Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 709

Perspective on article
Hi I have noticed that an article (perampanel) on a medicine is outdated and is rather alarming to patients. I am a healthcare professional and patients' best interests are close to my heart. In the interest of fair journalism, I believe Wiki should provide an unbiased, current, evidence-based account on any topic. Wiki does not replace the opinion of a patient's doctor, thus there should be a disclaimer redirecting a potential patient to their doctor.

I am keen to hear how I can edit the article in question, without an editing war again. I have no vested financial interest in the product. I am just a concerned healthcare professional.Haseenagani (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to the teahouse.  Articles on medicines are sometimes fiercely protected by some of our editors who have medical expertise ( and occasionally they revert edits without thinking clearly about statements ) .  It is important to follow the policy at WP:PHARMMOS, and, if there is disagreement, then the matter should be discussed on the talk page of the article (Talk:Perampanel).  This will eventually lead to your suggested improvements being considered and discussed.  Wikipedia reports what the best references say.  A Wikipedia article is not journalism, but should indeed provide an unbiased current evidence-based account.  Wikipedia never provides a diagnosis or recommendation about a treatment, but patients are always at liberty to read any encyclopaedia or any report on any drug before discussing the matter with their doctor.   Dbfirs  09:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This article went through some avid editing and reversals verging on edit-warring back in July 2017, but none of the editors started a discussion in Talk. I suggest you begin there rather than directly at the article. A point made back then - there is a standard ordering of sections for all articles about drugs. There were disagreements on where to put content. David notMD (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

When they don't tell you why you were reverted
What are the best practices in a situation like this?


 * User A makes a change, including explanations in the edit summary.
 * User B reverts the edit without explaining why.
 * User A asks him why.
 * User B does not respond.
 * User A restores the change, reiterating his rationale in a more frustrated tone.

What did User A do right or wrong, and what should he do now? —151.132.206.26 (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you're asking the right questions. Except in the case of clear vandalism (where time is of the essence), a revert should require and edit summary. User A does not seem to be in the wrong here. I'm assuming you're A, so I'm trying to find to what you are referring now. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  23:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing particular from this IP; I'm not at home at the moment, editing from a public library. But I recently had something like this happen at MOS:ANIME, ultimately for the reason of making undiscussed changes which I disagree with as being a valid reason, but this was supposed to be a more general enquiry. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Mm, if you were attempting to make changes to MOS:ANIME itself, I can see what the difficulty might have been. I can see on the talk page that an IP (I assume you?) attempted to make changes without seeking consensus on the talk page first.  For any policy or guideline, this should never be done without getting that consensus, period, full stop, however right or justified you find the edits.  (Indeed, the page has on a lead template the words "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.")   Ravenswing   02:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you refer to WP:WPEDIT, it also says: Minor edits to existing pages, such as formatting changes, grammatical improvement and uncontentious clarification, may be made by any editor at any time. These are the only edits I made to that page. I made no substantive changes whatsoever. Does our editing policy need to be updated to reflect this blanket restriction? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The original edit should not have been reverted as it was not clearly vandalism, but the fact that the edit was reverted meant that it was a contested edit and should have been discussed on the talk page before being restored. The next two times you were undone (not reverted) you were told to discuss the edit on the talkpage. Two pointers: if you disussing edits here please provide diffs, and if you are using multiple IPs please identify that fact on the talk page when you are discussing concerns. As far as I can tell there was no way to know that the first talk page post (using the 151 IP ) was by the same user who had made the contested edits to the article. Meters (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * you were undone (not reverted)—Undo is a method of reversion. Not a different thing. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But as mentioned on that talk page, I had contacted each of the reverting editors directly, immediately after each reversion: . As mentioned in the OP here, they did not respond (technically, the second one did respond, removing my comments with a summary of “duly noted”). If you’re reverted by an editor who fails to give any reason on any talk page, is the edit truly contested? At what point does such reverting become disruptive editing? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between reversion and Wikipedia "reverting". A revert, which the first edit was, is a form of an undo (but an undo is not a type of revert), whcic should only be used under restricted conditions (vandalism is the most common). An undo can be done for many reasons, including good faith edits.
 * As I said above, if you are reverted the edit is contested. When it's undone by a second editor it is even more obvious that it is contested. The best thing to do is to explain your reasons for making the changes on the article's talk page, where the reverting editor, and any other interested editors can discuss it, as is being done now. I think those undiscussed changes might have been undone had they been done by anyone, but an IP making an undiscussed changes to a stable MOS is even less likely to get the benefit of the doubt. Meters (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * With respect, I think you’re confused. A revert is any edit that completely reverses a prior edit; undo is a feature that revert[s] a single edit. All three of the edits in question were complete reversals of my edits—after each one, the page was in the exact same state it had been in before I touched it. That’s what reverting does. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it not disruptive editing to insist on discussion for uncontroversial changes that you don’t have an identifiable objection to? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don'tr refactor my edits. You are obviously not a new editor, so you should, if you don't already, know what using the revert button on Wikipedia means. I don't know what you think you will get by continuing this. The particular edit in question is under discussion on the MOS's talkpage, where it shoudl be, and I'm not spending any more time on this. Meters (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, what revert button? Do you mean Rollback? Even if there’s a button that says “Revert” on it, then the word doesn’t stop meaning what it means. See WP:Reverting for that. But this is way off topic, which was why I inserted that reply separately between your paragraphs. I’m not asking about that particular edit. I’m asking whether it’s disruptive to passively insist on discussion for any change to which there is no identifiable objection. Isn’t that a form of stonewalling? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

What is $1 and $2 mean at the beginning and end of words in the AutoWikiBrowser for typos?
I'm trying to understand what those symbols and the other symbols mean on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos Can someone explain to me what these do?

Airgum (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They are syntax used in Regex - see Regular expression, the example about for an explanation. Nthep (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

New wiki page
Hi all, I submitted a new page and it was rejected. Draft:Row2Recovery On hindsight the page was badly written and poorly referenced. I've now had the time to re-write it properly and list proper references, from open-sources suggested by Wikipedia, in a format suggested by Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if someone could give it another look. There is a great deal of interest in this charity in the UK but the history keeps getting lost in website edits and the story in the disjointedness of social and conventional media. Wikipedia just seems the perfect platform for just the facts! With many thanks.. PaddyNicoll (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you have already declared your COI, thank you. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a means to publicize or promote any organization, no matter how good a group or cause it might be.  That said, there may be the required notability for this organization(please review WP:ORG, the notability guidelines, if you haven't already).  The review process is very backlogged, please be patient; eventually it will be reviewed. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * please be aware that the notability of the subject of an article is judged on the quaility of the references, not the quantity. I see you've used a large number of low-quality sources. The articles in the London Gazette that I've checked don't even mention Row2Recovery. Reference 12 10, which you claim is to The Telegraph, is in fact to the Mail Online. Maproom (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that feedback. My motivation is not to promote the charity, just to tell the story. I did have a look at WP:ORG, thank you. Row2Recovery is in reality, just a useful title under which the history of these three Atlantic rows, undertaken by disabled servicemen, can be grouped. Many thanks.PaddyNicoll (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood. I have tried to limit the sources to national newspapers and only referenced to give evidence to that particular sentence as one would in an academic paper. I will have another go at the referencing so that they give more obvious context to the entry. The London Gazette sources are a good example of that, they are there to give evidence of those particular individuals being gazetted - (Gazetted Officer (India) - I'll re-do those too. And thanks for pointing out the Telegraph/ Mail Online error - sloppy! Many thanks PaddyNicoll (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Please be aware that a formal decision was made in February, 2017 that the Daily Mail and its website should not be used as references in Wikipedia because of its long record of fabrication and falsification. Please read WP:DAILY MAIL for complete details. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you and, whilst I wasn't aware of that, it certainly doesn't surprise me - I don't allow it in my house. I'll find better sources for those sentences! Many thanks PaddyNicoll (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy to be of assistance, . Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  20:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All done . That was quite satisfying. Thanks for letting me know!PaddyNicoll (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

user id and repost draft submission
Hello. My user id, "designlab1008" is not located, perhaps because i have not used it for a while and a previous submission that i made "Mike Dubois" is no longer posted as a live draft and i would like to work on it again since i now have additional references. If someone could help with these two issuew it would be appreciated. 1-verification of my user id 2-repost draft of previous content for "Mike Dubois"

thank you for your time Nick Clemente Designlab1008 (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey, Nick, welcome to the Teahouse! Information on how to recover your draft is posted on your talk page.  As far as gaining what's known as "autoconfirmed" status on your username, that happens after you've made ten edits, which you haven't yet done.   Ravenswing   22:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Designlab1008 shows 45 edits, but presumably most of them were on pages which have subsequently been deleted. This poses two questions as to how the count for autoconfirmed status is made.  Is it based on the count at the wmflabs page or at Special:Contributions?  And if the latter, if the count rises above 10 and autoconfirmed status is granted, but pages are subsequently deleted and the count drops below 10, does this then remove the autoconfirmed status?  There is, of course, also the question as to why autoconfirmed status isn't shown along with other user rights at Special:ListUsers... --David Biddulph (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably because (and I'm really not joking here) there are well over a million and a half autoconfirmed accounts.   Ravenswing   02:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting stat. I see that there are only 38340 extended confirmed, so fairly low "conversion rate" from autoconfirmed to extended confirmed. Now that I look again at WP:AUTOCONFIRM I see that the 10 edits criterion does include deleted ones, so that answers one of my questions above and presumably Designlab1008 is indeed autoconfirmed. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey David, Thank you for the informative feedback. My intention is to be as clear as possible regarding the process and protocol regarding wikipedia so as to be able to contribute relevant content in the future.

Your time and information is appreciated. - Nick ClementeDesignlab1008 (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to create: Category:Music and Arts University of the City of Vienna alumni?
Is it possible to create: Category:Music and Arts University of the City of Vienna alumni?Buchla200e (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, welcome to the  Wikipedia Teahouse, where Lindenblütentee is consumed just as avidly as Assam or a good old cup of Yorkshire Tea!
 * Errm, I have to say that sounds to me like a terrible Category name. It's not helped by a long title, namely the Music and Arts University of the City of Vienna. There seems to be two naming approaches to alumni lists and categories. I've not actually checked if there are naming convention guidelines, but I'm seeing (in this search) many results for both "Category: Alumni of the University of Foo" as well as "Category: University of Foo alumni". In your case, I'd opt for "Category: Alumni of the Music and Arts University of the City of Vienna" - far more understandable, with the key word (alumni) right at the start, not way back at the end.
 * Far less understandable is why you feel the need for such a new category at all. Can you explain? The article on the Music and Arts University of the City of Vienna has been an uncited WP:stub since 2008. There's not a single alumnus listed there, and the lead sentence is a masterclass in stating the obvious. It really needs some work, and you sound like the chap/chapess to do it. My advice would be to improve that article, add in the odd alumnus or alumna that you can prove went there. Having done that, only then would there be any possible merit in creating such a category for those individuals. I hope this makes sense? Regards from the UK,  Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Body temperature
Everybody believes that human body is getting hot when he drinks hot drinks, hot coffee etc.But what happens is the reverse of it.When one drinks hot coffee his body temperature goes down. This is why in winter, men drink hot beverages and feel more comfortable. The same effect is gained when he is doing physical exercise and brings down his body temperature. Suppose the atmospheric temperature is 34 degrees and human body temperature is 28 degrees, then the man feels hot. If he can bring down the atmospheric temperature to 28 degrees by putting on a fan or Air conditioner, he escapes from the heat outside. This shows that the body temperature and the temperature surrounding him should be equal or the atmospheric temperature should be a bit lower for him to be comfortable. When the atmospheric temperature is below his body temperature he will have to either push up the outside temperature to 28 degrees using a room heater or to bring down his body temperature to a  lower   level in order to feel comfortable. He may adopt different methods to accomplish this target. One is to consume hot beverages and another is to take bodily exercise such as running or brisk walking and yet another is to cover his body with thick blankets so that heat from the body is preserved.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteraugustine (talk • contribs) 05:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Dr BS Ajaikumar wiki page rejected. Need help to rewrite.
Hi there, my article was rejected though I have followed all the necessary steps as per wiki. The rejection message says, 'This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia.' I have written the article on neutral grounds, still the article is rejected. Can somebody guide me?Cyberknifeindia (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The writing style could be corrected. The lack of evidence that the subject is notable is a more serious obstacle. Unless you can address that, by finding and citing several reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of Dr. Ajaikumar, any other work done in the draft will be wasted. Maproom (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

UAA
Hi there! Hope you are doing great. Is there any bot such as TW for CSD, similarly something for UAA? Or is it to be manually reported? Thank you! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Twinkle does have a UAA reporting option, if you are on the page of the username you wish to report, either their user page or user talk page. It is located under "ARV", in a drop down menu(on a computer). 331dot (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think I got that backwards. If you are on a page that you want to CSD, it is also in Twinkle, as the first option in the menu. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - And here is the link to the documentation. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 08:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * (ec) Thanks a ton, 331dot and Tigraan! Also, say a username created an article in his sandbox, and he is the owner of the company. The sandbox article is purely CSD U5, G11. In that case, does the username still fall under promotional UAA category (WP:ORGNAME)? Specifically talking about this. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The name is OK because it is a person's name and not a company name. They do have a conflict of interest that they need to declare and probably WP:PAID as well. I haven't examined their edit history but if their only edits are blatantly promotional they could eventually be blocked for only being here to promote their company, I think. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, 331dot! Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikiholicism
I am extremely addicted to editing Wikipedia, how can i cure this? Thegooduser  talk  20:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Freedom and Cold Turkey are two programs that will block domains you select at times you select. Good luck! --Thnidu (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See also Wikipediholic. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @Thegooduser, I would ask for help from those around you in the "real" world if possible. --Malerooster (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry for not replying earlier. Your question didn't seem important enough for me to stop editing Wikipedia to give you my time. I regret that now.
 * First you have to confront the reality of your addiction, my friend. Do you nip to the loo in the middle of a church service/friends party/romantic night in/football match/TV dinner, and quickly check for wiki-notifications? Do you hide your addiction from friends and family, having prepared an innocent-looking page which you can show on your monitor with a crafty Alt-Tab whenever they come in? Do you find it incredulous that there are actually people out there that don't understand the things you say or who don't seem interested in asking you to demonstrate WP:RS in the middle of a conversation? I feel your pain, my friend. Do come join us, be open, and share your story at Clinic for Wikipediholics. A wise person once said (I think it was ): Denial is a river in Egypt. I can quit whenever I want to. I just don't want to yet (yes it was!). (Rather sadly, I note that I signed the Wikipediholics register under my old account name back in 2016.) We clearly both need help. But maybe we're imagining a problem. After all, were Wikipediholism a real problem, wouldn't there be mainspace article on it? (If someone'll pay me, I'll write it!) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out. What do i do after i sign in to the clinic? Thegooduser  talk  02:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I fear there's very little you can do, my son/daughter/person of indeterminate organic origin. My only advice is to listen to the clinicians; attend all the group therapy sessions; share your stories with others, be open and honest; admit your weaknesses to those you love - they will support you if they really care about your plight. Do ask the doctors any questions you like about your treatment here in the clinic. Just try to take one day at a time and you may, eventually, come to be accepted as a proper member of society once again. But (thinking about it for a moment) who wants to be seen normal??? That's boring!. Now, get back to editing!!! Wikilove from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can I inject a note of seriousness, after my frivolous reply above?  If you are, say, a college student and have real problems resisting the urge to check and edit Wikipedia, and find it really draws you away from other priorities in life, like the genuine need to revise for exams, and so on, it is possible to ask an adminstrator to place a temporary editing block on your own account. I've seen it done, but I'm really sorry, I can't seem to find any guidance on this. Should you genuinely need to stop yourself from editing for a period of time, I'd suggest putting a  template on your Talk page and explain your reasoning for wanting to do this. (Just don't think about standing to become an admin for a year or so afterwards - that kind of action doesn't go down too well at WP:RFA!) Nick Moyes (talk)

If i ask an admin to block me will i get in trouble in the future/right now? Will it go on my record? And how do i be unblocked? Thegooduser  talk  05:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, so I've a little dug deeper and found out more (but I confess to having no experience in this field) First, I don't know your age, but it was one of your infoboxes that made me realise you might have asked in all earnestness. So, if you're at home with parents or partner, you could ask them to help you - maybe simply turning off the router/modem/removing ethernet cable etc for you could keep you off all the internet for a period - but that could impact on essential internet access elsewhere for your studies, for example. Or maybe it's possible for you or them to block the wikipedia domain via your router settings. (I think an earlier posted suggested two websites for that)
 * The page I've found for you is WP:SELFBLOCK, and there are indeed a small category of admins willing to consider a user-requested block under cicrumstances that each admin defines themselves. Having read it, I'm not sure it's the best way, especially as at least one admin says that any attempt to get round a defined period of self-blocking with an WP:SPA could lead to all accounts being permanently blocked - and I suspect you really don't want this if you were to try to sneak back on somehow. And a block is a block, so it will look to others that you've been blocked for something bad. In general that's not too much of a worry unless later on (i.e. within a year or so) you wanted to stand for admin or request special rights where past evidence of responsible action needs to be seen. But, to answer your question directly: no, a block of any sort won't look good.
 * So, here's an alternative for you: The WP:selfblock page does suggest using WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer first - a script you add to your common.js page. You define a start and an end time to when you can log on. If you are unsure about using it, you could ask one of those supportive admins in the category above to keep an eye on you as you install it (they have the ability to edit your common.js file, I believe, should you mess it up and permanently lock yourself out).


 * Finally, I do want to apologise to you. I had interpreted and responded to your question in a light-hearted way at first - I am really really sorry for that. Being addicted to something takes so many forms, whether it's computer games, gambling, alcohol or visiting particular websites in a manner that a person can't properly control. I recognise that the feeling of being useful here and helping create this encyclopaedia is, itself, a very addictive and rewarding experience. So, whatever it is, if deep in your heart you feel it has started to take you over and you can't control it, and it's starting to impact on sleep, studies or on other things in life that you know you should be doing, then, yes, you probably do have a problem you need to address. In fact, you're doing that right now, so that's good. Talk to people in the real world - a friend or family or a teacher - and be open and honest about your concerns if you can't pull yourself away from the computer and it's really eating into your life. It really is OK to ask them to support and watch over you a little more; it's something any caring person would be only too willing to do for you - there's really no shame in asking for that help. Understand that I have no expertise in this area, but do feel free to drop me a note on my Talk page if you want further support in what, I suppose, would be a fractionally less public arena. But real friends - real people - are by far the best ones to support you, not me. This place might feel safe, but not if its the cause of your worries. Real safety comes from the understanding, care and support that only real people around you can give you. Take care and best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

What is correct way of cite my article?
First of all thank you very much for reviewing my article David.moreno72! You said that the content of my submission on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FrieBra/sandbox/Donald_Bruce_Dingwell includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Could you tell me if this concerns all the citations or a specific one? could you help me to understand what was my mistake? Thank you very much! FrieBra (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not the admin who rejected the article, but from a quick look, large blocks of text have no citations at all. David notMD (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You had numerous misplaced external links, which have been removed by a subsequent editor; you may have intended some of those to be reference citations? --David Biddulph (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible OR
Hi. I started copyediting Spring 2013 United Kingdom Coldwave, but I just realised that the title could be WP:Original Research. The author has been indeff blocked. What should be done about this? Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't see any issue with the title, unless the cold wave was given a commonly used name in reliable sources(such as by the press or a government agency).  The sourcing of the article definitely needs some work, as you may have seen. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you, User:331dot. I was concerned that the sources don't call the storm a cold wave, but I see your point about it being okay as they don't call it anything else either. Thanks for the help, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems very odd to me to see an American term used in an article about the UK. We say cold spell or cold snap rather than coldwave which is not a word in British English.   <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  21:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I know that's not a common term in my part of the US, at least. We would say cold snap. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What 331dot said - I don't think I've ever heard that term, to be honest. Heatwave, on the other hand, is quite common. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, apologies, I should have researched further. The word exists in American English but not with that meaning (except possibly informally by analogy with heatwave, and, according to our article, by the U.S. National Weather Service, but the link is dead, so I can't check).  The meaning does not appear in any dictionary, so we should definitely not be using it in Wikipedia unless we can find an American weather reference.   <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  08:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a W article Cold wave, but unclear if that describes an abrupt change to much colder weather or a prolonged period of cold weather. A look for Cold spell or Cold snap redirects to Cold wave. David notMD (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, User:Dbfirs and User:David notMD, the page move makes sense to me, I have never heard of this term as a uk resident. However, should articles like Cold wave, which seems to mostly talk about cold spells, and [January 2017 European cold wave be moved as well? Thank you, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ping fail, I think I need to sign User:David notMD. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I was going to suggest that change of name, but the article claims U.S. National Weather Service usage (with a dead link), so I didn't want to upset Americans if the usage really is common in weather forecasting and reporting on the west side of the Atlantic. How does one find out?  I can find no usages of the one-word term, but several books indexed by Google use cold wave (two words) for the concept.   <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  16:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Correcting an entry i just made
Xanders11 (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this refers to your sandbox(which also seems to be duplicated in this draft).  I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "top most line" of your sandbox, but if you mean one of the headers, you should be able to edit it just like any other content on the page; if you open up the edit window, the headers appear between the equals signs(=) and you should be able to edit them.  If that's not what you are referring to, please clarify.
 * Regarding your draft itself, content like "For Susana, her work is play. She enjoys living her dream – and hopes to inspire others to pursue their dreams too!" is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. It would be considered promotional. You will need independent reliable sources for the content of the article, and the article should only be based on what those sources state. The content causes me to wonder if you are associated with the person you are writing about.  Certain Wikipedia policies may apply to you if that is the case, please clarify.  Thank you 331dot (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi @331dot.I have removed the content you quoted as wholly inappropriate.Going back to my concern, the draft page is already submitted and what I would like to remove or change is the area that says "Draft:Susana Robledo".I am not sure where the mistake occured during the process but the entire page should start with her name I assumed.I was tasked to put up a wiki page for her and I can send proof that this has the person's consent. Xanders11 (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Xanders11 (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) So what you want to do is change the title. That can be accomplished with a page move to whatever it is you want the title to be; someone else may need to do it for you, if we know what you want to call it.
 * If by saying "I was tasked to put up a wiki page" you mean that you work for this person or their business, you must review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID before you edit further. The latter is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are paid.  You should understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not social media for people to have "wiki pages".  As an encyclopedia, we have articles about people shown to be notable per guidelines with independent reliable sources. In this case the guidelines would be WP:BIO.
 * I regret to say that your draft is almost certain to be rejected this time; it does not have any sources at all, let alone proper independent reliable sources. It reads as a biographical entry more appropriate for her company's website, and not an encyclopedic article. As I indicated above, if you have a conflict of interest, you need to set aside everything you know about Susana and write only based on what independent sources with in depth coverage state about her. That is usually difficult for most people in your situation to do, and if you don't think you can do it, or there are not independent sources, it will not be possible for their to be an article about Susana here at this time. You should also read Your First Article to learn what is being looked for in articles. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you mean that you want to remove the "Draft:" from the title, that is only done if the page is accepted, which as I said is not likely to happen at this time. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would add(sorry) that consent is not relevant as to whether an article exists about a person or not- but it isn't always a good thing to have a Wikipedia article about yourself here, see WP:PROUD. You cannot prevent others from editing it, cannot lock it to the text you or the person might prefer, and cannot keep negative information out of the article as long as it appears in an independent reliable source(and is not defamatory). 331dot (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would just like to make my header and its content to be the title and introduction text instead. Susana is my employer and client. As a newbie to this Wikipedia Article writing, I would like you to consider. I planned to place a base Article and continuously update as the information I am getting from my sources are coming in bits and pieces. I intend to use other CEO of other businesses as base models for this entry.
 * I think I just did what you wanted done to your draft(though I'm not sure). I again stress that you need to read WP:COI and WP:PAID as soon as possible and make the appropriate declarations on your user page; failing to declare a paid editing relationship would result in your being prevented from editing until you do. I don't mean to press the point harshly but it is important. I would encourage you to revert the submission of your draft until it is ready because it is not going to be accepted as it is now. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you. it's good now. I completely understand that I have to declare stuffs on my user page and what it entails. Can you give me a quick guide on how to accomplish this? How do i also revert the submission. I will just add everything one time here to make this an approved article (including references, links, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanders11 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The COI and Paid editing pages I linked to earlier give instructions on ways to do this, but it should satisfy things if you post on your user page(click your username at the top of the screen, or in your signature on this page) something like "Per the conflict of interest and paid editing guidelines, I state that I work for Susana Robledo and have been directed to edit about her on Wikipedia as part of my job duties". 331dot (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've also reverted the submission; it will take much work to get it ready to submit again. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hewllo, . I'm sorry that your employer has tasked you with an almost impossible job. Please explain to her that she has a (very common) misunderstanding that Wikipedia has any role whatever in her on-line presence. It does not. If we have an article on her, it will not be under her, or your, control, and should contain essentially nothing she has said or done unless somebody completely unconnected with her has chosen to write about it, and been pulished in a reliable place. Only if there is enough such independent material will it be possible to write an acceptable article on her; and as an employee, you are likely to find it difficult to forget every single thing you know about her and write an article based only on those independent souces. Sorryu --ColinFine (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleting an article
How do I propose that an article be deleted? I'm looking at Fatima in Lucia's Own Words, and the article has only one source (a Catholic online newsletter in Denver) and at least until I started deleting material, was basically just an ad. A quick Googling didn't turn up anything better. Or am I being too harsh? FloridaSammi (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I appear to have found it. My apologies for not Googling my own question before asking it! Still would be glad to have a second opinion tho. FloridaSammi (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm missing something along the way, but I'm confused as to why you believe the article about this particular book needs to be deleted. Not only that, but are you saying that the other four or five books related to it are just fine with having articles about them?  I googled the name of the original book (*Memórias da Irmã Lúcia*) and came up with a slew of results, however I don't speak Portuguese, so I can't be a judge of WP:RS.  I think I'm just looking for clairification as to your point of view.  Thanks. - <b style="color:#ff5d00">NsTaGaTr</b> (<b style="color:#F00">Talk</b>) 21:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't think to check the title in Portuguese. Good point. I will remove that tag. Just to clarify my thinking, I thought Wikipedia articles required the inclusion of quality sources. I came here randomly because it was tagged for copyediting, and this article didn't appear to have any quality secondary sources at all. I did not investigate articles on other books about Fatima yet, but if they don't have any either, this policy clearly isn't an issue. I apologize for my misunderstanding, and thanks for the quick response! FloridaSammi (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Asking questions and searching for clairification is what the Teahouse is all about. By no means am I saying that my viewpoint above is correct; I agree that articles need to be properly sourced, and seeing as how this article is about a book published in the 1970's, I can only presume that it was originally written to different Wikipedia standards.  Another good reference would be WP:NBOOK, which spells out exactly what is required for a book to meet the 'notability' requirements for inclusion.  Hope this helps. - <b style="color:#ff5d00">NsTaGaTr</b> (<b style="color:#F00">Talk</b>) 21:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . The recommended thing to do when you come across a poorly sourced article is to carry out a good faith search for reliable sources covering that topic, and add references the best of them to the article. As suggested by, it is good practice to also search using alternative search terms. Only when you fail to find such sources should you consider deletion. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  22:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello
I'm new. What do I do? How does Wikipedia work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afterbucks (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Before this entry scrolls off the board, I'd like to extend the wish to you that you find a way to interact with other editors in a more productive way.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk)  (contribs)  23:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding picture to article
i have 2 last questions please. 1 - Can you please help us concerning adding an image of Perla to Perla Helou page ? what should we do in order to add it ? 2- will Perla Helou article appear in google search since it has been created ? or not ? (becuase now it doesn't appear yet ) thanks alot for your help Mimosheikh (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Mimosheikh (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,, welcome to our friendly Teahouse. The article on Perla Helou went through the Articles for Creation process and is already findable on a Google search. (A tip is to add the word "wiki" after your search term - that brings Wikipedia  results right up to the top of the  page, if it has been indexed). Other new pages don't get  indexed until they have been "patrolled" as part of our New Page Review process  - but that doesn't concern your article.
 * Regarding adding an image: I can find no image of her on Wikimedia Commons. Whilst there are many pictures of her on the internet, these will probably all be I have found all to be copyright, so you cannot use them. Do you have an image that you, personally, have taken and own? If so you may upload and use that, but you will have to be prepared to release it under a Creative Commons licence which allows others to use it, even off-wiki  or for commercial purposes. Do come back if you need any further help in this regard. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Who do you mean by "us" and "we", ? Is your account used by more than one person? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)