Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 831

Site review & acceptance
Hello Folks,

I started creating a new Wikipedia page a few years ago for a well-known musician in Harry Belafonte's band, Mr. John Cartwright. He's has become an important mentor to musicians in the Los Angeles area. He's approaching 80 and I wanted to make sure the world knew about him and his contribution.

The page is mostly finished, but I got pulled away from the project. Can you tell me if it's approved so I can complete it? I also want to start a new page for a historic bookstore that should be remembered.

Thanks for your help. As an author and editor, I like being part of the Wiki team.

Diana Weynand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diana Weynand (talk • contribs) 20:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a huge problem that's going to prevent the draft from being approved -- it doesn't cite any sources. Another issue (more easily fixed) is the use of editorializing phrasing, such as "distinguished" and "accomplished."  In such cases, show, don't tell.
 * My usual advice for writing articles on any topic:
 * 1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.
 * 2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
 * 3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
 * 4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.  Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.
 * 5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
 * 6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
 * 8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
 * Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, . Your draft is located at User:Diana Weynand/John R. Cartwright. I am sorry, but your draft is entirely lacking in references to reliable, independent sources, which are the building blocks of an acceptable Wikipedia article. Please read our core content policies Verifiability and No original research. At this time, your draft article is not in compliance with those policies. I recommend that you read and study Your first article and Referencing for beginners. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * To add to what Ian.thomson and Cullen328 have said, : however distinguished Cartwright may be "mak[ing] sure the world knew about him and his contribution" is precisely what Wikipedia is not for: that is called promotion, and is strictly forbidden. Wikipedia is for summarising what uninvolved people have already chosen to publish about a subject. --ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

My quote
I'm a beginner and I'm really confused I would like to start editing, but I don't know were to go or how to go about it. - Selena L - S3e3l3e3n3a2030 (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You could start by following the various links in the messages on your user talkpage. If you have specific questions after that, please feel free to ask. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to test editing, Sandbox allows you to edit as much as you like. Once you have familiarized yourself with how to edit, check out Tutorial for a quick guide. Regards So  Why  18:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, . I'm sure you're frustrated by having your first article deleted, but don't be downhearted. Another suggestion to get you started, and to enjoy learning about how Wikipedia operates, is to have a go at The Wikipedia Adventure. It's a fun, interactive tour, during which you can earn up to 15 separate badges for achieving different assisted tasks. Learning to edit Wikipedia is a little bit like driving a car for the first time. Whilst you could just jump in and set off down the road at high speed, there's a high probability that you'll crash and never want to drive again. Luckily, no-one here gets ever killed from editing, but it's always best to drive slowly and on familiar roads to start with. What are your interests? Why not go and look at a few articles about the things that really interest you - then see if you can find any spelling errors, better ways of stating known facts, or adding in better references? Working on the things you find of interest to you personally is often the best way to start off. Failing that, there's a few hundred thousand other tasks that need fixing - see the 'Help Out' section at Community portal! Regards and best wishes at the start of your own personal Wikipedia journey. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Block self request
Block 666thedevil2222222 reason keep on making bad page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 666thedevil222222 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello welcome to the Teahouse. Whilst I'm not convinced your username will be seen by some people  as particularly appropriate, I see no reason for you to think you should be blocked at this stage. Yes, you've created some rubbish new pages which have been deleted or turned into a draft. But so long as you learn from the experience, and don't create silly articles for the sake of it, you should be OK. The best way to get blocked is to continuously ignore the reasonable advice of other editors, or to demonstrate that you're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. You haven't done that as yet. So,  why not give The Wikipedia Adventure a go, and win up to 15 badges in our fun interactive teaching tutorial? Then read Your first article to help you decide if making new  pages is really for you, or if perhaps there are other things you can contribute to here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Two articles submitted for the same artist
Hello, thank you very much for the invitation. I've been working in the page of a korean singer now i submitted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jungkook however i just noticed there's another draft for the same artist that was also submitted but that it's incomplete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeon_Jung-kook

I know one of both will be declined, but I wanted to know if in case the other article is the one declined the information that contains in the discography can be used to create a new page of the artist's discography? leigiraldo (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no rule that one has to be declined but even if, it would make sense to have a redirect from one name to the other. Any information can be merged into another page if the rules for attribution are followed. You can even retract your submission and merge your content to the other draft while a review is pending (the template explicitly states that you are free to continue working on it). See Copying within Wikipedia and Merging for more details. Regards So  Why  17:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I already wrote to the other editor so we can solve this and give a quality page for the artist. Have a nice day. ↳ LeiGiraldo . . . 21:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just adding to what has said, it's worth  mentioning that there is already a redirect from a similarly-named page titled Jungkook (singer). After creating,  it was almost immediately redirected to BTS (band) as that page (see this version) had no references, so that wasn't surprising. Nor was it very well named,  as there's no other Jungkook on Wikipedia, so really no need to differentiate him from anyone else. I would be extremely surprised if, by collaborating, the two of you can't create an article that gets accepted. In my household, I hear little else but how wonderful Jungkook, Suga, Jimin and all the rest of BTS is (my daughter is off to see them in concert in London later this year, too, so I shalln't  hear the end of it!). I realise BTS fans can be a teeny bit on the keen side when it comes to their idols, and it's easy to want to cram in as much as you can into a new article. I would suggest you resist that temptation, and pare down the draft a bit, removing all trivial content and information that is sourced from minor mentions or unreliable sources, sticking only to the bare facts and Reliable Sources about this heart-throb singer. Then I'm convinced you'll get your draft accepted as being Notable, or meeting WP:MUSICBIO. You are to be congratulated in wanting to take the collaborative approach to adding to this encyclopaedia. Good luck with it. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Nick Moyes Thank you very much for your message, I'll be fixing those recommendations to improve the article and make it more professional, I've been searching for all the reliable sources because I really think these boys deserve their own page. Many try to search them now that they have individual music and producing releases that are charting around the world for the first time ever for korean artists and it's frustrating they can't find any english article about him. I hope your daughter has the best time in the concert, I'm so happy for her. This is the first time they go to UK and it's already in such an iconic venue. Those boys are such an inspiration how starting from zero and being ignored by their own country they now became in their pride. I'll been supporting via periscope it's going to be a really amazing iconic night.

I also talked to the user that has the other article and she agrees to retract her submission but doesn't know how to do it so I'll try to search and send her the information. I'll do my best working on this so it can be accepted, it would be an honour to be added as Notable and meeting WP:MUSICBIO (I changed my username recently it's not leigiraldo anymore) ↳ GiovannaG . . .  (My talk) 23:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

articel genrated wrong place?
Dear Teahouse. I think I was a bit confused while generating the first draft article. I am not sure, if I made any mistake in placing it not in the sandbox? I can't check somehow the status ? Is about corn sauce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WuHaiJie (talk • contribs) 01:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . You were trying to write a draft on your user page. That page is for some information about you as a Wikipedia editor. I moved your draft article to Draft:Corn Sauce. I recommend that you read Your first article, and use that information to improve your draft. Your can ask questions here at the Teahouse at any time. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

My edits are accurate but keep getting deleted
Info on my Wiki page is way out of date and I'm trying to update/delete. I keep getting blocked or reverted. What do I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethanybee (talk • contribs)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this relates to Toben Seymour.  If you are Tobin, you should be aware that the page is an article about you, and not "your Wiki page".  Please read the guidelines on autobiograpical edits at WP:AUTO. You should also confirm your identity with Wikipedia by emailing the address listed in the paragraph this link takes you to, as we have no way to know you are who you say you are. If there is information on the page that is incorrect, we want to know what it is, but you should not edit the article yourself.  You should post your concerns on the article talk page, which is Talk:Toben Seymour.  This will allow other independent editors who follow that article to review your comments and determine how to proceed. To draw additional attention to it, you can make your comments an edit request(follow the instructions at that link) 331dot (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Related at Help_desk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

First time user
Dear All,

I created wiki business page and started getting surprises with spam etc. I am surprise how other companies (there are millions of company web pages) are able to write about their business. I am very new to wiki and would appreciate if someone could help me with this.

Please note, this is the FIRST time i am landing on wiki and getting warnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookcheap (talk • contribs) 07:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It would appear from your username and your draft article that you are in direct conflict with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Do go to that link and read all of it, but the key words are "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia." HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a business directory. We have articles about notable businesses but they are written by volunteer editors, not by people associated with that business.
 * Your username is also a problem. I'll leave a note about that on your talk page in a moment. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Zeremariam Fre - new page
Dr Zeremariam Fre founder of the Pastoral and Environmental Network in the Horn of Africa (PENHA) has just been awarded the prestigious Desmond Tutu Reconciliation Fellowship. The award ceremony is on 4 October and will attract media interest. My page for him is ready to upload. Do I need prior approval and where do I upload the content? Thank you for you guidance. Nicole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolekenton (talk • contribs) 12:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Did you read the replies which you received at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 825? --David Biddulph (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

What should I do?
My article, Feng Timo, has ben nominated for deletion. I think it's still possible to save it. But what should I do?  Omega68537  (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't panic. It's possible to save it provided there are reliable sources report about the subject. Now, go to the deletion discussion and using reliable sources explain why you think the subject merits an article. Since it's about a musician, the guideline is WP:NMUSIC, compare the points there with your sources and then write the reason in the discussion. Also, in the event it's eventually deleted (or even retained) just know that it's not your article, it's Wikipedia's. None of us has ownership of any text here, we only contribute.–Ammarpad (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but Feng Timo is NOT a professional musician, so it's difficult to find sources to proof that she meets WP:NMUSIC. In fact, Feng Timo is a professional network anchor. So is WP:NMUSIC fully applt to it? And what should I do?  Omega68537  (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, generally you should be looking for "multiple reliable sources" about her, irrespective of whether the guideline fits her profession or not. Since she's an anchor, then WP:JOURNALIST may be closer to her. But just find sources that can make her to pass WP:GNG and present your argument there. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think she probably meets this notability standard, but I can hardly find more reliable sources. Unfortunately, Feng Timo is gettine less and less popular due to much negative news, see, . So the probility of being deleted may be increased. This is why I'm panic.  Omega68537  (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Much negative news" should make it easier to establish that she is notable. Maproom (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Starting a new page
Can someone please direct me to where i can start creating a new page. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayse73 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that successfully creating a Wikipedia article can be difficult.  You may wish to spend some time learning about how Wikipedia works first.  You can do this by first using the new user tutorial, and then taking some time to edit existing articles to get a feel for the process.  However, if you still want to dive right in to creating articles, you should read Your First Article, and then visit Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Why I edit
Where i can explain why i edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchasbloom (talk • contribs) 16:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If this refers to the post on your user talk page asking you to make an edit summary, I can explain.  Below the window in which you type your edits, there is a smaller window below the words "edit summary".  This is where you can type a brief explanation of what your edit accomplishes. This helps other editors to know what you did. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The above applies to the desktop version of the site, reached by clicking "Desktop" at the bottom of the mobile site. I see you use the mobile site. There you get a box saying "How did you improve the page?" after clicking "Next" and before saving. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

wanted to create a new article about news website
i want to create a new article for news website which is few years old and does not have lots of blogs or sources. the only source it has right now is its website and its social media pages. can anyone please help me out here, wheather i can create this new article or not with respect to the souces/references required in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appu bhatnagar (talk • contribs) 12:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Simples. No independent published reliable sources means no article. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * hi david thanks for the reply. need a bit more clarification on the following.

what about forum pages and blogs of well published and accepted journals. the one posted by scholars and researchers with proof of data. can that be used as a reliable source? though this is mentioned in the source link you shared, but based on that i am not able to make a conclusion. can you help me on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appu bhatnagar (talk • contribs) 14:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A journal may have a forum or blog (although I have seen little of that), but if anyone is allow to post stuff not subject to peer review, in my opinion - not. David notMD (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

How thorogh must initial articles be?
Exactly how through must an article be for initial submission? I'm wondering exactly how far we can go into discussion of certain disciplines, such as explaining United States supreme court cases, while still refraining from what is, in some states, defined as the unlawful practice of law. USN007 (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. If what you put in article-space clearly meets the General notability guideline, WP:GNG, "thorough" can came later. Let me give you an example: Norse Mythology (Neil Gaiman) is not "thorough", but if you check the cites it's clear it meets GNG, so it "sticks". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . You won't be putting your own analysis of the case in the article, so there is not a problem. See No original research. Instead you will need independent secondary sources that explain why the case is notable and what the consequences of the decision were. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

How do I change my username?
Hello, there. Hope someone can help. I just created my account and I've got "the The" in the name. Can I alter it to Scribbles by The Scribbler? I'm not usually so inept. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scribbles by the The Scribbler (talk • contribs) 05:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Dude, your first edit is asking how to change the name -- just make a new account. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec)Looks like you've since found Changing username/Simple, so you should be sorted. Rojomoke (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Are getty images free to use on wikipedia pages?
Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JarrodT (talk • contribs) 02:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/ says at the bottom, "All contents © copyright 1999-2018 Getty Images. All rights reserved." I'm automatically redirected to the British page, but I assume https://www.gettyimages.com/ has something similar.  So no.  Rojomoke (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The copyright language is the same when the website is accessed from the United States. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Revised my article once again after it got declined the first time- Will it pass this time?
Hey everyone,

My article got declined a few months ago for not having enough reliable sources and I have recently started working on it again, revising it to meet Wikipedia's standards and on the request of the reviewer who declined my article. My question is, how many reliable sources do I need really? When is enough enough? Here is a link to it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Electronic_Lock_Bumping. Please let me know what you think,

Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASAP David (talk • contribs) 23:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Every statement should be accompanied by a quality source of fact even if what is stated in an article is an aside or obvious.2605:E000:1301:4462:904E:DC75:3814:4202 (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't true, You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, or to cite other obvious facts. Iffy★Chat -- 09:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But in this draft, very few of the factual statements, including many that are not obvious and undisputed, have references. Also rejection-worthy is that the writing style is completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. Instead, it reads like an essay. See the Wikilinked Lock picking article for an example of appropriate style. David notMD (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi ASAP David. David notMD is correct, it looks like an essay so edit out parts like "in conclusion" or a conclusion section itself. You should avoid making your own arguments or injecting your perspective. For instance, "It is apparent that criminals are using lock guns to gain unauthorized entry to residences..." Here, you are stating your own assumption. Also, attribute information to sources ("The field of Forensic Locksmithing aims to investigate these crimes" - where is the source?). However, your article is very comprehensive. Keep working on it. :) Darwin Naz (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

--ASAP David (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Thanks a lot guys, I have revised the article to make it less persuasive and convincing to one side since then, let me know what you think now and if it needs any more work. Cheers, Daniel--ASAP David (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It is also better to use the strongest source possible. For example, when discussing something related to law, it is better to reference an actual statute or judicial interpretation, than it is to reference a law review, because of the fact that the former reference would be an absolute authoritative source, while the latter is more of a third-party opinion. USN007 (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that advice, ; our policies generally favour secondary over primary sources. See WP:PSTS for more on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

So then, for example, your saying that according to policy it's better to take a law review's explanation of a supreme court decision rather than going directly to the words of a decision itself, when only the direct source is binding president that can be relied on in actual practice? That is something that would seem to me to be a bad representation of fact, especially in an area where word play (i.e. the way you say something) has just as much import in practice as what is said. While I understand that there is a need for policy, it would seem that it is also equally important to adhere to the fundamental rules of the given area with respect to what is considered a reliable citation, otherwise, it seems that we will loose respect as a credible source of information. (being the reason why some colleges explicitly prohibit the use of Wikipedia as a credible source for assignments.) USN007 (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reporting the wording of a legal decision using a primary source is fine, but as WP:PSTS explains, going beyond that and into interpretation of the decision would require a secondary source and appropriate attribution. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Except that this is exactly what a decision does- the holding of the decision is nothing more than an interpretation of sorts, and usually an interpretation of other cases- For example, Lockhart v. Fretwell 506 U.S. 364 (1993), further interprets the applicability of Collins v. Lockhart 754 F. 2d 258 (8th Cir. 1985) and Strickland v. Washington, 468 U.S. 668 (1984). Of course, explaining that in anything other than the court's own words could be considered to be the practice of law, to begin with. (depending upon which state one is writing from.) Therefore, it is wise not to paraphrase anything with that sort of thing, and I would say wise not to use third-party sources at all with this kind of thing. Wikipedia, since it is located in Florida, must generally adhere to the following on this point: "A nonlawyer may conduct a seminar at which general legal information is given, however, the nonlawyer may not give specific legal advice.  The Florida Bar v. Raymond, James and Associates, Inc.,215 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1968). Therefore, while the nonlawyer may give general information, the nonlawyer may not answer specific legal questions." USN007 (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that this discussion is helpful to ASAP David, so I won't add anything else other than to point out (in response to the comment above rather than the draft article) that Wikipedia articles should not be giving legal advice under any circumstances. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Dipper Pine's hat color
According to DIsney, Dipper Pines' cap was colored dark moderate blue not cerulean nor royal blue. Is it a myth? I was wondering I used Pipette on my Android and the hex color is #437CA0. Apollo C. Quiboloy fans (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . The Teahouse is for asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia. For general knowledge questions, please try the Reference desks. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It was corrected because of color scheme. It was used the color picker and reveal the hex color #437CA0 meaning dark moderate blue not cerulean blue or royal blue. Apollo C. Quiboloy fans (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Jon Doscher
Hi

It is my intention to resubmit this declined article and I have made further edits as suggested by the reviewer. Jon Doscher is a filmmaker and had a Wikipedia article from April 2010 to its deletion in March of this year -. He came seeking my help to have the article reinstated because his current article only redirects to his film 4Chosen: The Documentary. It is my opinion that he meets the notability criteria for a filmmaker as detailed on WP:FILMMAKER I have rewritten and re-referenced the present draft.

Does any editor have any further comments/suggestions they might care to offer before my re-submission of this article. Gibmul (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Apart from anything else, you need to get rid of the numerous misplaced external links. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Very flimsy references - none I looked at had substantial content about Doscher. And the article has too many name-drops. Mentioning notable people Doscher has had an interaction with does not make him notable. David notMD (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove any references to IMDb which, because it contains user contributed content, is not a considered a reliable source. Gab4gab (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up to Sikhareswar Jena
Esteemed sir,

Though there are no newspaper cuttings,press releases of 1980s available due to lack of Archival facilities in Odisha at that time.His activites were widely publicised those days in leading Oriya newspapers,Samaj and Prajatantra and ALL India Radio,Cuttack.But,i have cited various websites/links where references to him are available.Once it is available online,many discerning editors will contribute ,vet and enrich the piece of writing.Though I am related to him,I exercise abundant caution and meticulous vigil to ensure objectivity to avoid any COI,as the write-up is purportedly based on verifiable information.I have nothing more to add.Let other esteemed editors help improve it .There are very few or no personalities in Fire engineering in Odisha. Warm regards and submissions Jena Amiya Kumar (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Sir I am extremely grateful for editing the write-up and designing references.Looking forward to your further editing and improving the same for a proper article.With warm regards Jena Amiya Kumar (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

How to make the references not be separate?
Hi, i would like to know how to make the references do the a b c d thing on my Draft:Twilight (1837 steamboat). Thanks. ~HuffSlush~ 17:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Huff slush7264
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . You accomplish that by giving the fully defined reference a name, and then invoking that name whenever you are using that reference again. You have to be careful about the syntax of the coding. You can find the details at Footnotes: using a source more than once. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  17:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Not to be confused with/This article is about
How do you add a "Not to be confused with" or "This article is about" paragraph to the top of an articles page?

For example

The Office (U.S. TV series) has this written at the top of it's article page:

"Not to be confused with The Office (UK TV series) or The Office (1995 TV series)."

However in source mode it looks like this:

Jericho (2006 TV series) has this written at the top of it's article page:

"This article is about the 2006 CBS television drama. For the 2005 ITV British television drama, see Jericho (UK TV series). For the 2016 ITV British television drama, see Jericho (2016 TV series)."

However in source mode it looks like this:

Can I just copy one of the above templates, paste them at the top of the page I want to distinguish, and change the article pages? Danstarr69 (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Cut and paste is not prohibited from WP but do make certain that what is done is what is needed since it is not too difficult to apply what is pasted to many places and then have to br edited due to a mistake. Make certain to do a preview to make certain it is what is needed.2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Just FYI: Directions for using the templates can be found at Template:About and Template:Distinguish. Those and other useful hatnote templates are listed at Hatnote. Choose the appropriate template for the form of hatnote you want. Deor (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to add this to the LIFE Church UK page, and the opposite to the Life.Church page, but you can see the square brackets for some reason, as well as a mysterious colon. Where am I going wrong? Danstarr69 (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The square brackets around Life.Church are not required. Theroadislong (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Redirect
Is redirecting a semi automated edit.-- PATH SLOPU (Talk) 15:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean semi-automatic? Automatically accepted? All edits in WP are subject to consensus. If that did not hit the mark please advise with appropriate details. I hate when things intended do not solve themselves.2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 2605:E000... if you do not understand the question please do not try to answer it. Please just ignore it and let someone else handle it. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * it can be semi-auto, for example when a page is moved a redirect is usually automatically created at the original location. A redirect can also be created manually. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Uploading a new version of a picture?
Right place for a question about Wikimedia? OK? There is a nice photo by user Wrongfilter:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Oort-birthplace-Franeker.jpg, but unfortunately it has a distorted perspective. Since it is licensed CC BY SA 3.0 I wanted to correct the perspective and I uploaded it as a new version. But unfortunately it didn't show up and I was unable to return to the first version. What did I wrong? Thanks! R a mueller (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you try to revert your previous action?2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * the file history here shows that you uploaded the changed image but then reverted to the original version. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Sad
Please, I want the information beacause yesterday i did some hand info on Hurricane Maria (2017). Regards Chickeo 14:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Please. 4 hours rest before dissipated florence. Maria celebrated 1 year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickeo (talk • contribs) 14:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not really sure what it is that you are asking. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Excuse-me, Hand info is the info every day, Hurricanes, Sports, Records, Others. Yesterday, in teahouse i did a vandalism for Maria for 1 year. Regards. Chickeo 14:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I still do not understand what it is you are asking. The purpose of this page is to ask questions about using Wikipedia.  Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What is "Hand info"?2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome. Yes. 331dot. Hand info is thé info every day with a hand, Hurricanes, Sports, Other. Regards. Chickeo 17:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO, Chickeo does not appear to be here to contribute to Wikipedia, as contributions to date mostly (all?) own User page, Teahouse, other editors' Talk. David notMD (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So WP had on its hands a registered user name apparently seeking to accomplish something other than contributing to WP in a more socially beneficial way. I guess he just should have left his user indentification his IP so that just what was his intention could have been detected sooner.2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant to this matter. Constantly bringing this up is bordering on WP:POINT.  Please stop. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconded. If you feel that unregistered editors are treated unfairly, there are more appropriate venues to discuss that. The Teahouse is a place for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And where would those avenues be? Thank you.2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have specific proposals, a good place to start would be Village pump. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Heading in list not working
List of noise musicians — can anyone more familiar with WP markup fix the "A" heading? RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * . Welcome to the Teahouse. I have fixed the heading for you, two curly brackets had gone astray. Theroadislong (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems like that was intended for formatting reasons, not stray brackets. Having a Template:Columns-list without anything in it is pointless. RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems the actual problem is that you can't start columns-list with a header – probably some parser quirk. You can fix it by inserting some body text before the, but I don't think using columns like this is the convention in lists, so if I were you I'd just leave it out. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I fixed it by using Template:Div col for every header, which should be more stylistically coherent? It's what List of progressive rock artists uses, at least. RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Simultaneously unrelated and related question: Would it be considered gaudy to add to every unsourced entry on the list? I've cleaned it up a bunch (it had zero references earlier today). RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

alternate usernames?
Not sure if that's the correct term — but I see some users sign their talk page comments with User:NAME X|'start span tag' NAME Y 'end span tag'. Where are instructions on the various mechanisms available for making such alternative usernames? Are there variants on 4 tildes or other shortcuts used to invoke this alternative 'signing' mechanism? thx, Humanengr (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Humanengr. See Signatures. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Question
How to block a Wikipedia user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:418D:4922:791:F957:6A77:4E68 (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Only administrators can block a user. What is the issue? 331dot (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The reasons for an administrator to block an editor are shown atWP:Blocking policy. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * First ever edit, and that is your question? David notMD (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

New on Wikipedia
I just joined Wikipedia and want suggested articles to edit MrOrhin (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * All of them! Okay, that is being glib, but with more than five million articles in English Wikipedia, the answer is start with what you know. If, because of your profession or hobby, you are informed on specific topics, look at those articles to see if improvements (additions OR deletions) are warranted. A general sense of an existing article's quality can be learned by clicking on Talk. The top part of Talk should show whether the article is considered a Stub, Start class, C-Class, B-Class or higher. The lower on the scale, the more likely you can identify what to improve. David notMD (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You can also take suggestions from . Best of luck and happy editing :) Knightrises10 (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * , to follow up on the first response, I suggest that you look at WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. Find a link in a subject area that interests you and follow it to locate articles that are likely to need improvement. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How to handle undiplomatic participation in a discussion.
I am writing to ask what recourse one has when, in a discussion about whether to delete an article or not, an editor gets fixated on one's input/participation even if not directed at them, specifically. The editor seems to be questioning my intentions and mischaracterizing my responses to two *other* editors.

I voted to "Keep" the article (which I was one of the original creators for, four years ago), and stated my reasons. The editor in question responded to my "Keep" vote on why they think it should be deleted and I responded to let them know why I disagreed with their response (which circumvented the substance of my reasons to "Keep"). I feel that was the end of discussion with this editor on the substance of the piece and I moved on.

My brief responses to two OTHER editors since have been in the form of dialog as to what might improve the article (so they don't carry a connotation so much in favor or against it as it does addressing how the article could improve). This includes two posts toward the end of the discussion where I illustrate what I edited to help improve the article based on what the last voter articulated in their own comments.

The problem I am having is the person who had initially responded to my "Keep" vote in disagreement continues to respond to comments that are not directed at them but to the other editor who made suggestions as to what would improve the article. It's beginning to feel as though this editor is questioning my intentions (stating I am monopolizing the dialog and discouraging others from voicing their opinion - I have done nothing of that sort) and responding to even the most innocuous and neutral comment I post - in this case what I have posted is purely technical, e.g., "posted links, did this, did that, hope this improves the article" type of response. I almost feel they are trying to do what they are accusing me of doing.

This is the "delete" discussion I am referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ahmed_Emad_Eldin.

One reason I tend not to edit a lot on Wikipedia is this type of unnecessary contention. Since making a number of edits to the article in question I had reached the conclusion I had done what I could to help improve it (and I still think it should be "kept," of course) and have moved on. So I don't have more to say about the article deletion debate itself but do find it undiplomatic dealing with this type of unnecessary response: this person stated why it should be deleted, insist it should be deleted, and that's fine - I have simply responded to other editors on the suggestions to improve the piece. I'm trying to understand how what I did monopolizes or excludes others from participating. Am I missing something here?--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Welcome, and thank you for setting the controls to the heart of the Teahouse. To answer your question directly - I don't think there's an 'recourse' needed, nor would any particular action on your part be appropriate, apart from listening to what other editors also say. For what it's worth, I'd say don't take it personally. I've just skimmed though the deletion discussion. My (albeit rapid assessment) leads me to suggest that it's not personal - and you shouldn't take  it to heart -  but they might have a point that accords somewhat with the essay called WP:BLUDGEON in terms of how much of the discussion you (and also one of the other editors  to a lesser extent) have occupied - but those discussions looked quite healthy and acceptable up to now. Your responses to the Articles for Deletion discussion seemed ok to me, yet I see the perspective of the other editors who simply asked you not to come back to answer every single point, and  has cited that essay. Sometimes, when an article has been in existence and edited by many users over quite a few years, a seven day deletion discussion (even with a number of editors commenting) doesn't seem enough time. But sadly that's how we have to operate. I think you're probably right to 'move on' now and to let others contribute to the debate. As I say,  I don't think there's any 'recourse' needed. But that shouldn't stop you from improving the article if you're able, or responding to any new concerns expressed in that debate. I hope this opinion helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nick Moyes, yes, this is helpful - thank you so much for taking the time to respond and for the clever intro - indeed the controls are set to the Teahouse as it serves as a frame of reference for the modicum of experience I have been able to gain on the site! I truly appreciate the feedback! --1987atomheartbrother (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Finding a bot
Are there bots on Wikipedia that can update stats on my userpage? CoolSkittle (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You may program one by yourself. —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 01:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * and, please be aware that all bots must be approved by the Bot Approvals Group. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

creating an article
HI! is it necessary that I have to create a draft article? on my side, I don't want a draft but a new article because the draft takes long to be reviewed, kindly I'm requesting for your help, please  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinyakila (talk • contribs) 20:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You created a draft today Draft:The loss of Traditional Knowledge and you are already concerned it has not been reviewed yet???? Having looked at it, it will be rejected, as it has no references. David notMD (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The draft (Draft:The loss of Traditional Knowledge) certainly isn't fit for publication as an article because you haven't supplied any references. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, there is no rule that says you have to create a draft. At present you cannot create a non-draft article, but once your account has existed for four days, you will be able to.
 * BUT, I strongly advise you not to do so. The articles for creation process exists precisely because writing an acceptable article is very hard, and working in draft gives you the opportunity to get it up to scratch before submitting it for review. My standard advice is always to create a draft, unless you are very certain that you can create an acceptable article on the first attempt. I also advise people not even to try creating an article until they've had at least a few weeks' practice at working on existing articles.
 * In any case, I strongly advise you to read your first article; and I also suggest There is no deadline. --ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to our Teahouse. Right now, for you, it is absolutely essential. The reason is that you only created your account on 12th September, and we have a very low bar on allowing new editors to create or move pages. We call this being ("autoconfirmed"), and you have to have an account for at least 4 days and have made 10 edits or more. So you do need to wait. After that, yes, it is possible to start a new page from scratch. But i really don't advise you to try it. For an absolute beginner, creating a completely new page from scratch that survives review is one of the very hardest tasks anyone can perform here. A really do urge you to work on a draft first. And having your work summarily deleted because it fails to meet the essential criteria of an encyclopaedic page can be extremely demoralising and the probably cause of many new editors not lasting long as productive contributors.
 * I also note that you created Draft:The loss of Traditional Knowledge, which you subsequently blanked. Looking at the early version (see here), it looks more like an essay or 'opinion piece', which wouldn't be accepted in that form. So, what I'd earnestly advise is that you take the time and trouble to learn the basics of Wikipedia before trying to create new pages. Perhaps you'd read Your first article and have a go at The Wikipedia Adventure. (I wish I'd had these when I first started here; I think it was 9 months before I felt confident enough to create an article based on Reliable Sources that met our Notabilty Guidelines) Anyway, welcome again, and I hope this isn't too disappointing. I wish you all the best for a long, well-referenced and productive Wikipedia journey. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . Somes words of encouragement. I have noted that the problems raised so far did not include lack of notability, so the topic may have merit. I understand the difficulty of the writing process but writing the draft, as some have suggested, is helpful so you can develop the article further and avoid getting an outright rejection due to incomplete elements. Specifically, I suggest that you expand it in subsections, outlining information like: country-specific data, threats or factors that lead to the loss traditional knowledge, and initiative that address these (if there are), among others. I am also underscoring the need to cite sources. If you need any help, please let me know. - Darwin Naz (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The Third Man film
Why does not your Wikipedia entry about this 1949 film plot include information about the trafficking of ineffective antibiotics during that time period in Western Europe? Wasn't that the whole, entire reason that people doing these dirty deeds disappeared, were murdered, turned up dead, et al? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3754:6610:5A6:DCD4:F53B:1DA2 (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, IP editor. Welcome, and thanks for your question here at the Teahouse. Yours is the type of question best left on the talk page of the article concerned, rather than here where we assist other users who encounter difficulties editing or using Wikipedia. That said, the plot summary of The Third Man does actually contain the following sentences: "...Calloway reluctantly reveals that Lime had been stealing penicillin from military hospitals, and selling it on the black market diluted so much that many patients died. In postwar Vienna, antibiotics were new and scarce outside military hospitals and commanded a very high price. Calloway's evidence convinces Martins. Disillusioned, he agrees to leave Vienna."
 * If there is another Wikipedia page whose title or content shows it clearly relates to the topic of trafficking of ineffective antibiotics at that time period, you would be very welcome to add a link in the 'See also' section, just before the References. It would not, however, be appropriate in my view to add any more than that, or we'd have every film article having a historical and social context section of their own. Does this sound a reasonable reply? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between mention as part of the plot of a film and what the literature on the subject may say for a subject article. A film plot is what is from the film plot--is not a history lesson and not an academic paper. A subject article can be whatever is found in the sources that fit what is qualified by WP.2605:E000:1301:4462:EC3E:AE50:96D8:6F9 (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)