Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 750

Why I can't see my article?
Hi, I published my first Wikipedia article yesterday, but it doesn't appear when I search online. If I go to my Wikipedia page and search the title, it does appear. Can anyone explain to me the reason for this? I have done 10 edits and my account has been more than 4 days. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vioadelia (talk • contribs) 16:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, welcome to wikipedia. Your article is here: Moazzam T Malik. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood your question slightly. Your article is live and on wikipedia. It will take some time for search engines (such as google) to index the new page. Eventually the search engine robots will find your page and it will appear in online searches.Polyamorph (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It takes search engines like Google time to index pages. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Great! I thought something went wrong. Thanks for the information guys! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vioadelia (talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify the replies above,, it's not just that search engines take a while to index new pages, but that the article you contributed needs to be "patrolled" (in other words, be subject to a brief review to check that it's not a copyright violation, etc.) by an experienced editor before it is marked for indexing. There is currently a large backlog of new pages waiting to be patrolled, so this might take some time. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm relatively happy to 'patrol' the article you've written, though I would prefer you to spend just a few moments beforehand to address a small amount of copying of phraseology like 'is a born and bred Londoner'. Many of the other highlighted concerns are simply titles or positions which one can do nothing about. See Earwigs copyvio tool results. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks I'd be grateful if you can 'patrol' my article. I have edited the article and it seems someone has edited it too.
 * You may ignore the message on your talk page saying this article has been patroled and put up for speedy deletion on the grounds of copyright infringement. You may notice that first I disputed this rationale on your behalf on the article's own talk page, firstly because I didn't feel the infringements were major ones, secondly that I'd advised you to address them, and then, thirdly, because I spotted the text you partly used as a source had been released on an open licence by the UK government. The page patroller (who beat me to it) was informed, and they accepted this graciously and removed their tag. I think this demonstrates how consensus and common sense prevails here. I too have tagged pages incorrectly, and sometimes thought better of it immediately afterwards, and other times had my speedy delete tag removed by an admin. Even with open licencing, I would always advise putting things in your own words wherever possible, if only to avoid friendly fire accidents like this one. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information and advice - much appreciated. I’ll keep that in mind.

Can you use Twinkle or Huggle without being an admin?
I'd like to find some vandals and revert it but it is rather hard for me. But here's a question. Can you actually use Twinkle or Huggle as just a normal user? If so, I might be looking forward to using either one. But is there a tutorial for a beginner? HorsesARENice'' Ride me to my talk page 06:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome back to the Teahouse, . You do not need to be an administrator but you need to be very careful with their use. Please read Huggle and Twinkle for complete information including manuals. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh cool! But is there a tutorial and which one is more popular? Huggle or Twinkle? Oh and can you use it on a tablet or phone too? HorsesARENice'' Ride me to my talk page 15:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd advise against using Huggle to start with (I'm still coming to grips with it myself!). Twinkle is very useful, but you really ought to lurk at 'Recent Changes', where you'd be hard-pressed to not find any vandals. Try this setting to reveal the most likely problems amongst current edits. For guidance on Twinkle, see WP:TWINKLE and Twinkle/doc. You might also like to consider live spell-checking with Lupin's tool. This can also highlight non-good faith editors. See: User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Murree
Can you please look at Murree? its written that it comes in Punjab but if you see Google map it is covered in KPK!! so its needs to be changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseebullah Popal (talk • contribs) 10:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,, welcometo our Teahouse, and thank you very much for raising your concerns. I'm terribly sorry you have had to wait quite a long time for a reply to your post here. I really think these matters need to be discussed on the article's talk page (see Talk page guidelines), and not here. I see you did try to make this alteration yourself, and that your edit to Murree was reverted on the grounds that Google maps is not an accurate source for adminstrative boundaries. This is not an unreasonable thing to say, so if you feel there really are genuine grounds for stating it falls within anotherr area, you will need to provide very reliable sources to demonstrate this. Opinion and data gathered by Google maps simply don't count for much if governments and local councils state the opposite. I have no view on the matter, but encyclopedias need to be based on reliable sources at all times, and everyone can contribute to ensuring accuracy. I hope this makes sense. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Image uploads
I need help changing out the profile picture on my daughter's wikipedia page. She's embarrassed by the one that is currently up but I cant seem to upload a new one or figure out how to link Please help! Can I email it somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JennaCable (talk • contribs) 21:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - You can upload the file, provided that you took it yourself, via Wikimedia Commons. You can use the Upload Wizard for this process to make it easier. You will need to waive your copyright on the image to upload it, and provide a reason for its use. However, you need to disclose your conflict of interest before editing the article in question, and ask other editors if the replacement image is suitable for use. Hope this helps. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Please see Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1, Uploading images, and Help:Pictures for detailed information on how to upload an image, and then place it in an article. The image must be your own work, that is, you actually took the picture. Or if it is not, you must get the copyright holder (normally the photographer) to upload it or to email Wikipedia with a grant of permission, as described at Donating Copyrighted Material and Requesting copyright permission. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note, you need not waive your copyright to upload an image. But you must grant a free license allowing anyone in the world to reuse or modify the image, provide that you are properly credited. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Asia's Next Top Model Cycle 1-Cycle 5
Can I ask you a question, I want to help and contibute the updates of Asia's Next Top Model, and can help me with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natheloiz04 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I'm sorry you've had to wait for quite some time for an answer to your question here at our Teahouse. I suspect we weren't quite sure what you were asking, and perhaps hoped someone else might dive in with an answer first! The Teahouse is here to  help with specific questions about editing Wikipedia, rather than assisting users in jobs they want to do, like improving particular articles. But I would say that most sensible  editors who are new to Wikipedia learn how things work by making only small changes at first, and watching to see how others edit and contribute, too. It's all done by consensus (working together) and should be based on sources of information that are reliable and independent of the subject. I recognise that it can seem overwhelming at first to make  edits that everyone else is happy with. But be bold, and be also sensitive to any feedback or reverts to any edits you  make at first. You will learn from these, and any mistakes you may make,  and you shouldn't be offended,  even if sometimes an edit you  make is reversed (reverted) with a rather sharp or terse comment from another editor. If you are unsure why one editor has taken a certain action, it does no harm to ask them on their talk  page  to explain further. May I urge you to read Help:Getting started, which I hope you will find interesting?  I'll pop by in a moment and  leave a few other useful links on your talk page which should help get you going. I hope this goes a little  way to answering your concerns. Pop back with any specific questions you may have at any time. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

how do i get this topic
the history of transportation in southern Nigeria full story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzorjesi2 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello there. Are you trying to find this article on Wikipedia? Thegooduser  Let's Chat  23:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Is this article (Transport in Nigeria) of any use to you as a starting point? You might find the folks at WP:REFDESK are better equipped to help you find the information you seek than are the hosts here at the Teahouse. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to find out if I formation can be added
Hi

I am wondering how information can be added to some of the different items on Wikipedia

Ex Barrie Molson Centre in Barrie under consturion PCL but not major trades like Electrical can the major trades be added

My family business has done a number of building that are on Wikipedia and just trying to find out it is also nice to see who else has done work on the buildings

Thank you Matt L — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.170.202 (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, Matt L. Thanks for your question, and welcome to  our Teahouse.  Firstly, my apologies for the very long wait for an answer. I am  a little unclear what exactly you're asking. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, based only on reliable sources that we require editors to add ( i.e. cite) when they make edits, we cannot accept anyone just adding information to an article even if they know it to be factually correct if there's nothing to allow other users to go off and check whether it's true or not. Thus, by way of an example, I know that the lifts in the famous BT Tower in London were installed by the Express Lift Company because my father managed their London office in the 1960s and 1970s, and he told me this for a fact, and I used to visit their workshops on Horseferry Road with him. (We even had waste bins at home made from leftover aluminium from these installations.) But I can't prove any of this, so would never dream  of adding unsubstantiated trivia to the article. Nor, I doubt, would any users  really find this of any interest!
 * So, by all means visit the Wikipedia articles about buildings your family's business has worked in, but please don't add trivial information about it unless you can find independent articles that talk  about their involvement during the construction phase of any building.  And even then, consider whether it would really be useful to other readers to know such stuff about the Barrie Molson Centre. I  hope this  puts things a little more into perspective? If in doubt, it's always best to post information on the talk page of the relevant article to see if other  editors think your proposed additions and sources are acceptable. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Memorizing the lives of a couple in their involvement in Civil Rights and stopping the Vietnam War during 1940-1980 - Would this be appropriate for Wikipedia?
The couple is my parents who passed away in 1993 and 1994. Starting in the 1940s they were active in helping Black people move to their town of Baldwin New York, which was all White. Later, they demonstrated against the Vietnam War. Their most notable accomplishment occurred in 1967-68 when a Black teacher in their high school of all White teachers and all White students was accused by a White female student of sexually molesting her. During those times, one might expect that the outcome would not turn out well for the Black teacher, regardless of whether or not it was true. My parents knew the Black teacher and after confirming that the allegations had to be false, mobilized the community and other teachers in the school to expose the falsehood and save his job. In the end, the accuser admitted that she made it all up in an attempt to get the Black teacher out of her school. This was featured on the cover and in an article in the March 1968 issue of The Ladies Home Journal.

Currently, there are six (6) people who have firsthand knowledge of their lives and work. These include myself (their oldest son (my brother passed away in 2000), my sister-in-law, and their four grandchildren. We have decided to create something on the Internet to memorize their lives, and the difference they made in other people's lives, for future generations and others. We think Wikipedia would be the best platform to present this information, which would include essays about them written by the six of us, their writings, The Ladies Home Journal cover and article, and pictures. However, I do not know if this would be appropriate under Wikipedia's guidelines and rules. I am sending this to the Support Desk to help determine whether or not we could put this on Wikipedia. I would appreciate a response as we begin to write, gather information, scan, and put everything together as to using Wikipedia.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmperlman39 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm afraid my response may not be very encouraging. Your parents were clearly very admirable people, worth memorialising, but unfortunately Wikipedia is not intended to be a platform for that. It is a tertiary source, which means that it summarises what secondary sources say about a subject - not first-hand sources. None of us can write about things that only we have knowledge about (the example I sometimes use is that if Queen Elizabeth II were to join Wikipedia she would not be allowed to add anecdotes about her father to the Wikipedia article about him, unless they had already been published. That's the key. If there are multiple independent reliable sources that have written about your parents, there can be an article summarising what these sources say, but otherwise I'm afraid not. I'm sorry to have to discourage you from this, but I know it can be very demoralising to start writing about a subject that is dear to us, only to have it deleted from lack of notability, and I suspect that is what would happen if you were to try.  For more information you can read this information. I know there is a lot of info and a lot of rules, but you are always welcome to come back to the Teahouse with more questions. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Might I respectfully make a suggestion? is quite right to say that Wikipedia is not the place to  add such important historical, yet personal family memories. I would recommend you to consider creating a website using one of the free tools like Google's Blogger would be the best approach for this. I have created a number of these for different projects - some receiving many hundreds of thousands of hits over the years. Nowadays they can be made to look just like a website with fixed pages, and not just like a chronological diary (though they can be both if you wish - see here for an example of this).  Because Blogger accounts are free to  set up, they require no annual payment to keep them online, so tend to outlive dedicated websites which disappear the moment you cease paying for hosting and a domain name. By way of example, this blog was created by a lady I know who sadly  died in March 2009, yet all her posts and webcontent are still available online and viewable. Her other website disappeared 6 months later when her hosting payments were not renewed, and it took family members a very long time to retrieve and make her webcontent and research available again. You might like to consider this a very effective way of recording and sharing important family memories long after even you have ceased contributing to it. Hoping this may be of some assistance. Regards from the UK,  Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Tatums, Oklahoma
Derrick E.D. Smith Jr is not the mayor of this town. He is currently on probation for impersonating a public official. He is not allowed to even run for Mayor in Tatums, OK because he is not a resident. You can no longer edit this field. Every time it is changed to the correct Mayor, Pinky Hurley it is changed back to Derrick with nothing to validate its credibility. This needs to be corrected. He should not be representing this historical town. As you can see below he goes by many things, but Mayor of Tatums, Oklahoma he is not.

https://www.facebook.com/people/Mayor-D-ED-Smith-Jr/100007616476480

https://www.linkedin.com/in/derrick-e-d-smith-jr-b734b3128

https://www.linkedin.com/in/derrick-e-d-smith-74093032

https://www.facebook.com/people/Mayor-D-ED-Smith-Jr/100007616476480 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbiej123 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse, The Tatums, Oklahoma article currently lists Pinkey Hurley as mayor. In general the place for suggesting changes would be Talk:Tatums, Oklahoma. Aha! I see a specific editor has been inserting thiw incorrect information. (Note, facebook would probably not constitute a reliable source for this info.) I will warn that editor not to insert incorrect information again. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of article
hi i am new to wikipedia, and one my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_technology_innovations_in_renewable_energy has been flagged for deletion by  discospinster

I disagree with reason given by the above user that the journal is a "non-noteable journal", this is because the article i created was about a publication which has been publishing for the last 5 years. I thought putting it on wikipedia will increase its reach and become more noteable. I have included citations of reputable indexing agencies which include the content from this journal in their database. I can share even more citiations of agencies who have reviewed the journal and considered it useful. Thus the journal is growing and noteable and readers on wikipedia should know about it.

if you still disagree with my opinion please let me know what should i do specifically to prove this article deserves its place on wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Support9975 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are permitted to remove the Proposed Deletion tag(what that tag is called) if you disagree with its reasoning, although Discospinster or anyone could then begin a full Articles for Deletion discussion.  I haven't yet looked at the article in depth, but merely listing where the journal is indexed is not sufficient to establish notability, the measure by which subjects are determined to merit articles here or not.  This journal needs to be described with in depth coverage in independent reliable sources.  If it is not, it probably would not merit an article at this time.  If independent sources exist, please offer them.


 * I would also ask you if you are associated with this journal in any way. Thanks 331dot (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Wikipedia uses the term "notability" in a special sense. It does not mean "importance" here, it specifically means "has been written about by others in a non-trivial way". Therefore the article needs to cite multiple independent published reliable sources to establish this. That is the key requirement. Please read Referencing for Beginners to learn how to format such citations. And do please note that it isn't "your" article, as per WP:OWN. Once posted to Wikipedia, anyone and everyone has the right to edit it to improve the project. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I'm afraid that, like many people, you seem to have a misapprehension about what Wikipedia is, and what it is for. To "increase its reach and become more noteable" is another way of saying "to promote it". But promotion of any kind, commercial or not, is specifically forbidden on Wikipedia. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the article, I proposed to delete it. ... disco spinster   talk  03:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

How do I get wiki makeup tools?
How do I get wiki makeup tools?


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Did you mean to ask about markup tools (see Help:Wikitext)? I have posted a few links to basic information - including editing guides - on your user talkpage. Hope this helps. GermanJoe (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Italian Wikipedia
I edited this random article I got: Santa Margherita di Atri. The comment box stated that I should use the article in the Italian wikipedia as reference. I don't know Italian, so I used Google Translate. Now, I'm getting random Italian alerts from the Italian wikipedia and, even though I didn't edit anything anything in it. I can't even read what those messages say and google translate is becoming glitchy. Please assist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitaphul (talk • contribs) 14:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Sitaphul. Just ignore the Italian message. When you visit a wiki the first time while logged in, your account is created there. That happened today at the Italian Wikipedia. Some wikis post welcome messages to new user accounts which haven't edited. This causes an alert. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid you misunderstood the message on Santa Margherita di Atri. It meant that you could perhaps find additional information in the Italian Wikipedia article, not that you should cite the Italian Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is never considered a relable source for a Wikipedia article. For one thing, it risks circular citation and "citeogenesis". For another, user-generated content, ihncluding Wikipedia, is not considered reliable. I have removed the cites to the it Wikipedia that were in the article. If you are able to add citations to reliable sources it would be helpful. I agree that you can safely ignore the messages from the Italian Wikipedia. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitaphul (talk • contribs) 06:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

How can i contribute to Wikipedia?
Hello All,

I am new to Wikipedia and am very exited to being here. I would like to learn how can I improve the Wikipedia articles in respect to Wikipedia guidelines. Where I will find all the Wikipedia rules to follow while improving any articles? Any advise will be appreciated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangasagar Vishwakarma (talk • contribs) 10:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - finding all of the rules may be a bit of an ambitious first project, but the core policies can be found here - these are the five pillars which underline the encyclopedia and its policies regarding editing. Other key policies which arise frequently for new editors, and are worth perusing as a result, include conflicts of interest, avoiding edit wars, learning what Wikipedia is not, comprehending citations from reliable sources, and neutrality in editing. This is merely the tip of the iceberg, but it is a good place to begin. As a sidebar, you should also always sign your posts by leaving four tildes ( "~" ) at the end of each comment when on talk pages or forums for discussion. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Revenue Cutter merlin india
Hello I wonder if you can help I am looking for any information on the Revenue Cutter Merlin which was lost at sea in 1940 with all on board during a typhoon off the coast in Bombay, can you help please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leolinedancer (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello . You can ask such questions at the Reference desk here: Reference_desk/Miscellaneous. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Jim Bakker
Hi I'm back again. Recently, I have successfully got the article to GA-status and now I'm may consider getting it to FA now? Is there anything I can do to help do (if I do)? If so, any suggestions I should do or add in the article (lead, sections, citations, photos, etc) and if there is, I would love to see a list of what the suggestions for me to nominate it. I am prepared for any scenario. -- LovelyGirl7  talk  01:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome back! It's awesome that you have got this article to GA status in your just three months on Wikipedia. It certainly took me longer than that to have my first GA. The step from GA to FA is much greater than upgrading from say B-Class to GA. I've been here for almost five years and still haven't promoted an article to FA status, though that is a dream of mine.


 * Expect a thorough and rigorous review. You should ensure that there are no obvious errors so that the reviewers can concentrate on more substantial issues. Here is a useful tool that looks for some common issues. Read some of the main sections of Manual of Style and, of course, the Featured article criteria. The most important advice I can give you is to check how some recent and ongoing FA nomination discussions have fared, here Featured article candidates. You'll get an idea of the standard and what kind of issues the reviewers are looking for.


 * The sourcing on the article looks okay, but the FA reviewers will probably have a close examination of those, so be sure you can come up with better or alternative sources if they ask for it. The article also looks a bit short to me; most FAs tend to be longer. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleted edit
I just learned that one of my edits was deleted. What I'd like to know is what it was and why it was deleted. Did I do something wrong? Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Could you name the article or edit in question please, so other editors can look into the specific situation? Generally speaking, you could contact the deleting editor to ask for clarification, if an edit summary was not provided or not clear enough. I am assuming you probably know this already, but just in case: you can check the article's editing log with the "View history" tab. GermanJoe (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - re-pinging (misclick). GermanJoe (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we're on the same page. What I mean is, I looked at my User Statistics page, and saw that one of my edits had been deleted, as opposed to being live. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . You made a single edit to the now-deleted article "Criticism of Osama bin Laden". That article was deleted as the result of the discussion Articles for deletion/Criticism of Osama bin Laden, and your edit was deleted as a result of that discussion. It is perfectly normal for active editors to have a few deleted edits, and this is not a negative indicator at all. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that's reassuring. Thank you for filling me in. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

"Hew Locke" wiki page multiple issues
Hi everyone! I am the original author of this page - which i believe was, and still is - factually accurate. I have reworked it and hope I have corrected the issues of -

- wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (February 2018) - tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (February 2018)

But as I have a Close Connection to the subject of the page - I understand that I shouldn't remove the template messages myself. Is there a way I can invite another editor to check my changes, make any new changes they want, and hopefully remove all the template message?

Trying to get the template removed as quickly as I can! Vicarage bobby (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Vicarage Bobby
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I see no major problems in the current version of the article, and none are described at Talk: Hew Locke. Accordingly, I have removed the tags and asked that they not be restored without an explanation on the talk page. Thanks for this article about an interesting artist. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

thanks Cullen - I didn't expect anyone to deal with it so quickly - it is much appreciated. Keep up the good work everywhere! Vicarage bobby (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Vicarage Bobby

How to get my articles assessed?
I've created 5 articles so far. Two of them, Xu Geyang and Long Yang, are assessed because they are created via the AFC process. The other three are created directly, and they are unassessed. How can I get them assessed? Omega68537 (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Article assessments are awesome, and they can give a great sense of purpose and direction for new editors. For experienced editors, they tend to be less interesting and something of a burden. Yet there are people who actively assess articles. In my experience, it might take a few days for an article to get assessed, up to a week or two even. Assessments at this stage are usually done by people who patrol new pages in areas they are interested in. If your article is not caught by the people who do assessment at this stage, and that might be the case because it's been a week, there is another option. Most WikiProjects have article assessment (and re-assessment) teams. For instance, WikiProject Biographies takes requests for assessment on this page: WikiProject Biography/Assessment. If they don't respond and you'll grow inpatient, I guess the Teahouse (here!) is also an option. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,, I have assessed three of your articles, grading 1 as C-class, and the other two as Start-class. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , I notice that pretty much all of your cited sources are in Chinese. That is perfectly acceptable, but if there are any useful reliable sources in English, please provide them also. That will make it much easier for readers and other editors who do not read Chinese to verify the content. Thank you. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Create a new page
Hi there!

I wish to create a page for a really low budget film, that externally only has a Twitter and Facebook feed for references. Besides that, and the crowdfunding website, is this enough external sources of information for the page to be published on Wikipedia?

I plan of putting in little snippets of info regarding the plot; including the cast and crew also. I must also add that some of the people involved can have links to their IMDb pages also.

Thanks!Nostromo123 (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. All article subjects must be shown to be notable with independent reliable sources (See WP:RS) with in depth coverage. Primary sources such as social media are not acceptable to establish notability as Wikipedia defines it. (WP:N) I regret to say it doesn't sound like this film is yet notable enough for an article. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would add that user editable sources like IMDB are not usually accepted as reliable sources. You may find reading Your First Article helpful. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC


 * I'm sorry,, but from your description, what you are trying to do is promote the film. Please use another site for this, because promotion of all types is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects which several people unconnected with have already chosen to write about in reliably published sources; and articles should be mostly based on what those independent sources have said, not what the subject says about themselves, or what random people on the Internet say. --ColinFine (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate article
I created a pretty in-depth article about artist Blanche McVeigh, published as a draft on March 1. It has never been accepted, but I noticed today that a stub-level article was published last week. Can someone assist with merging the two articles? Mine is more detailed, but the stub has better categories. SaturdayLibrarian (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Courtesy link: Draft:Blanche McVeigh ;
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Links to the two versions are above. You are correct that a WP:Merge along with a history merge, is the way to proceed. I will quickly review your draft, merge into it anything useful from the stub if it looks OK, and then move it and do the history merge.  Thank you for your contributions! DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. I appreciate your quick response! SaturdayLibrarian (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The accepted and merged article is now at Blanche McVeigh. Thank you, for what looks like a very good new article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Uproven Statements Presented as Fact, Edits/Changes Rejected
Hello,

This regarding the Wikipedia page for "Patricia Kennealy-Morrison"

link:

This page contains the statement:

"As editor-in-chief of Jazz & Pop she first interviewed Jim Morrison of the rock band The Doors in January 1969. After the interview, they began a correspondence, became friends and later lovers. She and Morrison exchanged marriage vows in a Celtic handfasting ceremony in June 1970.[2] Before witnesses, one of them a Presbyterian minister,[3] - according to her memoir - the couple signed a document declaring themselves wed.[4] Although handfasting, like other purely religious ceremonies, is not legal unless the appropriate State paperwork is filed, she later changed her legal name to include Morrison's name, and Morrison addressed letters and poems to her as "Patricia Morrison" and "my wife, Patricia".[5]"

Kennealy-Morrison has never publicly identified the minister she claims performed the ceremony, or any of the witnesses she claims witnessed the ceremony.

The letters Kennealy-Morrison claims Jim Morrison wrote to her where he addresses her as his wife or the addressed envelopes with Morrison writing "Patricia Morrison" have never been produced and therefore have never been authenticated or presented to the public.

The signed "marriage document" that is also referenced on this page contains a lot of Kennealy-Morrison's handwriting with redacted information which does not allow the reader to see the name of the minister whom Kennealy-Morrison claims presided over the "handfasting ceremony".

"They declared themselves wed." Again, this is according ONLY to Kennealy-Morrison. Jim Morrison's "death benefits" card was auctioned off a few years ago. Morrison filled the card out four months after Kennealy-Morrison claims he took her as his "wife" and yet on this form Morrison declared himself "single" and listed his younger brother Andy Morrison as the only beneficiary. In his last will and testament Morrison declared himself as "unmarried" and listed Pamela Courson-Morrison and his two siblings as the beneficiaries and formally declared Courson-Morrison as his, as he put it, "only companion in life",

Wikipedia also lists two external resources this page that only serve to bolster Kennealy-Morrison's unproven claims of having a long-term relationship with and being Jim Morrison's wife.

Wikipedia is a trusted source for information for people all over the world and yet it is allowing unproven claims made by one person to be presented as fact. In regards to Kennealy-Morrison's alleged "marriage" to Jim Morrison, Wikipedia only references claims made by Kennealy-Morrison and Kennealy-Morrison herself.

I tried to add two external sources that offer a reasonable rebuttal to statements she has made publicly and in her memoir, one from a former friend of Kennealy-Morrison's and an eye-witness to what the author alleges actually transpired between the two of them.

The second was from an objective third party who documented statements made by Kennealy-Morrison herself that clearly contradict the claims she made shortly after her cameo in the film "The Doors", on her now-defunct website "Lizard Queen Productions" and then again in her memoir.

I chose my sources carefully. Kennealy-Morrison has stated that she is aware of both articles, she has never publicly denied any of the statements in them and has never taken legal action claiming that the articles were false, libelous or damaging.

Kennealy-Morrison has publicly stated in interviews, on her old website and in her memoir that Pamela Courson-Morrison was "stupid", that she was a "whore", a "prostitute", a "junkie" and has publicly stated that Courson-Morrison "murdered" Jim Morrison by tricking into taking heroin by telling him it was cocaine and has made hateful attacks on both the Courson family and the Morrison family, after Jim and Pamela had died.

Wikipedia can reference Kennealy-Morrison's "Lizard Queen Productions", "Mrs.Morrison's Hotel" and Kennealy-Morrison's memoir that contain THESE false, libelous and damaging statements but I am not allowed to reference sources that offer views from people who also there during the time period Kennealy-Morrison refers to and another that offers Kennealy-Morrison's VERY OWN contradictory statements regarding her alleged relationship with Jim Morrison?

I did not "vandalize" Kennealy-Morrison's page and I did not write a personal attack on Kennealy-Morrison. I thought I was following Wikipedia's own mission, to serve as a reliable information source for the public by stating that proof of Kennealy-Morrison's claims have never been made publicly available and that proof of her "marriage" has never been brought before a judge or legally validated. This page itself states, This particular page leaves the reader believing that Kennealy-Morrison is Jim Morrison's "secret", "hidden" or forgotten "wife" and that, based on the facts, is inaccurate.

The surviving members of The Doors, Bill Siddons, The Doors' former manager, Jim Morrison's former body guards and former friends and colleagues of Kennealy-Morrison herself have all publicly, loudly and repeatedly corrected or disputed Kennealy-Morrison's version of events.

Does Kennealy-Morrison have "proof" that she is keeping to herself? I don't know. But since when does Wikipedia allow for a page to be created that contains claims that come from one person who has never proven them and then present them as fact?

I'm sure if I were to create my own Wikipedia page for Kennealy-Morrison, or for anyone else, that contained any claim I cared to make without my being able to back-up any of those claims with actual proof I am pretty sure Wikipedia would remove it.

When I made changes to Kennealy-Morrison's page I stuck to the facts and simply stated that her claims have never been verified or proven and cited two reputable external sources that asked reasonable questions and offered reasonable rebuttals to her claims.

Can someone please explain to me why these small changes, that, unlike Kennealy-Morrison's claims, are backed up formal documentation signed by Jim Morrison himself and notarized by his attorney and by statements made by witnesses to the goings on between Morrison and Kennealy-Morrison were not allowed?

Respectfully,

Kathleen Tully

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JDMAVkwd (talk • contribs) 13:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article talk page, Talk:Patricia Kennealy-Morrison is the place to propose improvements to the article and to challenge any existing content as unsourced or insufficiently sourced. It appears that you have not yet attempted to discus this matter there. I urge you to do so. It does appear that this account of the "marriage" is currently cited only to a primary source, Kennealy-Morrison's autobiography. If the facts are seriously disputed, an independent source should be provided. However your addition consisted of a completely unsourced paragraph on a clearly controversial matter about a living person. According to our biographies of living people policy this is not acceptable either. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , I have removed the obviously unreliable self-published sources and trimmed the article to be more neutral. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Article
Hello! I wrote an article about a person that I then moved to Draft space. After that I asked for a speedy deletion of the page, very stupid yes. Now, is there a possible way to get the article text back. I don't have it and I put down very much effort and work on it. Thanks in advance. The topic for the article was Leif Östling. Nimbo.lo (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . No problem. I've restored it to Draft:Leif Östling. In future, you can make such request at WP:UNDELETE. When you think the article is ready, you can either move it back to mainspace yourself or request a review by clicking the button in the template I added to the page. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I thought I had to write all again. Thank you! Nimbo.lo (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, how do I get the request a review button when I create an article. Because it wasn't there when I pressed publish. Nimbo.lo (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . There is a gray information box at the top of your draft. At the bottom of that box, there is a button that you can click to submit the draft for review. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I know, but it wasn't there at the first when I created the article with wizard article creating. Nimbo.lo (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

www.thermatec.com
Hi I like to create a page and add content about Thermatec Instrumentation & Controls Inc. How do I start? BR Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:45D0:1D83:165D:9E16:9A32 (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would caution you that successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia.  Even experienced users sometimes have difficulty.  It takes much time and practice.  Instead of diving in to article creation, you may wish to take some time to learn more about Wikipedia first, perhaps by using The Wikipedia Adventure, a tutorial of sorts, and by first editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is being looked for in articles.  If you do this, it will greatly reduce the chance that you will end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as your work is mercilessly edited and critiqued by others.  I don't want you to have a bad experience.
 * However, if you still wish to attempt it, you will need to visit Articles for Creation where you can submit a draft for review. However, before attempting to write a draft, you should understand that all article subjects on Wikipedia must be shown with independent reliable sources with in depth coverage how the subject is notable per guidelines; in the case of a business, it would need to meet the guidelines at WP:ORG. Simply citing the company website, press releases, or routine announcements is not sufficient.  You should also read Your First Article to learn about the process.
 * I would ask you if you represent or work for the company you wish to write about. Thanks 331dot (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would add that while it is not required, you may wish to consider creating a username, as it offers certain benefits. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, BR Dan. If you are an owner or employee of this company or a public relations person for the company, then you must first comply with our mandatory paid editing disclosure. Next, please read and study Notability (organizations and companies). Pay special attention to the importance of significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources. Then, read and study Your first article. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Citation for a topic whose subject matter is relatively new.
Hello,

I tried looking through the archives but was unable to find an answer to this. Hoping the kind folks at the Teahouse can help!

Company A manufacturers a new type of widget and has done so for a little over a year. Company B recently started manufacturing the same type of widget and has done so for a few months now. Company A and Company B, both based in North America, are the only companies currently producing the widget. I would like to state the fact that Company A was the first to produce the widget in North America, however, since the widgets are a new type of invention there haven't been any "reliable sources" (per Wikipedia's standards) mentioning this. My question is, what is an acceptable way to cite this fact?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamphilipb (talk • contribs) 00:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . If no reliable source mentions this, then it simply does not belong in the encyclopedia. We summarize what reliable sources say. No more and no less. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there an existing article about Company A? Company B? About the widget of which this is a new type of, independent of A or B? Even so, what Cullen328 said. David notMD (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

New user: why is some of my article missing from the Preview?
For example:

In the early part of the 20th century, nice dolls for children were often made of porcelain, and therefore breakable. Hattie had long dreamed of making an unbreakable doll for children that would be as beautiful as the porcelain dolls. After much experimentation she collaborated with an Italian sculptor and designed and made a doll out of kid glove which was "considered more beautiful in every way than any of the foreign toys," at the annual Toy Fair in New York City. The dolls had glass eyes, movable heads and limbs and could sit and stand on their own. They were beautiful, and nearly unbreakable. Meier and Frank Co. was delighted and the dolls were soon on their shelves and on the shelves of other department stores. Drama Of the Dolls.” Tacoma News Tribune, Sunday, May 7, 1972 “Kid Doll Invention of Former Albany Woman Is Shown.” Albany Evening Herald, Wednesday, December 22, 1920.

I'm sure the reason must be something fundamental that I am not understanding about creating a Wiki page. Thanks in advance for your help.

Patricia Mansfield Harris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricia M Harris (talk • contribs) 00:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Patricia M Harris, welcome to the Teahouse. Some of the text was displayed in the references section because multiple ending  were missing. I have added them [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Patricia_M_Harris/sandbox/Hattie_Bartholomay,_American_Painter_and_Doll_Designer&diff=835328800&oldid=835324211] and also removed some <nowiki ></nowiki> which may have been inserted automatically by VisualEditor. It appears you started the edit in VisualEditor and switched to the source editor. They make references in different ways. VisualEditor adds references via an interface with a menu: VisualEditor/User guide. I guess you instead tried to do it by typing the <ref ></ref> code directly. That only works in the source editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I removed some other reference lines as I thought the in-lines would be the same.... looks a bit better now. Feel free to revert me if I have made an error!!  Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Minor change affects Wikipedia category
I just edited an entry for a geological unit (Cambridge Greensand). Its entry has two links at the bottom of the page, one of which was "Early Cretaceous Series of Europe". Since my change was to remove the "Early" from the entry, I also deleted it from the category, but since there is no Wikipedia category for "Cretaceous Series of Europe" that produced a broken link. Am now about to change the category to "Late Cretaceous", but that's making a change in the innerworkings of the Wikipedia, and I hadn't wanted to do that!

Is there someone I should warn/confess to about this?

The change was, I thought, minor (altering dating to match the current British Geological Survey date range).

Wavery2 (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Wavery2
 * Hello, and welcome to our Teahouse. I would suggest the best thing to do is to raise the matter on the Talk Page of the the WikiProject devoted to geological matters, namely Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology. Nothing is irreversible here, but it's often best to raise concerns or even discuss proposed changes you'd like to make with fellow editors with common interest. The WikiProjects are great places for this. I hope this helps, but do feel free to come back here to discuss anything else. Regards from Mercia Mudstone territory in the English East Midlands. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Text in double square brackets  is a link and becomes red if there is no page by that name. Before your edits it said Category:Lower Cretaceous Series of Europe and not "Early". Clicking the category link shows the parent Category:Cretaceous System of Europe with Category:Upper Cretaceous Series of Europe as the only other subcategory. Can you use that? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Leif Östling
Hello! I'm writing an article about a Swedish former Scania AB CEO Leif Östling. I'm trying to find references to the article and I would like to know if anyone could help me with references and also to improve the draft. Nimbo.lo (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - wow, 11,599 bytes, 4 full-length sections, an infobox full of information, and 27 reliable sources. I am almost completely sure that if you were to submit this for review it would be accepted (I'm not making any promises though :)). Is there any specific part you would like me to find sources to? The article seems pretty well sourced to me, but if you're trying to expand the article I could see where you may want to find more sources. As with many Wikipedia articles, there are a few minor mistakes throughout the article. Do you want me to fix these?--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 12:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes! Since I asked the question here I've added all the references and I would like to expand the article more but I can't find more references, so yes, that would be very nice of you. Maybe you can give some examples on the talk page? If you could take a look at the minor mistakes and then fix them that would have been very good! Nimbo.lo (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you would like to click the submit button I am happy to accept the article as it stands. Theroadislong (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, can I just add some more references first, or should I do that later? Nimbo.lo (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What you like no rush. Theroadislong (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

, to be honest, the most notable mistake I see is overlinking. Many of the words you linked to, such as 1972, graduating, and merge, do not need to be linked to in this context per WP:Manual of Style/Linking. Also, as stated on that same MOS page, there should not be 2 of the same links in the same section (as you linked to CEO four times in the "Education and working life" section). Besides that though, the article looks great, and I'm sure many other editors (including me) would be more than willing to tweak and cleanup the minor little things that appear in all articles. Best regards, --SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 13:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Theroadislong Thank you, I will now submit the draft for review! Nimbo.lo (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , now that you have removed some of the duplicate links or links to common words, the article looks great. Congrats on creating a new mainspace article! :)--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 13:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

SkyGazer 512 Thank you! Nimbo.lo (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Help with table editing stuff
This revision of the Apple Watch comparison has the back, screen, case and band with materials in one column yet separated, while the latest revision separates the back, screen ,case, and band separated from materials (can't explain it properly so sorry if you don't understand). How do I fix it? ITSQUIETUPTOWN  talk • contribs 14:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

How do I get an article in my sandbox submitted for approval to be an article?
Hello! I have an article that I started in my sandbox, but cannot seem to be able to figure out how to get it submitted for creation. I had an article created previously from my sandbox, but that was over a year ago and I don't remember what I did. I put the { {subst:submit} } on the page but then it disappeared and I can't find a record of it pending for review. I thought about using the article wizard but am nervous that it would create a double draft or something if the submit code thing did work? I'm not sure what to do. Znrodrig (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)znrodrig
 * - I have added the template to the article in your sandbox, and that seems to have worked the trick for you, rendering the page submitted to Articles for Creation. The review is now pending, and it may take quite a while. Hope that this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! Next time I will just use the article wizard from the get go to avoid this.Znrodrig (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)znrodrig

Stuck in Source Edit
I was trying out the various editing features in my sandbox and for some odd reason, my editing window is not allowing me to get out of 'source edit mode'. Is there some way that I can re-enable the visual editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwrite New Mind (talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have replied at Help desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)