Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 656

Blocking page view
Has Wikipedia any method by which some of its articles can be blocked from navigation for a specific user or a user can block certain pages from his vision? Sinner (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know about your first question(though I doubt it, as any user can read any article) but if a user does not want to see certain pages, they shouldn't visit them. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Does it mean wikipedia has no method to block certain articles from certain user's vision and a user can not manually block certain articles from his vision? Sinner (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would Wikipedia want to do that? It is the encyclopaedia that anyone can read and that anyone can edit (constructively if the edit is to remain).  There is no censorship here (see WP:NOTCENSORED), or with any encyclopaedia that I've looked at in any library.  If you don't want to look at certain articles, then don't download them.    D b f i r s   11:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored itself, not for every user. Any file on wikipedia is not censored, but if you do not want to see some pictures, you can hide them. I am asking a similar question. Blocking articles is just like blocking pictures (and this option exists). Therefore, I am in doubt that wikipedia can have an option to hide articles just like hiding pictures. Sinner (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You could achieve the effect using Content-control software. I'm not sure whether it is possible using CSS.  Perhaps an expert on the Computing Desk would be able to answer?    D b f i r s   12:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * should consider it. Sinner (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As has been stated, it is unnecessary to "block articles". If you don't want to see an article, don't visit it.  No one forces users to visit content they don't want to see. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@, this answer is not satisfactory. No one forces anyone to see pictures that someone does not want to see, then why wikipedia has developed an option to hide images (and I remember you introduced hiding images to me). Articles can be offensive for users like pictures can be. How it can be that we are allowed to hide offensive pictures but not offensive articles? Sinner (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Images can be associated with articles loosely, in that they have a connection to the article, but not always a strong one. If you don't want to see an article on Kate Beckinsale, then just don't go to the article, or click on the link.  It's a really simple process, that you, a living, breathing human being, have control over. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 13:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And, users might want to read about a subject but not see its associated images because those images might offend them. If someone does not want to read about a subject because it offends them, then they shouldn't go to its page. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That's an ambiguous position which had nothing to do with this discussion. The person, Sinner, asked a legitimate question. Addressed to User: 331dot. Think about this objectively. For example, if you tell me "don't turn this corner if you do not want to see what's on the other side." You assume that the person had already been aware of what's on that side. To be fair, we do not have precognition of what will be on that other side of the corner. To tell someone just not to explore, because there are things there that the person might not want to see, is tantamount to to telling that person to stick their head in the sand and never look up at anything. They might actually see something they might not like! Very unfair. Let's give Sinner a break and try to find a constructive answer to a legitimate question. Please. B'H. MichaelAngelo7777  (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all . My only intent is to say "if you don't want to see an article on "Subject X", don't click or open the article on "Subject X".  That I know of, WP doesn't force editors/viewers to consume any specific article.  (*Random article would be the only wildcard, of course*).  If you can't willingly filter your own actions and come to your own conclusions, then that speaks to a completely different matter.  As far as Sinner addressing a question to 331dot; he asked the question and was given an answer, which he decided wasn't fitting his request.  I can't think of any other way to say "no, there's no easy way to do what you're asking for".  Avoiding an article is a much easier process than avoiding images that might be associated with an article.  - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 14:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. Your solution is ambiguous in the absence of some kind of precognatory powers on the part of the user. We must assume that users who want to use Wikipedia and are prudent to avoid content which they may find objectionable are unable to determine what is objectionable without prior examination. Another example. You have two plates of spaghetti. One is covered with spaghetti sauce, the other is covered with red paint. Both plates look the same, but obviously will taste different. If we serve someone a plate of spaghetti covered in red paint - then are we going to blame the person who we're serving the spaghetti to, for not finding red paint palatable? Are you going to tell the person, "well you should not have tasted it in the first place?" That is cruel and wrong. Likewise to expect someone to know what's on a Wikipedia page before that page has been viewed, as to whether or not the person will find objectionable content? Isn't this what you're expecting? It looks to me like this is what you're doing. Instead, why not explore constructive options. Let's determine the limitations that Sinner seeks. I'm only assuming here, but just guessing, I have the impression that Sinner is seeking a family-safe/child-safe/safe-for-workplace version of Wikipedia. Is this so complex, that the only alternative you can come up with is - you shouldn't be visiting here in the first place? I can't believe that Sinner is the first person to raise this issue. This has got to have been discussed many times by other users and editors. What is so terrible about simply determining the criteria that Sinner is interested in, instead of critically saying that the question's not valid and that Sinner should just pre-emptively avoid pages in Wikipedia when there is no way for Sinner to know what to avoid in the first place? Excuse my verbosity. B'H. MichaelAngelo7777  (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I feel like your representation here is different than the question originally asked. The original question was "Has Wikipedia any method by which some of its articles can be blocked from navigation for a specific user or a user can block certain pages from his vision?".  To me, this says "There are certain pages that I don't want to see, how can I stop from seeing them?".  PrimeHunter, below, offered a very simple solution to this - list out specific pages that you don't want to see.  There is no way to intuitively know what specific people do/do not want to view, so it is completely on them to filter their results, whether that be by not visiting those specific articles, or by using the example below.  Your argument of spaghetti with sauce vs red paint is completely nullified, as that would be the equivalent of clicking on an article named Marinara sauce, but instead, WP sends you to an article on red paint.  That isn't the premise of the initial question brought forward, in my opinion.  Anyone browsing WP can find something in any article that they disagree with or find objectionable, but that is different from finding the entire topic objectionable, which is what I see as the driver behind the original question.  Either way, two solutions have now been proposed, and it's up to the individual to decide which road to take.  Happy editing - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 19:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , not visiting the page is not a permanent solution. We can save us from seeing an offensive picture by not visiting it but we have an option to block it, similarly we can save us from seeing an offensive article by not visiting it but we should be given an option to block offensive articles. I know will say,! Do not visit the page but it will not be a solution. Sinner (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I hear what you're saying, and I know what you're going for, but sadly it's the only /current/ solution that I can think of. It might not be the best solution to the problem, but there aren't many forks in this road currently. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 14:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nazim Hussain Pak I'm sorry you find this answer unsatisfactory but that's all I have to offer. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The sort of blocking you are considering has a pre-requisite: either A) the person who does not want to see certain pages knows, in advance, that they do not want to see those pages, or B) the pages are somehow tagged for the type of their content and the blocking decision is based on those tags. For instance, you could probably jigger something up using javascript that would suppress display of pages that appear in a list you've specified or that contain any of a number of category tags. It would be sort of like an adblocker. I was about to say that I personally disagree with this approach to using the internet, but then realized that would be hypocritical: I do use adblockers.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  17:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Place this in to hide Brand, Vorarlberg (random example) when you are logged in:

.page-Brand_Vorarlberg {display: none;}
 * I don't know the precise rules for how pagenames with special characters are encoded there, apart from replacing spaces with underscores. I used my browser to view the html source of Brand, Vorarlberg and found:  (note the comma is omitted). You may have to do the same for some page names. The entire page goes blank including the menus. I haven't heard this request before and will not work on a simpler or better solution. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Number of articles someone wants to block depends upon the user. For example, if I find that I should not read only 1% of wikipedia but this 1% will be more than 5400 articles.

I have a precise and relevant solution for this problem in my mind. Even it is difficult and will need large community discussions but if it is once implemented, it will prove to be best to solve page blocking problem. Sinner (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , Avoiding articles by just not visiting the page is a useless idea and avoiding titles will not help everywhere. For example I do not want to read the page Kate Beckinsale, and I read a phrase in article Len Wiseman ,'He divorced his wife in 2016.' who knows who was wife of Len Wiseman? To discover who was his wife, I shall click on his wife and it will lead me to Kate Beckinsale which I do not want to read.
 * 1) Even I choose I shall not visit 1% wikipedia but who can remember names of 5400 articles? It is impossible!
 * , your solution works but not to needed extent. CSS pages do not have section and subsection options so it is impossible for me to insert names of 5400 articles in my CSS page.
 * I believe 1% of Wikipedia articles would be 54,000 articles. If you want to prevent yourself from seeing certain pages that is your business, as you can do whatever you like with your own computer, but there is no "page blocking problem" here. I think the community would be reluctant to implement any sort of censorship of article content(even if somehow enabled by the user and not Wikipedia itself) but you are free to submit any proposals you wish.  I wish you the best 331dot (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @, you are right, I'm talking about just 0.1% articles. I know community will be really reluctant to implement censorship but my proposal will no affect WP:NOTCENSORED, as it will depend on individual user without effecting community and it can become a new option in preferences as well. But if this option is given, page blocking at individual level will no longer remain a problem. My proposal is

"A new option should be introduced in user navigation menu with title block this article or simply block. Every user will have his own Blocklist consisting of articles someone has chosen to block. If someone finds current article is offensive, s/he will click block and it will be blocked from his/r view. If s/he wants to unblock, s/he can easily edit his/r blocklist." This method will wipe out page block problem at individual level from wikipedia. Although it is very difficult, but it can solve one of greatest problems of users in wikipedia. Sinner (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are free to propose this at the Village Pump in the appropriate area, but I think this unlikely to be accepted. They will likely tell you what you have been told here- that if you don't want to see something, don't go to that page.  Your proposal requires visiting a page in order to "block" it.  Once you find your way to an offensive page, either accidentally or deliberately, you will know not to go there by that method again so 'blocking' it is unnecessary.  I respectfully don't see it as this big problem that you make it out to be. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it can solve one of greatest problems of users in wikipedia is just not credible. The greatest problems of Wikipedia include things like
 * reliability is questioned because "anyone can edit"
 * "anyone can edit" but their edits will disappear if they don't follow a large and complex body of rules that seem hard to understand
 * reaching consensus and NPOV writing can be hard
 * more and more reporting in the real world occurs on new media outlets about which the community has not necessarily agreed on using
 * It is not WP's business to do extra work to hide parts of the encyclopedia that someone has looked at and decided that they don't want to look at again. You are welcome to invest in content blocking mechanisms of your own devising, but I would be opposed to WP investing in such mechanisms.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  11:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , of Maine, respectfully, I have already made a humble statement that we can not remember names of all articles, that we find offensive, or someone else like my son (I'm single) or someone else to whom I want to prevent from browsing some articles even in my absence, how not browsing an article will work there? Although community not considers, it is really a considerable problem. Sinner (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You can and should monitor your child's internet use, and there are tools available for you to use on your personal computer to restrict what sites can be visited. In that way you could prevent your child from visiting a site unless you know about it and/or are present to monitor it. If you have the current version of most computer operating systems they allow you to restrict what programs are used and by whom.  Educating your child on how to use the internet and in what way to is also important.  However, it is up to you to do that, not Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would add that given human nature, telling someone what they can't do often causes that person to go and do it anyway; for example, banning a book leads people to read the book to know why it was banned. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a considerable problem on the internet in general (less so in Wikipedia which is educational). There is no one solution because different people find different material offensive.  I suppose we could have some sort of coding or category so that optional software could block those articles in a particular category, but content changes over time, and we would have endless arguments over what is or is not considered offensive.  In theory, no information in an encyclopaedia is intended to be offensive, just educational, but different cultures view content differently.    D b f i r s   12:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * for this to work for your son also you would need to set up the article blocking on his account as he should never be using your account to access Wikipedia. ~ GB fan 12:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , you are just a user like me and your opinion has no preference over my opinion, I respect your opinion but do not agree with it because the problems you are flagging are collective problems of wikipedia, a user will be able to counter those problems if he feels he is completely safe and I want to become safe, and no one can read a banned book if I burn even the last page of that book, and blocking sites means I should block wikipedia completely, so withdrawing from editing it, that is not an appropriate idea, and interestingly the data connection I'm using operates only wikipedia, it does not operate any other site so I have no threat from other websites. I have a threat from wikipedia so I want to save me from this pending threat. Sinner (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I would respectfully suggest that you leave as you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Theroadislong (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

...I thank all the friends who took part in this discussion, though wikipedia has no option to avoid offensive articles, it should develop such an option, please leave a message on my talkpage if someone thinks I should really leave wikipedia. I don't want to hurt wikipedia and I'm ready to leave if someone thinks I'm really hurting wikipedia....... Sinner (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anyone "wants" you to leave Wikipedia, but we are observing that Wikipedia doesn't seem compatible with what you believe it should be or want out of it. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @, please give me an advice about this matter. Sinner (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All articles are written on Wikipedia by the neutral point of view. It means they can be offensive for someone who dont have an neutral view. Hope you understand that neither you can't change all articles according to your point of view nor you block them. - Smokin' Bears  16:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC) (talk)
 * if you are after a gadget that will add to the list you have started at User:Nazim Hussain Pak/common.css then I would suggest you ask at User scripts/Requests. A button on your own toolbar that when pressed would add the relevant code to your css page and then move you onto another page e.g. your watchlist may be possible but I don't see any way of a gadget like this working without you visiting the page first. Nthep (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't become aware if a page is really offensive to me if I don't open it first, but if I have once opened, I will prefer not to open that page, even accidentally. Therefore, I think it is easy if such a page is manually hidden from my view. I know, I have to open a page first time to know whether its content is really offensive to me or not. I am in search of such an easy method, your suggestion really seems to be helping but please let me know its details and how I can proceed to use this? Sinner (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't help you further. You know what end result you want, PrimeHunter showed you some css code to achieve that, I suggested a place where someone may develop a scipt for you that will make those code alterations for you.  As most people who have responded think what you are wanting is a poor choice then I doubt anyone is going to develop a script unless you put the work into defining what you want to happen and how.  Nthep (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There are third-party sites that will censor Wikipedia for you if you simply want to avoid looking at articles which some might not consider suitable for children: Wiki For Kids or Wikipedia for Schools both provide this sort of functionality, for example. Wikipedia itself isn't going to do this for you. The whole point of Wikipedia is to make information available; it is up to readers how or indeed whether they consume that information. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 11:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a minor point,, but above you stated that when a link is piped such as "his wife", you can't know that the link goes to Kate Beckinsale without clicking on it. However, if you hover your mouse pointer over the link, it will tell you where the link points. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Loving the fact that 'my' Kate is still kicking around, haha. Have we reached WP:DTS yet? - <b style="color:#ff5d00">NsTaGaTr</b> (<b style="color:#F00">Talk</b>) 12:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @, currently I'm using mobile to contribute which has no mouse to hover a page, so I can not know where a link leads. Sinner (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @: I'm single with no son, who will use my account? I'm going in this discussion because I want to solve this problem, forever, I want to get a personally and family safe version of wikipedia. Sinner (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On a phone you should be able to press and hold a link (not tap it) to accomplish the same thing, that's how my phone works anyway. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * His statement was made in regards to your comment of "331dot, of Maine, respectfully, I have already made a humble statement that we can not remember names of all articles, that we find offensive, or someone else like my son (I'm single) or someone else to whom I want to prevent from browsing some articles even in my absence, how not browsing an article will work there? Although community not considers, it is really a considerable problem. Sinner (talk) 7:06 am, 5 August 2017, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)". He, and I, presumed that you were stating that you had a son who was also browsing wikipedia.  Per WP account guidelines, an account should be used by one person.  That's all that was coming out of that statement.  If you were simply using it as a point of further discussion, I missed it and apologize. - <b style="color:#ff5d00">NsTaGaTr</b> (<b style="color:#F00">Talk</b>) 17:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sinner, I don't see it happening. As you can see the overwhelming view is that Wikipedia should remain an open source with information of all subjects available to all.  The best you may get is a volunteer developed script that allows you to hide pages you do not wish to see. I doubt that anything like that would ever become part of the core software and even if it were I strongly believe that the community would not agree to its deployment on Wikipedia. Nthep (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I guess I misunderstood what you said here. You talked about how you wanted a way to prevent your son from browsing some articles even in your absence.  You did say you were single but that does not preclude someone from having a son.  None of this changes the fact that each account would need to set up a block list of articles they didn't want themselves or their children to see under each account and each person needs their own account.  If someone does not log in when they start reading or if they get logged out during the session and don't realize it, it wouldn't work.  Any concept would only work for logged in users.  The only way for you to ensure you don't look at a page is to devise a client side block on certain pages.  ~ GB fan 17:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @, really, but I know everyone should use his personal account, and I have said (I'm single)here too. Currently, only I'm using but want to encounter future possibilities. Sinner (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My mobile provides two options when I press and hold a link a) open that link, b) select text. It does not tell where a link will lead. Sinner (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand what community thinks about this matter. You mentioned volunteer developed script above. I shall feel very happy if a volunteer develops such a script for my use. Is here any volunteer who is ready to develop such a script for me. Sinner (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If it displays the link, it will include the page title, though certainly your phone may be different than mine. 331dot (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @: Its link does not provide title of page to which it will lead. Sinner (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Friends, discussion is not closed. At least suggested volunteer developed script which can solve this problem, which any expert volunteer can develop for me. This discussion will not be closed until we reach agreeable solution. Sinner (talk) 07:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Then you should make a request at User scripts/Requests, although I would imagine any such script will basically be a front-end interface for the CSS fix that PrimeHunter has already explained to you - you will still need to individually list all of the pages that you want to be hidden. As I mentioned above, using a third-party site is probably the only way you are going to get what you would consider a "clean" version of Wikipedia. We are not going to adapt the entire site to fit your individual demands. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 10:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Presumably you're imagining that Wikipedia could implement tagging or block-lists, but it would never work.
 * Wikipedia editors would not in a million years agree on which pages should be on which block lists. Even questions like "is this sexual" are steeped in political, social, and cultural divides.
 * For example, some people would argue that any mention of homosexuality in intrinsically sexual and should therefore be on any block-list tagged with "sex", but others would argue that attitude was intrinsically bigoted, because heterosexual relationships are only considered sexual when the sex act is specifically described. Both those groups of people would insist that the other group was being intentionally difficult just to make a political point.
 * I believe that content-warnings, and content-block-lists cannot be created democratically by a diverse population. They need to be done from particular narrow points of view. That's not the sort of thing Wikipedia is equipped to do.
 * ApLundell (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nazim Hussain Pak who signs as Sinner has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry friends, I'm active. I have made a request there but still there is no response. As stated above, it is very difficult to write names of even 0.1% articles in CSS page. Sinner (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine,, you have made your request. The various opinions in this thread are quire clear. Can we drop the matter on the Teahouse, please? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, Please drop it from Teahouse. Sinner (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles should not be blocked. This is an encyclopedia. Articles are merely the breakdown of information along lines that are generally agreed to be logical. No one has to use an encyclopedia. One either welcomes information or one rejects information. It is a fundamentally incorrect notion to think that some information should be hidden in a compendium of all information. Blocking some articles from view is tantamount to creating one's own truth. Tampering with good information is antithetical to this project. Bus stop (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @, I asked to drop this discussion because DESiegal requested to drop it. I said above This discussion will not be closed until we reach agreeable solution. This discussion has neither satisfied me nor alleviated my concern and that agreeable solution has not been reached. I agreed with because this discussion occupies about 20% of Teahouse. Tampering with good information is antithetical to this project, yes, but which information one considers good depends upon him. It is possible that you find an article good but it may be offensive for me. Blocking an article for just one user will not affect the other, so no effect on encyclopedia. I have a lot to go more into this discussion but let this thread be archived as an unresolved problem, but if someone wants to proceed, I'm present. Sinner (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not clear. I referred to "good information". That is open to interpretation. By "good information", what I was trying to say was "information that complies with our policies and guidelines". Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @, yes, information satisfying wikipedian policies is good, but at least, one does not feel some information is appropriate for him, for any religious, cultural or personal reason, if we continue to discuss this discussion, it has and will become burden for Teahouse. I have realized further discussion will not yield any solution. If someone has any question, I'm present. Sinner (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The breakdown of information into articles is artificial, in my opinion. But all of an encyclopedia's information cannot be in one very long article. To block certain articles is to trim knowledge away. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a compendium of all knowledge. We gravitate towards certain articles and stay away from certain articles. I don't understand the impetus to have articles blocked from our view. Bus stop (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @, please see it as a humble statement. All the users of wikipedia are human, member of same group. There are two types of users, constructive and vandal, community blocks users which want to harm it and lets constructive users to operate to improve wikipedia. I see wikipedia articles like wikipedia users. All pages in wikipedia are articles. For me they are of two types constructive and offensive. As vandal users can harm wikipedia so they are blocked. Like this the articles that I do not want to see and are offensive just for me, I want to block them just for myself as community blocks vandal users. I know you are completely neutral from your point of view so all articles are equal for you but for me Mosque and Brothel are not equal, I would like to block Brothel for my account. I am trying to find an appropriate way to block such unwanted articles for my account. If some article is blocked for my account, every user except me will be able to see and edit that article. Sinner (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Several 'solutions' have been proposed in this matter: 1.) Don't visit specific pages that you /know/ will offend you, 2.) Edit your CSS file with page titles that you know you don't want to visit, 3.) Submit a request for someone to create a script, allowing you to block pages from your view once you visit them and determine that they are offensive, 4.) Use an off-the-shelf program to setup filters for your browsing experience.  Wikipedia can not read your mind or know what you as an individual want to see or not see.  Secondly, you keep stating that the matter is closed but unresolved, and that further discussion will not yield any solution, and yet here we are, continuing the discussion. Happy editing. - <b style="color:#ff5d00">NsTaGaTr</b> (<b style="color:#F00">Talk</b>) 17:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @, these points are already in my mind. The discussion is continue because it is still being discussed. Sinner (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Anachronisms in Entertainment Media Page
Recently reading a Wikipedia page, which verbosely describes a contemporary motion picture from around six years ago, I discovered on the talk page this:
 *  ... has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. ... .

While viewing the actual film, which depicted a story which takes place at a time before satellite technology, television, and the discovery of DNA, I was put amiss by certain anachronisms in the plot. So, my question is, since the Wikipedia description of the film is quite verbose, it seems slanted to have not mentioned any mistakes such as the ones I pointed out. In fact, I question if it's but inordinately positive. Since the talk page blatantly requested (to anyone and everyone) that the page be improved, what would be my next step? Adding an entire section of bloopers and anachronisms might be objectionable to those who've been meticulously constructing an elaborate page such as this one (over 6000 words). In a very positive light. Can a "good article" have a section that might deplore the subject material? What would be my next step? Do I "reassess" in any way due to this? B'H. MichaelAngelo7777  (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What article is it? You can click "Talk" at the top of the page and on the page there should be a section titled "GA review" and you can comment there. — MRD 2014  Talk • Edits • Help! 00:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In general,, one may describe the plot of a fictional work in a Wikipedia article with no more source than the work itself. But to analyze the work, including in all but the most obvious cases to say what elements are anachronisms, requires a cited secondary source. This principle is not as invariably enforced as in my view it should be, however. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh and a "good article",, is one that describes its subject well. It need not praise the subject. We could have a "Good article" about Hitler or Stalin, say, or about Plague, without implying that any of those are good things. A good article about a rotten but famous film might point out in great detail its flaws. A good article about even a generally respected film might point out its flaws, or what reliable sources have said are its flaws. Mahler on the Couch, which i worked on a bit, has not reached GA, but was listed on the main page via the DYK feature. Note its "Critical reception" and "Historical accuracy" sections. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well. Thanks to you both for responding with alacrity. B'H. MichaelAngelo7777  (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , About "errors" in movies and such, there´s good guidance at WP:FILMHIST. Leave the rest to imdb and the fan-wikis. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , very good. Going by what you have so clearly outlined, it seems pretty obvious to me that this particular article is entirely too verbose. If so, then what constitutes the justification for it to serve as an example of a "good article?" Wouldn't a prerequisite of fulfilling the qualities of a "good article" also require that the article be succinct rather than being copiously verbose (over 6000 words)? B'H. MichaelAngelo7777  (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I´m a big fan of succinct, but context matters (haven´t seen the article), and the size of an article will depend on the volume of (hopefully reasonably good) sources that can be used, and if the article becomes to big, a WP-solution is to split of text into sub-articles. The grey area here can be pretty big, but see WP:TOOBIG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes,, could you please tell us what article this is about? The only film article you seem to have commented on recently is Snowpiercer, but that isn't marked as a "good article". We can't really comment sensibly on an abstract query, not knowing which article it is in reference to. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

picture insertion
How to insert picture in any wikipedia page?AritraPaul (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can find instructions and links to tips and policies regarding image use here at Images. Feel free to return here with more specific questions if you get stuck. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 19:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi AritraPaul. 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, related to its copyright status. 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 a 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) 21:12, 16 August 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 Images search to try to locate suitably-free images. Once there, 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.

Trying to upload a photo for a new wikipedia page
Keep getting an error that the image is not mine. Not sure what I am doing wrong. Mkovatch (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! I'd like to know a bit more information before I answer. What image are you trying to upload, and to what page? Also, what exactly does the error message say when you try to upload it? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I am trying to create a new wiki page for an artist friend of mine. I am working in my sandbox trying to get his page to display correctly, but cannot get any images to display.  I used the "embedded file" tool.  The image displayed fine and I checked the box to verify that it was my image.  It sent me to another popup to enter more information and when I click "submit", I got the following error:

We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons. Mkovatch (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again Mkovatch. It seems like you were running afoul of an uploading filter on Wikimedia Commons. Perhaps it would work better if you went to Wikimedia Commons directly, here? Give that upload wizard a try instead of the method you were using. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Mkovatch. A few details about the image. The Wikimedia Commons is only for free images (images either in the public domain or bearing a suitably-free copyright license). It is possible to upload and use non-free images under a claim of fair use, but they must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria, and such images are uploaded to Wikipedia, never to the Commons. As per the message you received, generally people only own the copyright to photographs they took themselves, such that they have authority to release the copyright, but that is not the case with photographs of already copyrighted image, which always applies to photographs of non-free artwork. If you take a photograph of such an already copyrighted work, it sometimes does (and sometimes does not) create a derivative work – a secondary copyright in the photographer – in which case that person still has no authority whatever to release the copyright of the artwork. Given that your attempted name for the image was "File:David Henry, Bronze of Spartacus", and you described it in your user sandbox draft as a "Bronze of Spartacus", and further that the article is about a contemporary living artist who likely owns the copyright to that bronze, it is unlikely the image you are attempting to use is in the public domain or suitably free. Unless it is, even if you took the photograph yourself, at best the photograph is a derivative work that you cannot release. If that is the case, fair use is the only potential route, and the upload would never take place at the Commons. Whether it might meet the non-free content criteria is a separate analysis. Please be aware, though, that even if it might qualify for fair use, it cannot be uploaded and used in your sandbox. Fair use images can only be used in the article mainspace. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

How do I suggest a heading for a portal page?
I've made a few small edits over the years, mostly concerned with English usage, but I've never networked with other editors, so I have little idea of the collaborative structure.

I've noticed that on the Religion portal, there is no "Demographics" topic, which I think should be a fairly top-level heading. Cincybones (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Cincybones. Almost every page you see has a dedicated talk page. For example, this project page has a talk page to discuss the Teahouse itself, which when at this page, is accessed by clicking on the link at the top of the page: "talk". Assuming your post is about Portal:Religion, then its talk page is Portal talk:Religion. However, part of learning about the behind the scenes here is also recognizing when a talk page is something of a hinterland. That talk page has very few watchers and the last post there is from 2015, and the two preceding ones are from 2014 and then 2013—so you'd probably just hear crickets upon posting there. I think a good, tailored, alternative talk page for you to post about this might be the busy talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

how do I FIND A WIKIPEDIA EDITOR TO SUBMIT AN ARTICLE
Hi ... I cannot figure out how to submit a Wikipedia Article. Can you help me to find an Editor to do that for me. Thank you in advance. Amy SeemanSeemancemano (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I see you found the Teahouse without my help! Your article at Draft:Ed Seeman is not ready to be submitted yet; it needs a good deal more work before you should start thinking about submitting it. Feel free to ask any questions you have about preparing your draft for submission here, and we'll do our best to answer them for you. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 19:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Seemancemano. I have just deleted your draft as a blatant copyright violation. I will leave you a detailed message about this at your talk page. Regarding your original question, reading Your first article is a good place to start, but any draft you create in the future must not copy and paste preexisting content. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Whoops! Good catch, . I believe you'll need to axe User:Seemancemano/sandbox, as well, because it's either very similar or identical. Where was it copied from, anyway? I expected his website, but it's blank. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 21:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoops, thanks for the heads up; missed the second page! Yes, I've now also deleted that copy. See the deletion log entry here for the details. I wouldn't be surprised if the website also had such content. If it's blank, you might try the Wayback Machine to see if there was a prior version you can see, though it's academic given that I found swaths of the content elsewhere. (The Wayback Machine is incredibly useful in the copyright arena–especially for checking old copyvios and to target when content existed to look for backwards copying—really, I wouldn't know what we'd do without it.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Current status
Hello, adjacent to some of my edits in the contributions section of my account have the status 'Current.' I am assuming that it means that the edits are currently under inspection. If the ladder assumption is correct, what is the maximum waiting time for the edits to be confirmed?Joshua Beaudin (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. "Current" only means that your edit was the most recent one to the listed page. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Template to indicate a statement needs cite
How do I add a template to indicate a statement needs a cite, or other ref problems? I recently read an article (Food Storage#Food storage safety) with an unsupported statement. Unable to research the issue at the time, I wanted to put in a marker, which I have seen many other places, in superscript saying "cite needed" for the attention of other editors; I expect there are other related templates, such as "unreliable source" and "page expired". I couldn't find these in a quick search through "Help:". Is there a place where all these cite-related tags are collected? D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. You can find many of the relevant tags listed at Template:Inline cleanup tags. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary
Is it possible to change the edit summary after you saved it? Could you, please, answer me soon? Thank you in advance. --Aleksandr Kerenskij (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Annoyingly it´s not. If you wish, you can leave an explanation on the articles talkpage or in your next editsummary. If it´s something really bad, you can ask an admin to hide it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. No you can't. For further advice on fixing an edit summary, see Help:Edit summary. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you all very much. --Aleksandr Kerenskij (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

How to add first articles in Wikipedia?
Hello, we are from Company Qarva.

We have been trying to add our article for 3 years.

Could you, please, support us and inform regarding this subject.

Also I would like to know if someone can help us and correct our Article.

Can you, please, reply us as soon as possible

Thank you in advance

31.146.26.133 (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. I think you have some misconceptions of what Wikipedia is.  It is not a place for every company to have an article like social media might be.  Article subjects also do not "own" or exclusively control the articles about them(i.e. "our page").  This is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with independent reliable sources to meet notability guidelines, in this case those for companies.
 * Since you refer to "our company" I can say that you have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest, which means that you are too close to the subject to write about it objectively and with a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes like telling the world about your company. If you have a conflict of interest, it is best to avoid directly editing about it and allow others to write about the company.  If you work for the company, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to comply with the paid editing policy and declare such status. That means that you can be blocked from editing if you are editing here as part of your job and do not declare it.
 * If you do have independent sources, and truly feel that your company merits an encyclopedic article, you can submit a draft article through Articles for Creation, but if your company is truly notable it is best to let other editors write about it. If you have any other questions, please post them. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello! Anonymous, first of all, you should deeply study this page, it tells about creating your first article. Secondly only registered users can create article, you have an account if you created that article,you are repeating "We", it means you are a group of people, we may have confusions with that, each of you should create personal account, forth, you are from "Qarva" (a company), if the article is about your company then you may fall a victim of paid editing, a very bad thing. Five, you have not given a link to the page you mentioned, please provide a link to that article, (by writing name of article in double square brackets), then we will be able to help you. Proceed! Sinner (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Rank of wikipedia
How do I get ribbons?Electro twisted wizard (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Service awards, including ribbons, are something that editors can place on their own profile if they want to. Nobody else awards them, and they are not really a mark of "rank", they just show how long an editor has been a registered user, and how many edits they have made. I hope that's what you were asking about, but if it wasn't, please comment again :-) --bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

So,how many edits can I know I have made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electro twisted wizard (talk • contribs) 11:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * According to this tool, you've made 130 live edits. Another tool, xTools, can also be used for various statistics -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 11:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi at the top right of every page (if you're on a computer rather than reading on a phone, there is a link "Contributions" which opens a log of everything you've done here. At the bottom of that page there is a menu which includes "Edit count", it will give you a count of edits done on various types of pages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Does deleted edits count?Electro twisted wizard (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Creating a new page- advice of what to include?
Hi all. I am creating a new page called The Zoo (2017 TV series) but I don't know what sorts of information are needed. I have copied an infobox and provided some basic info but what else do I need to do? And when I search for my article in the searchbox, I can't find it and have to instead type the address in my URL bar.Have I done something wrong? Many thanks. MaxyPaxy2004 (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. It seems to me that you have a decent start to the page. You can look at some other pages on TV shows to get an idea of what they include, but one good thing to include would be any independent reviews of this show or any independent sources that document how it was created.  I believe it takes some time for a new page to appear in the search box when you type the title. If you need to, you can access it through your contributions list(if on a desktop computer, click "contributions" in the top right corner). 331dot (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've found a news report about a wildlife charity's criticism of the show - http://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/840828/CBBC-The-Zoo-Animal-Magic-BBC-Born-Free-charity-axed It might provide some useful content for the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

User: Pages across Wikimedia
I asked yesterday about how to organize my own User: page, though did not ask about the various User: pages across the larger wiki environments. Is there a way I can link my User: page on Wikipedia and the one I have on Wikimedia or Commons? Thanks! FULBERT (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi FULBERT. You can create a global user page. See Global user page. You cannot redirect your user page to another wiki but you can create the user page with a link to the other wiki.  will make a wikilink to your English Wikipedia userpage from other wikis.   and   will link to your pages there. You can also just save the url as an external link. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks PrimeHunter! I just added -- The page for FULBERT is here. -- to those pages. Seems to work now. FULBERT (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * meta:User:FULBERT is your global user page and automatically displayed at wikis where your account exists but you don't have a local user page. Your account is automatically created if you visit a Wikimedia wiki while you are logged in. Special:CentralAuth/FULBERT shows all your accounts, for example es:Usuario:FULBERT which displays the global user page. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * PrimeHunter The first account I created was on Wikipedia, and that is where my page and Talk page have some content. I created a link on the Meta page to it, though wonder why I can't have my Wikipedia User: page pushed out to that one? Thanks. FULBERT (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * meta: is "the global community site for the Wikimedia projects and the Wikimedia movement in general." User pages at specific wikis like User:FULBERT are usually oriented towards that wiki, e.g. mentioning WikiProjects which only exist there. It's currently only possible to make a global user page at meta. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * PrimeHunter Thanks; starting to understand! Appreciate your help in learning about this. FULBERT (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Egyptian hieroglyphics
Where can I find a full list of all eygeptian hieroglyphics?Electro twisted wizard (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse - This is typically the place for editors to ask questions pertaining to the editing and upkeep of Wikipedia, but in response to your question, maybe give a glance at List of Egyptian hieroglyphs by alphabetization?  Hope that at least helps. - <b style="color:#ff5d00">NsTaGaTr</b> (<b style="color:#F00">Talk</b>) 12:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe by gardener's sign list?

Protection
How many types of padlocks are there?Electro twisted wizard (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PADLOCK for a list and description of the types of page protection in place across Wikipedia. - <b style="color:#ff5d00">NsTaGaTr</b> (<b style="color:#F00">Talk</b>) 12:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Um sorry I mean the types of padlocks.
 * See Protection policy, Category:Padlock icons, Protection policy/Padlocks. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)