make it very difficult for other editors to collaborate with or even communicate with you. I suggest you dial it back a bit. Voceditenore (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It's so nie that you didn't adress any of my arguments in my post you replied to, instead you chose to continue with your strawmen. Good luck with that, I ain't gonna spend any more of my time on u. --194.67.216.222 (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is good that you will not spend any more time here, because you were just wasting your own time repeating "strawman" arguments and crude insults. If you really want to discuss, we can discuss.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

My draft has been declined three times, how can I correct it?
Hello, my draft/Joyce Stevens has been declined three times -  1)notability -fixed that I think 2) tone 3) tone again it reads like an 'advertisement'. How can I improve the tone?

Basically I have outlined her public life and achievements and I removed emotional terms like 'courageous' but DrStrauss thinks it reads like an ad. I want to get the draft accepted so I would welcome any help.

I thought I could delete three paragraphs - an introduction summary of Steven's work and two paragraphs of content from her final book summing up her conclusions about women and work.

Do you think this will help get my entry accepted?

Thanking you,

Passionfruitvine.

Passionfruitvine (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The draft in question is Draft:Joyce Stevens. As the second and third declines explain, the issue is tone.  (I declined the first version because it did not establish her notability.)  The draft still reads as if its purpose is to praise Stevens and her work rather than to describe her neutrally.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Please Help
The IP address of this user is block for creating new accounts can any body help to unblock his IP. We will e very grateful to you on your act of kinds. Regards: Hide07 (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * you have already raised this at Administrators' noticeboard. That is the location where this can be discussed and decided, not here. Nthep (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

i am a confussed
how do i am a wikipedia i did not know how for long i do not how it edit do i do That Random Edmontonian (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * thank you if you say how make the wikipedia i am very great That Random Edmontonian (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi That Random Edmontonian. I think you might benefit from taking a tour through the Tutorial and then reading Contributing to Wikipedia. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That wasn't me. My roommate is unfamiliar with Wikipedia (and English, obviously) and sneakily used my account (which was unfortunately open) and typed this out. Sorry. -- That Random Edmontonian (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Can we not create articles that can be accurately cited?
On the Everipedia everipedia page (funny right?), there is a quotation in the article that I would like to cite. "Unlike Wikipedia, Everipedia allows users to create pages about any person, organization, object, or idea that can be accurately cited." Is this true? Wikipedia allows users to create articles about notable subjects. Can this article make this claim? Let me know your thoughts. Jamesjpk (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to add, that on the Everipedia everipedia page about Wikipedia they say this quotation: "This site, Everipedia, is intended to be the for-profit, modern version of Wikipedia." Modern??? What isn't modern about Wikipedia? Jamesjpk (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Everipedia.png
 * Even worse I just found this on the website:
 * OK maybe I'm just a little fired up. Still, Everipedia should be looked at and examined. Jamesjpk (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, and Welcome to the Teahouse. This page is primarily for questions about how to edit Wikipedia, not about Everipedia and how it works. We do not currently have an article Everipedia, although one could be created if Everipedia is notable. Various projects to create variants of Wikipedia have been tried, with some change in the polices and practices that the creators of those projects have thought to be improvements. So far, none of them have been nearly as successful, but that can always change. You would have to ask them in what way they consider themselves more modern than Wikipedia. Anyway, i don't see any harm being done to Wikipedia, nor anything that we need to do about Everipedia. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * First question: I see no reason to doubt what it says. (I doubt that the results will be useful, but that's another question.)
 * Second question: it's a statement of their intentions, and again there's no reason to doubt it.
 * Third question (which I've taken the liberty of reformatting so that the image gets rendered): I don't understand the problem.
 * Overall: there's nothing to get worked up about. If their project works as they hope, that'll be great, we'll have a free-to-use resource even better than Wikipedia. But I'll offer long odds against that ever happening. Maproom (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But they are using Wikipedia content without the required acknowledgement, and claiming copyright to it themselves. Maproom (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So are a great many of the sites listed on Mirrors and forks, and that has been true for years. Individual users whose copyright has been infringed can issue DCMI takedown notices, or could even sue (not likely). Copyright rests in the individual contributors, so there is nothing that Wikipedia (or the WMF) as an organization can do, I am afraid. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In the examples i looked at, they do link back to the source Wikipedia article. They don't provide the proper copyright notice, but their FAQ page says all content is under CC-BY-SA-4.0. I sent a DCMI takedown for a sample article i contributed to, and listed them in Mirrors and forks. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Welcome committee guides
Hey, I was wondering what tools would prove helpful in greeting new users besides Welcome committee? I've been cataloging my edits here, but I wasn't sure what reception it's been getting nor how useful it might be to anyone but myself.- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( ⭐ ) 08:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I am not clear on what sort of tool you are looking for, or what you want to do with it. Would you care to explain in more detail? Personaly I dind welcome to be all that i need in most cases.
 * By the way, you can keep a log such as User:DoctorWho42/Welcoming templates if you choose to, but Special:Contributions/DoctorWho42 is kept automatically, and most of the info could be gotten from that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * recommended I should use Welcome less and instead make the most of the wider range of Welcome templates on Welcome committees. Multiple users, like Murph and, instilled that only using Welcome can prove disruptive and not very helpful when welcoming bots, spammers, vandals, etc. Users like recommended Twinle though.- 🐦Do☭torWho42  ( ⭐ ) 21:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That is something of a matter of taste and style, . I agree that clear cut vandals and spammers should not be welcomed. I don't usually bother to welcome those who do not register and log in. I don't like the larger welcome form produced by Twinkle, and never use it, although I use Twinkle a lot for other purposes. I have been using  Since I was welcomed with it myself over 10 years ago (I keep the original welcome  from  at the top of my user talk page when other content is archived). I find it to be just what I want. But you may use any of the many welcome templates available or even craft your own, if you choose. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

How I can create a New Wikipedia Page on "Kalpana Chawla Memorial Planetarium"?
Hello,

Kalpana Chawla Memorial Planetarium is located in Pehowa, Haryana India. It was established in the memory of late NASA Scientist Kalpana Chawla.

How can i create a wiki page?

Please suggest.

Thanks

A. Gupta 23:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guptaamanladwa (talk • contribs)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Begin by reading Your first article, and feel free to return to the Teahouse with more specific questions. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Published Book
I have a recently published book, and like everybody else am trying to promote it. I created a Wiki page for it, but was immediately deleted, because it was "self-promotion." There are so many thousands of books in Wikipedia. How do they get past this filter? Can I have a friend/author to use their account to create a Wiki page for my book? As per the filter, that won't be "self-promoting."Accidental Refugee (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Why did you waste so much time writing a useless little book when you should have gotten up of your bum and actually get some fresh air?!

Ugh, where am I getting? That Random Edmontonian (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , you are hereby warned to avoid insults at the Teahouse. You may think that was a joke but it is not funny. Stop this behavior, please.


 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Wikipedia is not a promotional platform, and you will get strong pushback from experienced editors for any attempts to use it that way. Please read our notability guideline for books. An acceptable article about a book that meets that guideline will neutrally summarize what reliable, independent sources say about the book. The most common acceptable sources for articles about books are reviews written by professional book critics and published in newspapers and magazines which are well known for reviewing books.


 * It is a bad idea to try to recruit someone else to write an article about your book. In my experience, such an effort will fail over 99% of the time. Instead, work to get your book professionally reviewed in a respected publication, and not by some "pay to play" publication. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Steve smith
I added the template for the 2001 ap all pro first team on Steve Smith (sr.)'s page and even though it showed it, when I collapsed the template on his page, it wasn't bolded and blckened, which is what it  for the 2005 all pro team template. can you help?Vinnylospo (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Vinnylospo. A wikilink directly to the page itself becomes unlinked bold text. See Help:Self link. It failed here because it linked via a redirect. Fixed in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2001_All-Pro_Team&diff=prev&oldid=788583795]. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)