Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 658

Review edits on changing the tone
Dear editors, especially, and  (since you all made really helpful suggestions before) I have edited my draft on singer Brodha V keeping all your feedback in mind. I worked on the tone of the article, made it more neutral and added more references. I hope it has significantly improved and meets the Wikipedia standards now. I'd be really grateful if you could take a second look and let me know what you think. Warmly, Nramesh (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome back to the Teahouse, . I skimmed your revised draft, and did not see any overtly promotional language remaining; you have done well at learning how to write with encyclopedic tone. I noticed two issues remaining with the draft: First, it needs some minor copy-editing, which I would be happy to do for you tomorrow. Second, many of your reference citations are not formatted correctly; you may wish to use Visual Editor to correct those, as it provides labeled fields for you to add required information. You may also wish to consult Help:Referencing for beginners. Fortunately you should still have plenty of time to fix the citations, due to the AfC backlog. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 01:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! The article has been accepted at last and I'm really grateful to you for all your help. Nramesh (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

How to stop offensive reverts to my edits
I have been trying to correct an offensive mistake in "Religion in Jamaica". No reason has been given for the reverts and I would like it to stop.

Rastas find the term "Rastafarianism" offensive. There are zero people who follow this made up term. There are plenty of slang terms for other religions which are not used because they are offensive. Why is it that there is no respect for the wishes of Rastas? Is it racism? Colonialism? Or just the usual schism that Rastas have no contribution to make to world knowledge?

Black minds matter. 67.213.144.66 (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. Without knowing anything specific about this issue, I can say that you should not keep restoring your edit.  Continually doing this is considered an edit war and is not permitted, regardless of if you are correct or not.  You should also be aware of the three revert rule.  If you are in a dispute about article content, you should first discuss the matter on the article talk page.  If that does not resolve the issue, there are further dispute resolution procedures that are available to you. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also state that you should assume good faith unless you have evidence to the contrary- of which merely reverting an edit is not. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I should say you should use user personal account if you already have, or create one if you do not have one to contribute, no one can revert edit of a registered user without proper cause, if someone does, you can freely ask him why he reverted your contribution. Sinner (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP user has made their edits under their IP; editors are not required to register a username if they don't wish to. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think registering account gives more rights than IP, including editing partially protected pages. Sinner (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello! I feel you are a bit nervous, In wikipedia, there is no preference of one group over other,of one religion over other religion. Rastas are equal to Christians and Hindus in wikipedia in status, this is an encyclopedia, a completely neutral encyclopedia. There is no racism, colonialism or discrimination of any group. Wikipedia will not change "Rastafarianism" to "Rasta" because Rastas feel it is offensive. Muslims also face a similar problem, Pictures of Muhammad (Peace be upon him). They completely forbid showing his pictures and these are offensive for them but no one removed the pictures from Muhammad, because wikipedia neither sports nor discriminates any group or religion. You should discuss this matter peacefully with as he reverts your contributions. Sinner (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The essential difference here is that showing a picture of Muhammad (Peace be upon him), while offensive to some, is not incorrect (assuming there is verifiable evidence). "Rastafarianism" is just incorrect. The person doing the reverts is giving no evidence or explanation whatsoever for their actions, and that is what makes it truly offensive. I feel the onus is on the reverter who, so far, has not participated in a conversation started in good faith. The person who corrected a mistake and provided a verifiable reason why, has done a service for Wikipedia and should not have to chase after anyone unable or unwilling to reciprocate. An explanation should take precedence over a non-explanation by default.67.213.144.66 (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

we shall see how are they known internationally, what they call themselves, even verifiable, will not always change the word throughout wikipedia, if the religion is more popular as Rastafarianism, then this term will preferred. Sinner (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Why is it that there is no respect for the wishes of Rastas?" I suspect it's just ignorance. Don't attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. Maproom (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It may be that the appropriate policy for this is WP:COMMONNAME. If most sources use Rastafarianism, it's quite likely that WP will use it as well. Changing what WP does is not simply to convince editors that Rastas don't like it. That recognition has to gain a strong hold in the greater world before it is likely to be reflected here.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  07:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

More population info?
I Would Like it on Every Country Page. There Would Be Population History Of That Country Or City.CONO ONOC (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, CONO ONOC. Welcome to the Teahouse. Many articles about countries and major cities do have information about about population size at different times. Making this uniform would be nearly impossible, since comparable data isn't available in most cases, but I'm sure there are articles lacking information that could be filled in. If you're adding or changing population figures, please be sure to cite a reliable source and use an edit summary to explain your reasoning. Happy editing! Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   15:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

100.35.57.135
Why is this IP Adress no longer available ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B000:B7E6:ED0C:A0B6:A9F8:9335 (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It is available now. She was blocked for three months because she vandalized after her final warning not to. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

He not she
 * How would you know that? 99.53.112.186 (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Everyone who edits Wikipedia, whether or not they have an account, leaves a history of their edits. The IP you're inquiring about has been blocked five times this year. Why do you ask? Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   15:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is a question about an IP address, I would assume good faith and assume that the questioner is not the person who misbehaved. The best approach for a good-faith editor who is one of the users of an IP address that has bad-faith editors is to create an account, which may be pseudonymous, and has other advantages.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Jazz Legends
We are having a Jimmie Lunceford festival in October from October 23, 2017 - October 29, 2017. One of the goals is to start putting the jazz legends (of 50 or more) in Wikipedia. The elders are 55 and older. They have made a contributions to Jazz music and the African American culture. The project will be a intergeneration project where youth groups and individual groups will research the information with the elders and we will verify and then update as an article on Wikipedia.

I want each individual we submit to have their own page. Will creating an article create a page? Do we need to get permission to create a project as this? We would like to have at least 20 or more completed by 10/1/2017.

Thanks in advance. C. Herd 16:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . That sounds like a worthwhile project, provided that the individuals you want to create articles about meet Wikipedia's standard of notability. You should read How to run an edit-a-thon as it sounds like that's the sort of event you want to host. I strongly encourage you to have all participants, especially the "elders", familiarize themselves with editing Wikipedia before the event, and to have participants use the Article wizard during the event unless they are long-standing editors with experience in creating successful articles. This will reduce the likelihood of articles created being summarily deleted. The biggest hurdle for your event will probably be finding a minimum of three reliable sources, each independent of the musician being written about, which each cover the musician in some detail (more than a couple of sentences); such sources are required to establish notability in Wikipedia's use of that term. Feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have.


 * Also, please sign all your talk page and Teahouse posts with four tildes ( ~ ). — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 16:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

How to create a prose?
I am new to Wikipedia and I saw the prose template on Snapdeal. I have created the prose for Section: Funding and Section: Acquisition. I request someone to review the edits so that I can move forward and contribute to the Category:Articles with sections that need to be turned into prose from April 2017. RajkGuj (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. My apologies that your question wasn't addressed in order (it happens sometimes). I would be happy to review your proposed prose replacement of the tables in the Snapdeal article, but I didn't see anything in your contribution history that looked like a draft, and you haven't created a user sandbox yet. If you already have your prepared prose on Wikipedia, please link to it; if not, click on the red "user sandbox" link above and you can put the proposed prose there. Thanks! — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 02:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. It would be great if you can send me a link that already has a prose, so that I could look at the format. RajkGuj (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The way in which you refer to "a prose" suggests that you may have limited command of the English language. If you can understand it, there is relevant advice at WP:PROSE. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * and, I have created a user sandbox for the Funding Section of Snapdeal and would like you to review the same. Thank you! RajkGuj (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello again,, and thank you for your contribution. I have made some minor edits to what you wrote (click here to see the "diff", or difference between your edit and my own) but overall you did a fine job of converting the table to prose. You can now replace the table in the Snapdeal article's Funding section with the prose in your sandbox. Please preview your changes before saving them to make sure you don't break the page — it can be tricky making changes to tables — and feel free to ask for help replacing the table with the prose if the previews won't come out right. Thanks, GrammarFascist   contribs talk 17:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you . I have added the edited prose from my sandbox to Snapdeal's page. Thank you once again. RajkGuj (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone messed with the article I've created.
Hi, i'm Giangkifer. I edit for a thousand articles. I just create an article, Julia Meade (character), a character from the Mission: Impossible (film series). It is the wife of the main character, Ethan Hunt. When I finished creating the article, it was reviews instantly by user Ukpong1, I think the person is the one who knows film fluently, but, right away, someone name Oknazevad deleted my article and put it into redirected, he THINKS that it is not deserve to be an article. I asked him to give me the draft of the article so that I can re-create it in the future, but he didn't answer.

I think it is an notable article.


 * Hello Giangkiefer. Please sign you posts here and on other discussion pages by typing four tilde (~) characters at the end.  Your text is still available.  If you click on Julia Meade (character), you will be taken to the Mission: Impossible (film series) page, where you will see "  (Redirected from Julia Meade (character))" just below the title.  click on the link there, and you'll go to the Julia Meade redirection entry.  From there you can see all your previous versions of the article, via the "View History" tab.  I hope this helps.  Rojomoke (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . First, please remember that nobody owns any article on Wikipedia. (Almost) anybody in the world has the right to edit - not "mess with" - any article you've written. Please assume good faith.
 * On the specific edit, 's edit summary was "This character has no independent notability whatsoever. And none of the sources are valid, as they're all wikia, a user-generated site. Plus the grammar and word choices are awful. Julia Meade doesn't need her own article." You are welcome to disagree, but you should address the specific issues that Okazevad raises - in particular, justify notability - and discuss it on a talk page before taking any further action. If Oknazevad is right that the character is not notable, then any time you spend working on an article about her will be wasted, so it in your interest to establish that first of all. --ColinFine (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I note that the edit summary quoted above was inaccurate. At the moment that it was redirected by, Julia Meade (character) had three inline citations. One was to a Wikia page (which should not have been used), but two were to news stories that at least discussed the character. I am doubtful that those were enough to demonstrate notability as the matter stood, but there are probably other sources available. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Changing my username
I realize this is more of a technical question than an editorial one, but I can't seem to find another place to ask this. In light of recent events, I feel the username I originally chose (basically in frustration at the carelessness of so many writers) is insensitive. I would very much like to change it and would appreciate any help.

Additionally, I'd also be grateful to learn how to reply to answers to my questions here at the Teahouse. Thanks. WriteinEnglish 08:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)WriteInEnglish
 * Hello and welcome. To change your username, you can visit this page which explains what your options are.  To make further replies, simply click the word "Edit" located next to the title of this section(assuming you are using a computer to edit; not sure how on a phone). 331dot (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * To clarify, the page is WP:CHU. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * .....which is precisely what I linked to. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Inexperienced users don't always realize that blue text is a link. They may read "visit this page" as visit this Teahouse page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and thanks for the advice, but I have also read elsewhere that new users might not know what "WP:CHU" means, so it's tough to know which to use. :) 331dot (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would just say "visit Changing username". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Uploading a new photo/licensing
I work as a personal assistant/marketing coordinator for an author. The author would like her Wiki page updated with a new headshot photo. She has the copyright to the image, which is also displayed on her website.

I am an extreme beginner. How do I go about updating her photo?

Sjstonesmith (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * First, Wikipedia is not Wiki. But that aside, you will need to determine the copyright holder of the image. That is normally the photographer, not the subject, unless the photographer explicitly granted all rights to the subject. ("Right to use" does not indicate that one is the copyright holder.) Whoever the copyright holder is, they will then need to release the photograph under a free license, such as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike. That means that anyone will be free to use and modify the image without permission or restriction, including for commercial purposes, so long as they credit the copyright holder and do not change the license. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sjstonesmith (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the teahouse and to Wikipedia. The author would need to release the photo under a compatible free license such as CC-BY_SA-4.0. She can do this by posting a notice with the imag on her web site, or by following the steps at donanting Copyrighted matieral. But she should understand, this means that not just Wikipedia, but anyone in the world is free to use the photo without payment to her, and to make copies of it, and to distribute it, and to create altered versions of it, and to sell it. And those rights, once granted, cannot be withdrawn.
 * Once the image is released, it can be uploaded to Wikimedia commons here. Once it has been uploaded, it can be used in the article: see the Picture tutorial for details. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note, i am taking you at your word that the author . By default the photographer owns the copyright, but it is not uncommon that a professionally taken photo intended for publicity purposes would have the copyright signed over to the subject at the time of creation -- I have such a photo myself, it is displayed on my user page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , Seraphimblade and DESiegel have given you good advice. However the bureaucratic process of carrying it out can be quite tedious. A simpler method would be to take a new picture yourself, using your own camera or smartphone, and upload it to Wikimedia Commons as "own work". Maproom (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , what Maproom suggests would work, and would be simpler and quicker, if the photo you take would be acceptable. (Although changing the web site to post a release notice need not take much time or trouble, depending on how the site is managed). DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Internet Broadway Database
I know that Internet Movie Database is not a reliable source. Is Internet Broadway Database also not a reliable source for Wikipedia? I sometimes see IBDB.com cited in articles, and I wonder whether I should try to find reliable sources to replace the IBDB citations. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to consider posting this at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. When I went there, I found that the question had already been asked and answered in 2013. Two respondents said that IBDB is reliable, and no one disagreed. (If anyone would like to read the question and answers, they are available here.) Eddie Blick (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Seeking advice editing a draft article
I wrote a draft article Draft:Software_Toolworks which two editors said should be part of the Mindscape page. But neither commented on the content. I would appreciate some advice editing the article before going further, as I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor. Any suggestions? Bilofsky (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I think this is because Toolworks acquired Mindscape, therefore the two are being viewed as the same company by those editors. it would appear that 4 years later the toolworks name was dumped in favour of mindscape. therefore you could add an 'history of toolworks' to the mindscape article perhaps rewriting some of the rest of it to integrate sources and some facts. A Guy into Books (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I have done this myself, you can change the Mindscape page to suit. A Guy into Books (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , It seems to me that the history of Software_Toolworks would be better placed in its own article, but it surely could be included in the Mindscape article. It also seems to me that there is already sufficient content in the draft to support a separate article, although not to require one. However, since A Guy into Books copied text directly from the draft into Mindscape, I have placed copied on the talk pages of both the article and the draft. (This should normally be done anytime such copying is done.) Note that this means that the draft must not now be deleted for any reason unless every trace of the copied text is removed from the article, and if it is moved to mainspace a redirect should be retained, or the template updated.  This is the sort of thing that should be discussed on one or the other talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes thanks for that, i was not aware of how to properly credit the copied text, although i made the source clear in my edit summary. I decided against a separate article since two editors have rejected it at AfC, and copied over myself since Bilofsky has declared a WP:COI and that might make it controversial. A Guy into Books (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , Thanks for this. I agree that Software_Toolworks should be its own article. Mindscape and Toolworks were unrelated from their founding (1983 and 1980 respectively) until Toolworks acquired Mindscape in 1990. After 1994, when Toolworks took the Mindscape name, not much of significance happened except for several sales of the company and its breakup. But I will take that discussion to the talk pages, as you suggest. Again, thank you. Bilofsky (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , Can I make documented factual corrections in the Mindscape article, given my COI? If not, how do I propose them?  My draft documents with a reference that the name change to Mindscape was in 1994, but the article says 1993. Bilofsky (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * you may edit to correct clear factual errors if you cite a reliable source, and the change is not controversial. Otherwise please propose the change on the article talk page, and draw attention to it with request edit. Anothe editor should review it and make the edit on your behalf if it seems appropriate and well-sourced. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

European migrant crisis article POV
It seems I have come off to a bad start, as my first attempt at editing an article was rejected, and I've also seem to have been blocked from commenting on the talk page. I'm not sure how much of the problem is me going about things the wrong way, and how much is a genuine disagreement.

The article in question is European migrant crisis. Roughly, there are two general points of view on this matter: that the majority of the people coming to Europe are fleeing war and should be granted asylum if possible, or that they are mainly economic migrants or terrorists and should be deported. Ideally, the article should be acceptable to both sides.

Presently, however, the opening paragraph reads to me more like an opinion piece than an encyclopaedia, and seems to heavily lean towards the latter point of view. Compare this to other articles on refugee crises, such as Great Lakes refugee crisis, where there is no mention of whether the migrants in question are asylum seekers, economic migrants or disguised militants.

My attempt at editing was simply to remove the last paragraph, which was reverted with the motivation "Please avoid censoring any valid information that you ideologically disagree with." I then tried to argue for my case on the talk page and deleted just the part about "hostile agents", which I though was the most irrelevant one. Again, this was reverted ("restoring vandalism by created account (sockpuppet?) - do not delete sourced information").

This rather surprised me, as I would have though that the non-encyclopedic character of the wording would be obvious to most people. And my attempt to discuss this on the talk page was rejected as "unproductive". I suppose that what I am asking, apart from whether anyone agrees with me that the current wording is inappropriate, is whether I went about this the wrong way somehow. PSjolund (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * For reference: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , how have you been as you said? There are no blockes logged against your user name. I don't see that you have made any edits to Talk:European migrant crisis. That is the place where you should be attempting to discuss the issues, rather than here at the Teahouse.
 * I see that in this edit you removed content that is well sourced to reliable sources such as the UN HCR and the Washington Post (neither exactly known for blatant hostility to refugees) with the summery . I see that in this edit you removed statements, sourced to both Reuters and the Washington Post, that some "hostile agents" were moving mixed among the migrants. Are you truly asserting that no such agents were present? If so, what is your source? I see that you changed the term "migrants" to "refugees" in multiple places. The latter term has a quite specific meaning in this context, it excludes economic migrants, while "migrants" includes both economic migrants and refugees. Are you asserting that all the migrants were refugees without exception? No source I have seen supports that, although there is debate about what percentage were refugees.
 * I urge you to discuss the matter on Talk:European migrant crisis, and present sources to back up your contentions. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I do see this edit from an IP address. Was that you,, editing while not logged in? If so, that edit has not been reverted or blocked. It does seem to fail to assume good faith implying that one of more Wikipedia editors intentionally created the text with a biased point-of-view. It also seems to incorrectly assume that there was a single primary author of this article. Look at the history more closely and you will see that this is not so. None of which proves that the section is not given undue weight by its placement in the lead section, but that argument was not made as clearly as one might wish. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * All right, perhaps I misunderstood. I tried to edit the talk page, and got a message to the effect that my edit was rejected on grounds of not being constructive (or something to that effect). I guess I should make another attempt to continue this discussion there.
 * Just for the record, my original edit (that I made before I had created my account, so it is anonymous) used the term "unauthorised foreign migrants", which seemed pretty loaded to me. Also, what I dispute is not the fact of disguised ISIS agents, but its undue weight, as you say. I will make another attempt to take this discussion to the talk page. PSjolund (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I do see, on further examination, that you have three times tripped an automated edit filter, . Twice because you were removing references, and once because some of the content in your post matched phrases typically used by abusive editors in the past. I see you have reported the latter as a false positive, which is the proper response. None of these filters is set to block you by name, and by reworking your intended comments (and avoiding the deletion of references) you can probably make your points without tripping filters. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you,, I think that will be the best way. I believe the message you saw was from the automated edit filter. There are a number of such filters, and edits are checked against them. Some of them mark edits that match as possibly a problem, and some of them block edits that rip the filter altogether. They are not unlike the spam filters that many email providers use. The details are not publicly disclosed, as that would allow the malicious editors they are aimed at to avoid them. When false positives occur, the filters are often modified. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

In a website citation, if the web page title is in ALL CAPS, should we keep it that way?
I added a reference for. The web page I cited has a title in ALL CAPS. Should I reproduce the title as written (in the citation) or reformat it to Sentence Case? I think Sentence Case looks better, but one could argue we should not edit another website's titles. Here is the citation:

"'BU (BRILLIANT UNCIRCULATED) / MINT STATE'. GoldBroker.com. FDR Capital LLC. Retrieved August 18, 2017."

Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  07:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Markworthen. MOS:ALLCAPS says to avoid all caps in titles. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, we normalize titles in citations to standard title case, no matter what variations the original source may have used. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thank you both for your fast and very helpful responses. :O)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  06:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I posted a suggestion to the cite web template documentation Talk page to help future editors.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  06:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

My page is not approved
Hi, I work with Vijay Varma and we have an introduction on his imdb account. We are using the same text for his wikipedia account Winsomemedia (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. From your use of "we", saying you work with Vijay, and your username "Winsomemedia", I assume that you represent a PR firm or other promotional business.  You will need to change your username as the Username policy does not allow usernames to be that of a business, they must be that of an individual and cannot be shared.  A username in the format of "YourName of Winsomemedia" would be acceptable(you don't have to use your real name).  Please visit Changing username for instructions on changing your name as soon as possible.
 * You will also need to review the conflict of interest policy before you edit further. As you seem to represent Mr. Varma, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to review and comply with the paid editing policy and declare any paid relationships you have(such as with a client).  This means you can be blocked from editing if you do not make such a declaration.
 * Regarding the page you created, it will almost certainly not be accepted for several reasons, the most important being that it is copied from elsewhere. Due to licensing requirements, we cannot accept text copied from other websites.  The text also will not be accepted because it is promotional in nature ("started his acting journey").  It also has no independent reliable sources to indicate how this person is notable.
 * Please understand that Wikipedia is different from other websites like social media; it is more selective about its content. We are also not interested in what an article subject says about itself, but in what third parties state about it(such as news reports or independent reviews).  331dot (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I have posted information about changing your username on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

how to ref notes again n same article
A page has notes 1,2&3 contained in a section headed Notes beneath the References section. What code do I use to reference say note 2 in more places on the page? Jacksoncowes (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Jacksoncowes. Assuming this is about Charlie Gard case, you need to provide a name for any notes you want to reuse. So for example, if you want to reuse the first note, you would replace (changes in red):
 * " {{refn|group=note|Sec 3(1)... " with
 * " { {refn|group=note| {{!xt| name="no delay note"| }}Sec 3(1)... "
 * and then, the next time you wanted to use that note, you would place at the location in the text you wanted to cite it again:
 * {{refn|group=note|name="no delay note"}}
 * I should mention also, the name you choose for the note only needs quote marks if it has spaces, but if there are such spaces, the quote marks are not optional. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Notability of Subject
Hi. I've started writing about Katsuya Kisaka, one of the original karate instructors who introduced Japanese karate to the USA in 1960's, and one of the only living instructors of the time. He was classmates of many notable karate instructors who wrote many books and became famous for their own publications. Kisaka was one of the first graduates of an elite instructor program (1961) back when karate was unified under the JKA. He was world All-Japan Kumite Champion in 1965. He was then assigned to teach in the USA, when he moved and set up shop in NJ. He remains in NJ, teaching daily for the past 52 years.

Perhaps the problem with notability is that while he had been referenced in some books, as part of the karate movement of the mid twentieth century, he shied away from popularity and was content to have his karate schools without seeking fame. He's had thousands of students and black belts over a half century. But his lack of interest in fame and only desire to fulfill his assignment of life-long karate and Japanese philosophy instruction has left him behind where many of his contemporaries are noted in Wikipedia (Enoeda, Kanazawa, Nakayama, Okazaki, Mori, Ueki, etc.)

Thanks For the Input!

OshiShinobu (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, on the English Wikipedia all article subjects are required to meet the notability standard (click here for details); the short version is that any person you want to write an article about must have received substantial coverage (more than a couple of sentences) in reliably-published sources (click here to see how we define reliability for Wikipedia purposes) that are each independent of the subject of the article (thus interviews with or writings by the subject do not count). This means that Mr. Kisaka's humility may have created a situation where a Wikipedia article about him is not possible. (But if he's as averse to fame as you say, that probably won't bother him.) — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 14:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

rplying on talk page
hello, how to rply back on talk page, or if sumone send u a welcome msg on talk page how can we rply to them, pls if on article there is a dispute tag how can u send ur suggestions to the editor for example Naagin page has a dispute on cast Arjun bijlaniFizaahmed (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can simply respond on the talk page where the comment you want to reply to was made, by editing that page and placing your comment after the one you want to respond to, usually with a greater indent level, as I am responding to you now. (Use one colon at the start of a paragraph for each indent level.) You can draw the attention of a particular editor by pinging that editor. This is done by including a link to that editor's muser page, or using U or ping or reply to or any of several other templates which have the same function. Note that a ping does not work unless it is part of a signed comment. Adding a ping afterwards or fixing a mis-formed oen afterwards will not cause a notification to the user. I am pinging you in this comment. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed edit on Talk page; No response; Made edit; Now what?
Do I need to do anything to the Talk page? For article Santorini (game) Jsejcksn (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahosue. There is nothign else that you need to do. It would have been better if, when you made m your edit to the article, you had provided an edit summary explaining what you were doing, and included "see talk page" or something of the sort to point people to your previous comment. But that is in no way required. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Great; thanks ! Jsejcksn (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Please help me improve my draft
Hello! Friends, I'm developing a user space draft at Wheel Construction. I'm trying to cite proper sources. I'm poor in writing in encyclopediac manner, please help me improve this draft to get content tone, and to encounter spelling, grammar, text and neutrality problems. Please help me improve it, I shall be thankful for companionship of friends, Sinner (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello again, . I have edited your draft for tone, style, and grammar. Note that you were using both US and Commonwealth English (e.g. US mold, aluminum vs. UK mould, aluminium); I flipped a coin and it came up US, so you should try to use American spellings. Also note that Wikipedia uses sentence case, not title case, in section headings.


 * I also replaced one of your sources, which was a blog post, with the actual article that blog post cited and which seems to itself be a reliable source.


 * What I did not do was simply delete your "Quality of wheels" section. You cannot rely on a single source for such a section, and especially not for a "top 10" list; if you can find another independent source (or sources) naming some top wheel manufacturers, you can list whichever companies are named as top-quality manufacturers by both (or all) of the sources, but that list should be in alphabetical order, not based on one source's rankings. If you can't find another source for this section, then you should delete it.


 * I'm not entirely convinced the whole article shouldn't be merged into Wheel, but I do recognize that there is unique content in your draft. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 15:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding to 's comments, the "Quality of wheels" section seems to be about car wheels only, but this is not explained. Also, I am not sure that this source should be considered reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I previously pointed out that we already have the article wheelbuilding,, but looking into that term more closely, it doesn't apply to modern car wheels (because they are not wire wheels). Some thought probably needs to go into whether there is scope for one or two articles here, and if two, then what each one should cover. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Template?!
Hello! If I make an addition to a template (for eg. Template:UFOs), will this change show up in the existing articles where the template has already been used or only the subsequent ones? Thanks. - C askt o pic say 16:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Any such changes will show up on all pages where the template is transcluded. However such changes will not show up on pages where a template has been substituted using the "subst" keyword. Some templates are routinely transcluded, and some are routinely substituted. A navigational template such as UFOs is normally transcluded, so changes will show up on articles which use this (although there is usually a delay for the behind-the-scenes process to operate). For that reason, changes to templates should be made carefully, and often tested in sandbox versions of the template. Moreover, it is often a very good idea to seek consensus for changes to a template, particularly a widely used template, in advance. In this case, i advise you to post on Template talk:UFOs describing the changes you plan to make. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks - C askt o pic say 06:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia page not showing on Google search results
Hi, I created the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTimes a while ago. On Google US, when I search StarTimes, the page does not appear at all in search results. Later, I created the French version of StarTimes page, which is ranked on 1st page of Google French search results. I wanted to know if there was a problem with the English page or if I needed to improve it to make it more visible on Google. Thank you Daweibj (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * @Daweibj,Welcome to Wikipedia.I noticed that you have created an article about StarTimes.This article that you have created may take time to be available in the Google search engine.The articles which are created newly may not visible on Search engines at the beginning.After a few days you may able to see it on the Google search.Thank you.Abishe (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * A decision was made last year that on the English Wikipedia new articles would be NOINDEXed until they have been patrolled through the new page patrol process. You will see at Special:NewPagesFeed that there are over 16 thousand pages awaiting patrol, and a backlog of more than 6 months.  If you are lucky your page may be patrolled earlier, but if not the NOINDEXing will be removed after 90 days. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

can you explain how to edit
Can you help know how to write article and know what van be put in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary johns1on (talk • contribs) 08:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. In general it is not advisable to start trying to write a new article until you are more familiar with Wikipedia's rules & guidelines.  There are some useful links on your user talk page, including WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Find the article and protection
Hello Wikipedia team,

I have moved the draft article to article mainspace, but i wonder why i still can not find the article on the searching engine, like google. Also i would like to know how to set the article as semi-protection article.

Thank you

TKD at World Para TaekwondoTKD at World Para Taekwondo (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as Google indexing is concerned, you'll see an answer to a similar question in the section above.  Semi-protection would be granted only if the article had been subjected to frequent vandalism, but so far the only editor to the article has been you. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Hello. It takes time for articles to show up in Google.   Regarding protection, you cannot have the page protected simply because you want it to be or because you want the text to stay the same.  No one owns any article or has exclusive control of its content(see WP:OWN); any article is editable by any user.  Articles can only be protected for specific reasons like vandalism or edit warring.  I hope this answers your question. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Disregard of requests due to COI
Hello,

I have declared a COI with London South Bank University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_South_Bank_University but have been making edit requests on the talk page, according to the COI rules. I am aware that wikipedia is not for promotional purposes and am making small requests to correct and update rankings. I use neutral language and keep it to the facts, always using third party sources. However it appears an editor believes all of my requests are "cherry-picking" even though the information is relevant. I have had some success asking other editors directly to intervene, but without making the edits myself and being reverted in an edit war, is there anything else I can do? In fact, the editor's language in the talk discussions is not very helpful, and is quite aggressive.

Any advice greatly appreciated. LSBUStephMasters (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have asked the other user in your recent discussion to clarify what they mean because it isn't obvious to me. As for you, you could make a request for a third opinion (click here) if only two editors are involved in the dispute, or you can make a formal Request for Comment (click here) to hopefully bring others to the discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * @331dot Thank you for your help. LSBUStephMasters (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

use of wiki articles in publications
What is the process for using wiki articles in publications? 8.44.100.11 (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome the Teahouse, IP editor. This topic is covered by the page Reusing Wikipedia content. If you have further questions or need clarification after reading that, please do ask here. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Any recommendations?
Hello,

I am trying to put together a page for Spindle Mattress. It seems that Wiki veiws my writing as biased or non encyclopedia written. Do you have anyone have recommendations where I can find a third party to really hone in on my article and make sure it is correct? Jmbuckley2388 (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. In reading your draft, I must agree with the assessment given by the reviewer.  Wikipedia articles must do more than merely list information about a company, they must indicate with independent reliable sources how the company is notable per notability guidelines(click on WP:ORG for the guidelines).  The guidelines require in depth coverage of the company itself.  The sources you have given (as well as the article itself) seem to me to be technical information about the company's products and not about the company itself.
 * I would wonder if you are associated with Spindle Mattress? There may be certain things you need to do per Wikipedia guidelines if you are. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I am and been trying to source a writer an experienced Wiki editor to take a look at the article. Any good ideas where I can find someone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmbuckley2388 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Remember that Wikipedia has no interest in what you think or know (or what I think or know!) and very little in what the subject of the article says. You need to find published sources completely indepedent of the subject, and write the article based entirely on what those sources say: forget everything you personally know about it. --ColinFine (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Please review the conflict of interest policy(click WP:COI). If you work for this company, you will need to read and comply with the paid editing policy(click WP:PAID to read) which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you work for a company or otherwise paid by them. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding a supporting articles to the page
In this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble, can we consider the following topic as a supporting article under the title “Ethical implications”

According to the latest reports it’s found that the European Union has taken measures to lessen the impact of the filter bubble. The European Parliament is sponsoring inquiries into how filter bubbles affect people’s ability to access diverse news; additionally, they introduced a program aimed to educate citizens about social media. In India the steps taken by concerned authorities to stop the impact of “ Filter bubble” is unknown.

In January 2017, Facebook declared that that they would remove Filer bubble effect from its Trending Topics list in response to problems associated with users not seeing highly talked-about events or trending topics there.

Digital Marketing person from India Mr. Jayakumar K India claims that this can create significant barriers to people’s right of knowing right information and lose autonomy over our own web and social media experience

The reference/ supporting links are given here https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vv73qj/facebooks-filter-bubble http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/social-media/social-media-filter-bubbles-could-create-frogs-in-internet-well/article9715288.ece https://alchetron.com/Filter-bubble-2609462-W Trishna2017 (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . The talk page Talk:Filter bubble is the place to suggest improvements to the article. But I note that the language you used above is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article: "According to the latest reports it's found that the European Union ..." would be better as something like "In August 2017, XXX reported that the European Union ... ", with a citation at the end of the sentence. --ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Help renaming the page Magna carta cartel into Magna Carta Cartel
Hi! Sorry I've been sloppy with a new page Magna carta cartel that should actually be named Magna Carta Cartel. As it happens I noticed this mishap after creating the page. Thought I'd ask for help, 'cos I'm not really sure how to do it in enwiki. Thanks! --El Rayno (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * ✔️ Timothy Joseph Wood  14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Willi Kalender
The article appears under the name Willi A. Kalender in German wikipedia, and I think it should be moved to Willi A. Kalender on the english wikipedia, as this is more used name of the person. However, I need suggestions, as I am not completely sure. (requested by Chaffee on the IRC) Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Adityavagarwal. See WP:COMMONNAME. If the most used version is the version with the initial, then it is appropriate to move the article and redirect from the less common name. Although the biography linked to on the article does not seems to use the initial at all, it does appear that it is commonly if not universally used on publications (e.g.,, , ). Timothy Joseph Wood  15:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks a ton, Timothy, as always! It sure helps. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

URL in patent citation gets ignored
Hi, In my first and only page Draft:Gary Babcock Gordon, submitted for review, I cite several patents, all of them with URLs to their USPTO pages. One of the patents, US6433780, ignores the URL and gives me the patent's page on the European patent office site instead. I even made a copy of the citation with a URL of "xx" and that one does the same bad redirect. This patent is widely cited - USPTO finds over 120 hits - so my guess is that Wikipedia caches it somewhere. But it caches the wrong page, a US patent should come from the USPTO. What am I to do? Is there a way to force loading the explicitly supplied URL? Thanks G steinbach (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi G steinbach, welcome to the Teahouse. I have used cite patent like other patent citations in the article. Does that give what you want? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks, that did it. And thank you for the punctuation pointer. G steinbach (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do note that patents are considered primary sources, and should be used only with care, and only for facially obvious facts. Any analysis or conclusions require secondary sources. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. On my page the patents are cited after "he invented..." - I hope that a patent confirms that. G steinbach (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

what does a new user do about defamation attacks?
Hi, i started out correcting errors and adding information to the Adelaide Park Lands page and got hit in the middle of my first series of edits by a disruptive attack while I was still on trainer-wheels. I sought assistance (?info-not sure) but the abusive behaviour escalated to defamation, and accuses me of "inaccuracies and falsehoods": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Zbunyip what can be done about reporting that abuse? I may be new to wikipedia but have done hundreds of hours of volunteer contributions to international online collaborative efforts like Bentham Project and Smithsonian and never seen anything like this. I have to wonder if these pages have such gross errors of fact because nobody can be bothered with crap like this. There are a lot of errors on South Australia history pages, and looks like editors want to keep them that way.Zbunyip (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Zbunyip. If what the users are accusing you of is correct, and you are removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced content, then the appropriate course of action on your part is to provide reliable sources for the changes you would like made, and discuss those changes on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, the sources are wrong is not an option, that is, unless you have better sources to say that this is the case. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I have sources but don't know what the "article's talk page" is. And in any case the attack dogs hit the content and revert it before the references are settled. no [citation needed]. the other problem I had was that guy attacking a reference and mangling it into something that wasn't a reference for the content it had been provided to validate.Zbunyip (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Zbunyip. Toward the top right of the article you should see two tabs (assuming you are using PC, which you appear to be). One should say "article and one should say "talk". The talk page is a discussion area that accompanies the article where users are expected to attempt to reach some consensus when they have a disagreement over article content. If you notice in the ANI thread you link to above, part of the complaint is that you have not engaged in discussion, and this is because this type of engagement is a requirement, and not doing so is generally seen as bad form, if not outright disruptive.


 * Most users are perfectly willing to try to explain misunderstandings, especially to new users, but the talk page is the place to do it, and not using the talk page is a sure fire way to interpret other's actions as abusive and disruptive, when the issue is usually just a difference of opinion. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Abandoning an old account for a new one
Greetings. Please I need an informed opinion concerning something. I want to know if it is allowed to abandon an old account forever for a new one. I have some history with this account that I'm not entirely proud of and it will be nice to start afresh. There is also a personal issue regarding this present username. Since the old account will never be used anymore, there will never be an overlap or indiscriminate editing. Is this allowed? Darreg (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * A very definite maybe. See Clean start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Darreg (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , anyone not currently subject to blocks, bans or sanctions may create a new account with the intent of having a clean start. However, if that editor subsequently does the same sorts of things as led to trouble in the past, this may be taken to be an attempt to evade scrutiny, and held against the editor. In your case, given your block log and past issues, i would strongly advise you to inform the arbitration committee of your new username so that it is clear that you are not trying to evade scrutiny. This can be done by sending an email to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org including your old and new usernames. Once you create the new account, you should totally stop using the old account. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will inform the committee on my new account when am ready. Thanks. Darreg (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Photo
Pls,i can't add a photo to my article.


 * Do you have a particular photo in mind? If you do, where is it at present? Who owns the copyright for it? Maproom (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)