Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 646

How do i just write a new article?
I have read a lot on the subject but have not really figured it out, how do I just write a new article and then submit/publish it for review? B Lloyd Reese (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and Welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Creating new articles from a blank start is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia. You might want to work on fixing small errors in existing articles first, to get a feel for how articles are writtne here When you do try to create articles I urge you to use the Article Wizard to create a draft under the Articles for Creation project. There, an experienced editor will review your draft once you think it is ready. Only when a reviewer approves will the draft be moved to the main article space. This avoids the situation where a deletion is requested soon after the initial version of an article is posted.
 * Also, please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article, if you have not already done so. The advice there can be very helpful, in my view.
 * If you still want to go ahead, pick a topic you have some interest in. Then follow these steps


 * First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on verifibility, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your  subject  clearly meets the standards listed there.
 * Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
 * Third,  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 with each discussing the subject 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, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed 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 the case of an editor with a 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 declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
 * Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

How to insert an infobox to an article
Hi friends, I'm a new here. I'm writing my first article, and who can kindly tell me where could I insert an infobox on the right side? Many thanks Cheese Cup (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, even I am new here, I find this helpful... it may help you too. Wiki markup have a nice day :) Red Pen (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, rather than creating an infobox from scratch, it can be easier to copy the code from the infobox of a similar article to your sandbox, edit it until it shows what you need, then insert your modified code into the article.   D b f i r s   11:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha, yes even I do that sometimes ;)Red Pen (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to both of you. I've tried several times to insert an image to infobox person, but always failed. Should I firstly insert a photo file there? :(

124.193.167.38 (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Any image you insert into a Wikipedia article must first exist on Wikimedia Commons. See this helpful article and Uploading images.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It may be easier if you're not familiar with coding to use the visual editor. Once there, you can directly add an infobox using the insert option Wiki sandu (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Help with Reviewing/Re-Submitting an Article
Hi there, I have had an article rejected previously having submitted it. I have made some edits and I would like your help on how to improve/resubmit the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Andersen_(sailing) Many thanksCameronAngus089 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi the article has already been accepted into mainspace, the review process is over and done with. Improvements are done through "normal" editing withot reviews. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like bypassed the review process by moving the draft into mainspace himself, . Cordless Larry (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In any case, additional sources are badly needed, . See Talk:Kim Andersen (sailing) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 11:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC) ‎


 * Thanks all, I will seek to make sure the neccessary amendments are made.CameronAngus089 (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Protecting a page i usually edit
Hi, i would like to know how can i protect a page i have been updating. I have noticed that anonymous users have been editing the page with wrong info. Some adds wrong codes and ends up ruining the output. Page title goes by the name of Kerala Blasters. I am not the creator of the page, but have been adding accurate info to the page. It will be great if someone let me know how can i protect that page from vandalism. :)Koko Koizumi (redgoodkid) (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have protected the article for one week; requests for protection can be filed at requests for page protection. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What does protected against vandalism mean?
Some pages when i try to edit it says "This page is protected against vandalism". Can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolSkittle (talk • contribs)
 * Hello and welcome. That means that due to other users vandalizing the page or otherwise editing it disruptively, that it has been protected from editing to stop the disruption/vandalism.  If you wish to make an edit to a page and cannot, you should post a request explaining the change you want to make on the article talk page; click the "Talk" tab at the top of the article, then edit the page that follows. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You can also click the "View source" tab and follow the instructions. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What I can do with Yandex-translated article?
Kees Andrea it's translated with Yandex I used GoogleTrans at both articles Builder8360 (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

How to let winkipedia know a lie is written about someone
Hello I was compelled to join winkipedia because someone brought to my attention a lie that has been added to my husbands info. I am outraged. Please tell me how to contact them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cagnolino1994 (talk • contribs)
 * Hello and welcome. I'm sorry to hear that.  I'm not sure what article you are referencing, but if there is incorrect information in the article, you should first post your comment on the article talk page(click "Talk" at the top of the article, then edit the page that comes up) and it will be seen by any other editors that follow that page who could act on your request.  Wikipedia is a volunteer project editable by anyone, so things like this can happen unfortunately, but are easily corrected.  If you wish, I would be willing to look at the issue if you state which page it is.  You don't have to if you don't wish to, just a thought. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Wikipedia articles should always be based on what reliable published sources say, which isn't always that same as what the subject would like them to say. But concerns such as yours are taken seriously. Please look at WP:BIOSELF for how you can proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The link to SELFPROB is red... I'd fix it but I'm not sure what page were you trying to link to (lol) –FlyingAce✈hello 14:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably WP:SELFPUB. I've corrected it. Alex ShihTalk 14:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I meant WP:BIOSELF, and have now fixed it. Thanks, and . --ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I assume the article is James Farentino, which you've edited to add some commentary which is itself not acceptable here. As was commented above, we're only interested in what published sources say and not your personal view of things. However this case is complicated by the fact that neither of the sources quoted in the article is currently active (one just defaults to a homepage while the other returns a page with no useful content). I've found an active source which reports the event, so I'll link to that and change the wording slightly to reflect what the available source says.  Neiltonks (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Dead WSJ links
Can you please investigate all the edits that Bender the Bot made from March 12th/13th to the 15th here and fix all the online.wsj.com links by changing the "https://online.wsj.com" links from "https" to "http" (The S was shoehorned into "HTTP" by him) and the the rest of the links them back from " https://www.wsj.com " to " http://online.wsj.com "? They're currently dead links that redirect to nothing but "login" or "unavailable" pages instead of articles. 1.165.123.152 (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Can you please... 1.165.123.152 (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello IP editor. What links in what articles, please? The English-language Wikipedia has over 5 million articles and many of them cite the WSJ. See Preventing and repairing dead links and Link rot for advice on how to deal with this. You can help, you don't need to wait for others. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of having to see one dead link and change it back, so I'm just asking you to investigate this guy's edits from March here and change the links back. 1.170.246.9 (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Bender the Bot is an automated script, or bot. Those edits were authorized by This bot approval. The general intent is to change every outgoing http link to https if the destination supports https: as WSJ normally does. I am not sure why those particular links are not working properly. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said, they redirect to nothing but "login/sign up" or "page unavailable" pages instead of the articles themselves. Look at some examples in this discussion. 1.170.246.9 (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I confirmed a couple of examples and fixed one, just to see if the fix worked. I suspect a temporary glitch at wsj.com. i have raised the issue at WP:VPT which is the best place for technical issues. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I have found an example. https://online.wsj.com/articles/SB119764674563829575 gives PAGE UNAVAILABLE but http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119764674563829575 redirects to https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119764674563829575, so does work.  Mduvekot (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you,. Please post any examples in the VPT thread WP:VPT so that the more technically inclined editors will see them and this will perhaps be resolved sooner. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What about a bot investigation? There's also links that are changed to "https://www.wsj.com/articles/?????????.html" and turned into unavailable pages too. 1.170.246.9 (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to investigate about the bot. We know what the bot was doing -- I linked to its task approval above. At the time it was doing it, those links worked. The remaining question is why the links don't work now, and what, if anything, we need to do about it. I suspect a temporary, or perhaps permanent, change at the wsj site is involved. I posted at the Technical pump, the place for such issues. The link to that posting is above. Feel free to comment there. This is not a malicious change, it is some sort of glitch, almost surely on the wsj end. We  may need to adapt to it, but there is no point in making mass changes until we learn what is truly needed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How about getting a bot like InternetArchiveBot to undo all of Bender the Bot's edits from March 12/13th to 15th? That needs to work out. 175.193.247.64 (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure why my bot is being mentioned here. It's not a bot to revert other edits.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 14:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This is now open for discussion at Bots/Noticeboard. —  xaosflux  Talk 04:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Are email addresses listed on wikipedia kept private?
Hello, I am a recent member of wikipedia, and I am wondering about email address privacy on wikipedia. If I add an email address to my account, is the address itself kept private, or is it listed publicly? Thanks! KENW-Mike (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to Wikipedia If you enter an email address in your preferences it is kept private and is not listed anywhere publicly  -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 15:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Great news, thanks for that Time! KENW-Mike (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * However,, the "email a user" function allows other editors to send emails to you. This does not in itself disclose your address, but (1) it allows people to send mail to you and (2) if you answer to such mail you will disclose your address to the recipient. So while your address is not publicly accessible, it may not qualify as "kept private" depending on how you understand that. Tigraan Click here to contact me 07:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tigraan, I appreciate the clarification. My concern is not so much for other wikipedia users, I just don't want my email address to be available to the crawlers.  198.59.190.202 (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What should be added as references if not news articles, interviews, etc. what exactly are the acceptable references?
In our submission, the article is said to have unreliable references. the references we submitted were a newspaper article, Lok Sabha TV presentation, a documentary,interview, a few more news coverage articles and facebook page. please suggest what is wrong with these references, and what should be omitted.

a few links of references that were attached are shared.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/several-trees-across-delhi-and-counting/story-6AHmKWM63kaRUdnLaVkzgJ.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT-Cktz-GN8&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lNz2HHL-5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68EnP_h26TU Treesforlife132 (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, . Depending on what article and content you're talking about, there may be additional requirements for sources beyond simply having a reputation for fact-checking and integrity. Also, Youtube videos are often highly suspect in general. Finally, given your username, you seem very likely to have aconflict of interest with regards to Trees for Life (the apparent subject of the edits you're discussing). I strongly suggest you read that link, as well as WP:UNAME, as usernames representing a group or organization are a violation of our policies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . The issue with Draft:Give Me Trees Trust is not only that some of the sources cited are unreliable. The review states that the coverage in most of those sources consists of brief mentions, which doesn't meet the significant coverage requirement to demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Selecting 'notable' references
What are some approaches to finding and documenting 'notable references'. Any help is appreciated, and thanks for your time. ESCNNET (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question confuses a few things. It's not the references that are notable. The topic of the article that you are writing is (or is not) notable. But a topic is notable because of references. Specifically, the references need to have two things: First, they need to discuss the topic of the article in significant detail (ie. a short news item is less than ideal, whereas a book with hundreds of pages that discusses mainly the topic you are writing on is better). Second, the references need to be reliable (ie. personal blogs by non-experts are very bad sources, while peer reviewed academic journals are extremely reliable). In sum, find many sources that actually discuss the topic in detail instead of just brief mentions. Find these sources among reputable publishers (professional newspapers or magazines, academic publications). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

thanks for your contribution - very clear & helpful. ESCNNET (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

"See Also" Guidelines
Can anyone point me in the direction of a guide about creating/contributing to a "See Also" section in an article? I'm sure there's some info about that around here somewhere, but I can't seem to find anything. Thanks! CeraWithaC (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . You can usually find guidelines and policies by typing "WP:" followed by the name of what you're looking for into the search box, and you will be redirected to the right place. Try WP:SEEALSO in this case. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

My article on Mercia Deane-Johns is showing as a draft.
Hello, I have just posted an article on actress Mercia Deane-Johns which is now showing as just a draft. There were issues with disambiguation as it contains over 100 links to other Wikipedia articles but this is now resolved. Can the article which took weeks to write now stand?Novak123 (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Novak123. Looks like it was moved to a draft by User:Jennica, and at this point I think it was probably the right move. First off, the draft currently does not meet our minimum requirement for inline citations on articles which are biographies of living persons. You probably want to check out our tutorial on referencing for beginners for a guide on how to do this.


 * Secondly, basically all of the images that were in the draft (I have removed them) appear to be copyright violations. Taking a picture or screen shot of a motion picture doesn't make it "yours" since it is a faithful recreation of someone else's original creative work, and therefore the original copyright extends to these recreations (see also Screenshots). To include images you will need to find ones that are appropriately licensed, so you may want to check out our tutorial on finding images for more information. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The article contains puffery ("A slender, energetic woman") and other stuff that doesn't fit the manual of style. I can try to clean it up but at this juncture isn't ready for be in the main space. Moving it into draft space isn't anything bad. It just means it can be worked on by others.


 * Here are some links you can see to improve: MOS:BIO (Manual of style for biographies); WP:REFB (Referencing for beginners); WP:PUFF (Puffery essay); and an article that was deemed a "good article" so you can get an idea how a biography article is supposed to look: Rachel McAdams. --Jennica ✿ / talk 12:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the `puffery` and added 8 citations and 8 external references. It is my first article in nearly 5 years. Is it taking shape and could it now go in to the main encyclopaedia?Novak123 (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Novak123Novak123 (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Not yet. You have a lot more work to do.  "She says ..." needs an indication of which reliable source reported the quote, and you need many other in-line citations for statements made in the article.  IMDb and YouTube are not reliable sources.    D b f i r s   17:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel a bit disheartened having put so many hours in to writing the article and then seeing it published and then unpublished. I remember writing a short piece on peace campaigner Barbara Grace Tucker in 2012 - it was refused four times on grounds of lack of `notability`. There were very few references to the campaign which had a media blackout on it. That particular article is still on Wikipedia. Maybe the answer is to just write a stub. Novak123Novak123 (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm burning the midnight oil again! - for the umpteenth time in a row. I added on some citations and deleted the "She says..." stuff. Am I getting there with this article? Novak123Novak123 (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

For reference:
 * Hello, . This looks significantly improved, but still in need of work. Here are some points, in no particular order. Some are only my opinion:
 * After the initial sentence which gives her full name, always refer to the subject by her last name, never by her first name (except inside a marked quote).
 * Minor roles should generally be omitted. Only list her more significant roles, and use words like "including" "among other parts" to indicate that the list is selected, not complete.
 * If there is a link to an article about a TV series, film, or other work, you don't need to included such details as the company that produced it -- people can find that in the article about the show. Simialrly a plot summery is not needed beyond a general indication of genre ("police drama", "romantic comedy", or the like), again the details should be in the linked article.
 * Omit adjectives and phrases that express a judgement, such as:
 * (who says it is constant?)
 * (who says it is vast?}
 * (who says it is a gem?)
 * (how many people loved it, and who says so?)
 * (who misses him?)
 * (who says it is memorable?)
 * Such phrases can only be included if they are quoted directly or indirectly, and supported by an inline citation.
 * The IMDB is not a reliable source. Please find a better one. Even the subject's own web site would be better, but any review that lists her as an actress would do for the purpose you have cited IMDB.
 * Please correct the format of the external links. I did the first three as examples.
 * Also, please read WP:ELNO and remove those external links which do not significantly help the reader, or are primarily promotional. Wikipedia is not a web directory.
 * Please provide more detailed bibliographic data for your cited sources. The title of the article or page being cited is always required. When available, also give the date of publication, the work in which the source appeared (name of newspaper, magazine, or website), the author's name, the date of publication, and for online sources, the accessdate (the date you read the source and certify that it was as described. This helps in tracking links that go dead).
 * Use a somewhat more formal tone, please: terms or phrases such as, ,
 * The paragraph which starts seems to have a lot of name dropping, and many mentions of films that Deane-Johns was not in. It should be trimmed or better removed entirely
 * Why is it significant to this article where Guinevere Jones was filmed?
 * Titles of plays, TV series, and films should be in italics. Titles of songs and TV Episodes should be in "quotes".
 * Where there is an article about a play or film, link to it as I did with The Playboy of the Western World.
 * I hope thes points will be helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It's 5 in the morning and I have made several more amendments as suggested including extra citations and making the tone more `neutral` or objective. Overall I have reduced the text from 2,200 words to about 1,500 words though reducing it much more might made it look like a `stub`. Am I close to getting the article in the main Wikipedia? Novak123Novak123 (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The article I created Mercia Deane-Johns was moved to drafts because of problems with puffery, disambiguation, lack of citations and lack of neutrality. I have corrected all of this and directed the article in to the main encyclopaedia. The disambiguations – dabs – have all been corrected. The article is titled Wikipedia:Mercia Deane-Johns – can this be simply named `Mercia Deane-Johns`? Novak123Novak123 (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a suggestion tool?
Hi again. I want to find a page that has loads of things to edit. Is there a tool to find pages in need of repair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolSkittle (talk • contribs) 19:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. See Backlogs. You will find articles with plenty of issues, like no links, typos, no categories and just about anything you might like to fix. You can also click on the random article button in the upper left corner of your screen. Chances are many of them will have issues that need fixing. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: here is the backlog feed I use with links to all categories of articles in need of attention. I'm glad you are interested in helping out in that area; as you will see, it needs a lot of attention. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

how to add a photo to an article?
Hi, I would like to add a photo to an article I'm working on. How do I do that?Dstampley (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Dstampley. If you mean how to add an existing, free photo to a page (e.g., one already uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons), then the mechanics of placing it for display can be read at the Picture tutorial, but the most basic markup is Name of image.extension . If you mean how to upload a photo for use here, that is exquisitely context-dependent. What photo?; of a living or deceased person?; taken by whom and under what circumstances?; when?; was it published or unpublished and if published in what, when?; in what country?; with any explicit details of copyright status?; and on and on. However, I have in the past posted here a sort of primer, covering some of the ground rules, that I'll post below in the hope it might be informative, but if you provide contextual details a much more tailored answer can likely be provided. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Any image you find you must assume to be fully non-free copyrighted, and cannot be used here unless you have affirmative and verifiable evidence of copyright status that makes it usable here. This excludes a vast cross section of images you find on the Internet, and through a Google image search.
 * 2) Usable images are those which are either in the public domain, or bear a suitably-free copyright license (meaning the image is copyrighted, but is permitted to used on a very unrestricted basis, that is as free or freer than the licenses borne by most of Wikipedia's content). A list of suitably-free copyright licenses can be viewed here.
 * 3) "Public domain" is often misunderstood as meaning publicly posted or publicly used, which have little bearing. It means that the copyright of the image has been affirmatively released by its owner into the public domain (e.g., the owner so states in relation to the image), or it has passed into the public domain because of some situational status, such as that it was not subject to copyright in the first place (e.g., an image created by a U.S. federal employee during the scope of his or her duties), or because of timing, coupled with publication status—which can be summarized as the image being:
 * Created/photographed prior to 1897 (whether published or not) = PD.
 * Published before 1923 = PD — ''but only in the U.S. Wikimedia Commons images must be suitably-free also in the country of origin, so for foreign images, you must check its source country's copyright rules, and if not PD there, it can be uploaded to Wikipedia, but not to the Commons.
 * Published after 1923 and up to 1977 without a copyright symbol = PD
 * Published between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright symbol and not registered since = PD
 * Published from 1923 to 1963 with a copyright symbol and copyright not renewed = PD
 * Unpublished and created/taken before 1923 = PD 70 years after author's death (so the author's identity must be known).
 * Unpublished and created/taken after 1923 = too complicated to get into.
 * 1) Images that meet the above standards should be uploaded to our sister site, the Wikimedia Commons, and not locally, so all Wikimedia projects have access to the image. Images at the Commons can be displayed here natively.
 * 2) There is a strict and limited exception to the above, which is that non-free images can be used under a claim of fair use, but they must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria. Such images cannot be uploaded to the Commons, but only locally (to Wikipedia). Rules of thumb for that are also complex and I don't think it would be useful to go into them unless you respond with specifics of what image you are looking to use, and it seems a fair use exception might be applicable. Just note one exclusion that covers a lot of terrain: For the most part, non-free photographs of anyone who is alive cannot meet fair use standards at all.
 * 3) You can use an advanced Google search to try to locate suitably-free images. Go to Settings → Advanced → usage rights → Free to use, share or modify, even commercially . Flickr is also a ripe place to search for free images, but please be aware of "license laundering".
 * 4) You might try the "FIST", Free Image Search Tool.

Upendra Niraula उपेन्द्र निरौला
why my name is not visible or appear on wiki search ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upendra Niraula (talk • contribs)


 * , your user page is visible at User:Upendra Niraula. If you look at it you will notice that I have nominated it for speedy deletion.  Wikipedia is not a place to advertise yourself.  If you are notable, someone will create an article on you at Upendra Niraula.  However, in what you have on your userpage, I see nothing to indicate you are notable. John from Idegon (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have speedied the page based on your nomination, as well as on the basis of it appearing to be a copyright violation., even if this was suitable for posting here, you can't post copyrighted content here without verifiably releasing the material into the public domain or under a free copyright license compatible with the free copyright licenses borne by most of Wikipedia's content. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Text in italics
I saw on one page text unnecessarily in italics. Should this be fixed? Also I would like to know how to add text in italics on mobile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolSkittle (talk • contribs) 23:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

How do I revert an edit?
I'm wondering how to revert a vandalistic edit on a page. How and where can I do it. I'm on mobile.Bugg Bulborb (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

what is the minimum requirement to create a page?
I would like to create a wiki page on Co-living as it is an emerging trend. What kind of content would be required for it? Dev098 (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:N. Also please realize that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promotion of anything. John from Idegon (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@John - got it. As a wikipedia user I would always use Wiki pages about various brands to learn more about them. Now that I am looking to be an editor, I was curious about why some brands have wiki pages while some doesn't. Also apologies for repeating the question. For some reason I never got any notification that my previous question was answered, so I thought I'll ask again. Once I realised that the previous question was answered, I've edited this question to ask about something else. Dev098 (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You've never asked another question here. John from Idegon (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As to brands,, in some cases it is simply that no one has chosen to create an article on a particular brand. In many cases, one brand may be notable while a competing brand may not. Or an article on a non-notable brand may sneak through when it should not have, but articles on similar non-notable brands are noticed and deleted. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 09:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Desisgel - thanks for taking the time and explaining it. Really appreciate it. Hopefully other members also learn the same way of answering.Dev098 (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@john - Please scroll above I've added my signature to my previous question.Dev098 (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Having once had an article marked for deletion, I would say the main requirement is that the article be of general interest or notability, backed up by several good cites. Happily, another editor rescued my article by adding appropriate cites to show the article was of importance.D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Are wikilinks appropriate in extended quotations?
Are wikilinks appropriate in extended quotations, particularly from scholarly sources? For e.g., see my change of even date to article Kava General observations. After I had made my change, I realized that a dozen or more technical terms could have had wikilinks. So, should we put in wikilinks to help the non-technical, or assume that if you're reading a technical discussion you are familiar with the terms?D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No. In general you should never put a wiki-link inside a quote, long or short, . See WP:QUOTE, and MOS:LWQ which says: If you think a reader might need a term explained via a linbk, then include it in prose near the quote, before the quote if possible, and link it there. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

How to search for "meta" pages ?
Hi, I have some trouble finding information on how to search for "meta" pages (those starting with help:, wikipedia:, and maybe others [are there other kind of X:Y pages ?]), and while I'm sure there is a help page describing how to search for help pages, I have found myself in some kind of predicament. So, is there a way to easily find these pages and search through them rather than through content pages ? Thank you very much. 37.166.255.56 (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Click on the magnifying glass in thee Search box at the top of any Wikipedia page. This will take you to the Search page.  Under the main search box there you'll see three links: Multimedia, Everything and Advanced.  Click on Advanced to see a set of tick boxes for all the Wikipedia namespaces.  HTH  Rojomoke (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, IP editor. Wikipedia is made up of many namespaces. These are denoted by a prefix (except mainspace, the actual encyclopedia. It has no prefix.) Help can be found by placing Help in front of your topic. For example, if you want help with templates, search "Help: Templates". That will lead you to Help: Template. Policies (and many other things) are in the "Wikipedia" namespace. So to find the guideline on reliable sources, search "Wikipedia: Reliable sources" which will lead you to Reliable sources. If you wish to discuss that guideline, Wikipedia talk: Reliable sources would be where you want to go. I hope I understood your question and this was helpful. John from Idegon (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Publishing my first article
Please some one help me. each time I submit my article I found it rejected. someone help what exactly should I do to get my article published. every time I modify it and publish it again but no success Cesilia Mambile (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , this post here is the only edit your account has made. Can you provide us a link to the article in question? If it has been deleted, perhaps you could ask the administrator who deleted to put it back as a draft so you can work on it and you can get help with it. It's impossible to tell you where you are going wrong without some idea of what you've done. John from Idegon (talk) 06:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, please submit your article through the articles for creation process. Your deleted contribution appears to be a personal essay and covers an article that already exists. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 06:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

How can I make a new page?
I have noticed this there was a link to "Googolhedron". However, there isn't a page called "Googolhedron". Basically, a googolhedron is a regular solid with a googol sides. When I tried to make a page about it, it got deleted immediately. Please either make the page called "Googolhedron" or answer me why the page should not be made. Thank you. Xu Zijun (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. You can make a draft and submit it to articles for creation, so that an experienced editor can determine if a standalone page should be created, or maybe information should be proposed to merge with polyhedron. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 06:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and thank you for wanting to help improve Wikipedia. Creating a new article is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, and I always advise new editors to get experience with smaller edits before they attempt it. Please see your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation of page as referred to published topics (although published by same author)
Hie I'm writing here to request for help in my created webpage (Jerejak Island) or (木寇山). It is found that the content created is similar with the e-newspaper articles, although the author of the article is same as the author of the wikipage created. Currently the content have been locked and nominated for deletion. May I know how to recover the content and how to cite that the article is under the agreement of author for publishing purposes?Jjaction2017 (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi please be aware that en.wikipedia.org is the English Wikipedia, where there already was an article about Jerejak Island. Your article 木寇山 was written in Chinese and should therefore go to zh.wikipedia.org. --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I have a question
How many articles do you have?2602:30A:2E00:83C0:E0FB:947:70A0:EF3A (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The en Wikipedia currently has articles. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 11:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Boer War Poem By John Gilmartin
How do I insert a pictureMarcaini (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse.  Before you think about pictures, you need to establish that the subject has been written about in WP:Reliable sources, and you need to cite those sources to establish WP:Notability.  If you are unable to do this, then it would be better to find somewhere else to publish the poem.  By the way, the spelling is "Boer" not "Boar", and it is better not to add entries to the disambiguation page until the article is published.  In general, pictures should be uploaded to WP:Commons with the appropriate copyright licence.   D b f i r s   06:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * ... later ... Thank you for correcting the spelling. You need to read WP:Referencing for beginners for details of how to add in-line citations.  A giant image of a newspaper article is not appropriate, but the newspaper can be used as a reliable source to establish notability.    D b f i r s   12:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

sandbox review
Mctplt (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)I am new and have an article in my sandbox. Is anyone available to give it a review?Mctplt (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * For reference: User:Mctplt/sandbox
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Not a bad start, but there is much work yet to do before this would be ready to be an article.
 * First of all, I am not sure that it yet demonstrates notability. That is vital. See our guideline of the notability of biographies and our specific guideline on the notability of authors. You want multiple, Independent published reliable sources that discuss the subject in some depth.
 * When relating past events, write in the past tense, please. This should be a prose article, not a timeline.
 * Sources must be published. A source such as is not acceptable.
 * Use proper sections I have converted several of your headers to section headers as examples.
 * After the opening sentence where the full name is given, always refer to the subject by last name, never by first name or nickname.
 * As per WP:DOB, do not give an exact birth date unless it is sourced, and has been already widely published outside of wikipedia, or published by or with the consent of the subject. Even then, the year is all that is really needed to put the subject in context.
 * Do not list all the author's published books, much less all editions. It is excessive and unbalances the draft. List only the more well known ones, perhaps with an external link to a bibliography page on the author's web site or elsewhere.
 * When listing ISBNs, use ISBN
 * Quote and cite some reviews of the subjects work, published by reliable sources. If such reviews can be found, of course.
 * Do not use online searches as sources, the search results may change without notice, or even be different for different users. Use the pages to which the searches lead.
 * Read Referencing for Beginners.
 * Do not use trademark or registered trademark symbols.
 * Links to sites outside Wikipedia should go only in source citations, or in an "External links" section near the end, not in the body of the draft.
 * Never use another Wikipedia article as a cited source. It can lead to circular citation, and in any case Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source. You can wiki-link to other articles where they are relevant, but they are not sources.
 * There is more, but that will do for a start.
 * I take it this nis an autobiography. Those are discouraged. if you do chose to move ahead with this, be extra careful with notability, neutrality, avoiding puffery, and proper sourcing. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comedy:
The Teahouse has a link to 'Articles to Improve' and 'Suggestions'. So I joined, where one of the ways to participate is to place a project banner on the talk pages of all articles within the scope of the project. I wanted to get involved in this project, and added my name to the participants' list. I've updated about 50 pages so far.

Question. Can I find someone to oversee what I have been doing? Although it's mundane and simple, I don't know if I'm doing this properly. Thanks in advance. B'H. MichaelAngelo7777  (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello ! I've went over these edits, your positive approach looks really good. I think it'd be better if you can be more specific about which areas of comedy articles you would like to involve yourself in. The tagging looks fine so far, although appears to be slightly random. Be careful to not over tag too many articles. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 04:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks so very much ! I would like to let you know, your experience and alacrity are much appreciated. Also I seem to be quite confused. Apparently, I am under the impression that the very first item on the task list here: WikiProject_Comedy is implying that every talk page in Wikipedia that has anything to do with the topic of "comedy" are to be tagged. This is obviously wrong. How do we tell which talk pages may be tagged, and which to avoid?? Here is the first task:  Place the project banner on the talk pages of all articles within the scope of the project.  I didn't know I was tagging too many articles! Sorry! B'H.  MichaelAngelo7777  (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Is deleting out of date content from a page possible?
Hi all. I would like to edit the article page for Farrer & Co as it includes a paragraph regarding an out of date case about the Rupert Murdoch phone hacking case. As it stands, the paragraph is not resolved with that happened (it doesn't appear to have been updated since 2012) and paints a living individual (Julian Pike) in a damaging light, despite the fact that he was later cleared at a tribunal. I think explaining the whole situation to a standard that doesn't unfairly affect his reputation then becomes so long that the article is more about that specific case and individual rather than the firm itself. Is the best option here to just delete it, with the above explanation? EHicks93 (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think it would be better to offer sourced closure than to remove sourced and appropriate content. But this is something that should really be discussed at Talk:Farrer & Co, or perhaps at the BLP Noticeboard. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 11:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh do please provide an actual link to the article or page under discussion in future. Thanks. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 11:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, another welcome to Teahouse! It looks like you may have conflict of interest with the article based on your edit history, but correct me if I am wrong. Since that claim is properly sourced, it should not be deleted as long it is a neutral summary of what has happened (I have re-arranged the sections to improve readability). Rather, please post the update in your own words, and provide a link to reliable source that backs up the updated information. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 11:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello DES -- Sourced closure is a difficult task. When the topic falls from the interest of the press, there may be no closure. EHicks93 makes a good point. Perhaps a test flight of this sentence on the Talk:Farrer & Co, "Since 2012, the matter has fallen from public interest, without further news." Isn't there any published news about the result of the tribunal?
 * I face the same conundrum with a company that makes lots of promises (Forward-looking statements), few of which are ever followed up. The news of the announcement makes the press; failure to follow through never does. Rhadow (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Alex Shih -- It appears EHicks93 has disappeared from the editor rolls in the last half hour. Hmm. Rhadow (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi both, thanks for your help so far. This is the page I'm referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrer_%26_Co Would it be acceptable to move it to the specific case page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal EHicks93 (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Rhadow - sorry, I'm not sure what that means? EHicks93 (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , what do you mean by ? is a registered user, since last October, never blocked. S/he doesn't yet have a user page, but there is no requirement that any editor have one?
 * You are correct that followups to well-publicized incidents can be hard to source. But that is the nature of the world and of Wikipedia. There is probably some source out there, although possibly not. I would be reluctant to include text like "Since 2012, the matter has fallen from public interest, without further news." without doing as full a news search as i could online at least. But again, this sort of discussion really belongs on the article talk page(s). DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * -- the links to EHicks93 turned red on my screen. I took that to mean there was no user of that name.  If I am wrong, I beg pardon. As to followups, it was only my suggestion. I shan't complain further. Not here anyway.  Regards Rhadow (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A red link for a user name, such as User:EHicks93, only means that there is no user page of that name. It could mean that no such page has ever existed, or that it was deleted. Many editors, mostly but not all newer editors, do not have a user page. Some very experienced editors prefer not to have one. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

template search
i'm looking for a template that i saw on a user page. i can't remember the name of the page, or the name of a template. it said "if this user does not respond in a timely manner, remember, we are all volunteers." or something like that. The garmine  (talk)  17:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The page WP:VOLUNTEER expresses this thought, but it sounds like you were looking at someone's own expression of this sentiment, perhaps as a userbox or using ombox or one of its relatives. Something like:


 * or perhaps you want something fancier?  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  17:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The following article had been rejected
The following article had been rejected under the review, "Too suggestive of an advertised business profile". i've attached a paragraph from the article, please suggest the changes in language or sentence formation as an example of what should be correct?

"Give Me Trees has voluntary unit teams in several towns and villages across India. The teams put in all their energy and resources in preservation of the peepal tree saplings till such time that it becomes an independent tree. Give Me Trees has worked on the planting, education, promotion, propagation and preservation of the peepal tree ( Ficus Religiosa ). Give Me Trees has planted the largest number of peepal trees in the world, out of which, 12 million are still surviving. It has been working on the survival of peepal trees for the past 40 years. Give Me Trees grows its own nurseries of peepal trees and plants them on government and public land all across the countryside, villages and urban spaces. Give Me Trees was registered as a charitable trust on October 13, 2011. "

- this is a part of the passage. please suggest changes or give an idea about what kind of language would be most appropriate.

Thanks!

Treesforlife132 (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.


 * It looks like you are referring to Draft:Give Me Trees Trust.


 * Your draft has many problems, only one of which is the promotional tone. As a specific example of promotional language, let me suggest that "all their energy and resources" is not encyclopedic.


 * Before your article is likely to be accepted, you need to incorporate in-line reference citations that specifically support each substantive statement you write. References are needed from independent, reliable sources so that the notability of the organization can be established. References to social media sites with self-generated content, items written by or on behalf of the organization, and mere mentions of the organization in the press do not help support notability.


 * Once the promotional tone and references have been addressed, we can begin to work on the less critical issues such as incoming and outgoing links from the article.


 * I realize that it can be very frustrating to have your hard work rejected. Please understand that the task you've chosen, to create a new WP article from scratch, is quite a difficult task, since there are many policies and guidelines that must be followed for an article to be accepted. A bit of advice that we often give in the Teahouse is that new editors should spend some time improving existing articles and learning the ropes before attempting to create a new article. After you've made 100 successful edits, things start to make more sense.


 * I see that the issue of conflict of interest has already been raised on your talk page. If you are motivated to create this article because you are connected with the organization you are writing about, you face additional challenges in being able to write neutral language.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  17:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . Before editing further, please comply with mandatory paid editing disclosure if you are compensated by the Give Me Trees Trust in any capacity—as a principal of it, trustee, employee, or otherwise. This is not difficult. You can fill out and post to your userpage the template Paid ← (please visit that link for an explanation). Sorry, but the draft is an utter panegyric. Almost all of the content needs to be rewritten, and much of it needs to go entirely. It is filled with evaluative and glowing praise of the subject that has no place in an encyclopedia article. It is also a copyright violation (e.g. of here). Even if you own the previously written text, you cannot use it here, and maintain the non-free copyright it automatically bears by having been previously published, without an explicit release into the public domain or under a suitably free copyright license, compatible with the free copyright licenses borne by most Wikipedia content. Those parts of the copyrighted content in the draft that could be suitable as the text of an article (precious little in my view) would have to be released through a verifiable process, to be used here. See Donating copyrighted materials. Until that occurs, they must be removed from the draft. I am running, and almost never would leave the draft untouched after finding this, but do not have time to address the copyright issue in the draft right now. I will later today, if no one else does. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if what this user is doing is helpful?
I am doing some recent changes patrol and this user keeps popping up as he is added information to a lot of tv series about picture formats. Wasn't sure if this is helpful information or not [] NZ Footballs Conscience  (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'm not sure that adding the format makes a huge difference, but it doesn't appear to be vandalism or bad faith editing either. I would be inclined to leave the edits, but if you want further guidance you might ask WP:WikiProject Television and see if they have any guidelines about it. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)