Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 840

Creating a new Article about Sudhir Yadav on wikipedia
Hi I want to know if we can create a new page about Sudhir Yadav. I am not sure if this subjects comes under notable not. So thought of asking if this is notable or not. As per the information available from the news website such as Times of india, Hindustan times, DNA, Zee News and other famous news channel/websites, he is rti activist and he filled several PIL in supreme court and different -2 high court of india. He filed public interest legislation (PIL) against ban on WhatsApp. He is also spokesperson of Aam Aadmi party. he made serveral announcement which made headlines national level. His twitter account is also verified. He has combaine followship of more than 1,00,000 in different different social media platforms. Not Sure if he is notable or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadav771 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I noticed that "Yadav" is part of your name and that you also use "we" in your post. Do you work for or represent Mr. Yadav?  If you do, that is what Wikpedia calls a conflict of interest and possibly a paid editing relationship.  Please click those links to review those policies.
 * A person merits an article on Wikipedia if they have significant coverage in independent reliable sources that indicates they meet the notability guidelines at WP:BIO. Some fields have more specific guidelines(like athletes) but WP:BIO is the general guideline for biographies.  It doesn't matter if they have a hundred social media followers or a billion, what matters is that independent sources have written about them.  331dot (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

i am really sorry for my bad english, I am no where work for "Sudhir Yadav" and nor i am representing him. should i share some of the news articles on basis of which you can tell me if the person is notable or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadav771 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Few years back i tried to create a page but didn't approved so thought of asking if all these comes under notable or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadav771 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This was considered at Articles for deletion/Sudhir Yadav, as you will have seen in the information which you deleted from your user talk page. Has the situation changed? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

yes i think change is significant press coverage after he become spokesperson of political party — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadav771 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sudhir Yadav has been deleted four times, so any further attempt will be looked at very carefully. If, having read WP:BIO, you are confident that he meets the notability criteria you can write a draft and submit it for review through the AFC process.  And if you post any further messages here please remember to sign them. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up to Jenny Koller/Jenny Thomann-Koller
I have moved the article to Sandbox and made changes on September 29, but have not had any response. The article is complete, but I do not know how to coordinate the References with the text. By the way, the same article appears on de.Wikipedia, which means that I do not need help with writing but with the Wikipedia tools. I would appreciate help! --Htewarso (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Cassiopea advised you on 22 august to read Referencing for beginners. Have you done so? The references go in the text where they are cited, between  tags: the software will collect them at the end, and add the numbering and links.


 * So, to take your first reference: at the point in the text of the article where it is to be cited (I can't identify where that is) you put


 * and the article will show it like this: Here is the text support by the citation. (you should find it below)


 * A couple of other points I notice:
 * first, if you have translated the text from elsewhere in a Wikipedia, you must give an appropriate attribution (either on its talk page, or in your edit summary) or you are violating the licence under which almost all the material in Wikipedia is released. Please see WP:Translation.
 * Secondly, I notice that there are references to unpublished material (your footnote 8): English Wikipedia does not accept unpublished materials as sources. You need either to find a published source for whatever material that citation is supporting, or remove it from the article.
 * Thirdly, the draft is currently raw text, with no WikiMarkup at all. This is not acceptable. You should at the very least turn your headers into Wikipedia headers. Use a balanced number of = signs before and after, for a header at a particular depth; so ===Life=== displays as

Life

 * (I put it at level 3, so as not to create a new top-level header on this Teahouse page. You would probably use level 2 in the article).
 * Finally, you have no Wikilinks. The whole point of a hypertext encyclopaedia is that you can direct the reader to other places. So, for example, if you change "took her to see Dr. Marie Heim-Vögtlin" to say "took her to see Dr Marie Heim-Vögtlin ", it will appear as "took her to see Dr. Marie Heim-Vögtlin". Once your draft has been accepted and moved into the main article space, it should also have Wikilinks pointing to it from other articles, but not while it is still in draft.
 * Happy editing. --ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also just a small point, I would like to suggest that you maintain a level of detachment and avoid using descriptions such as "forward-looking," "very successful," "quite timid" etc. unless they are attributed to sources. Thanks. - Darwin Naz (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

BERRY IIT
Hello, Editors please help me to post a article not able to understand the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uyes123 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I removed your draft from this page, as this page is only for discussion.  Users can see your draft by looking at your contribution history, which I have done.  From what I have seen, you seem to have a common misconception as to what Wikipedia is.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a place to merely tell about a business.  Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources state about an article subject, with significant coverage(not just brief mentions or routine announcements) that indicates how the subject is notable as Wikipedia defines it.  In the case of a business, those guidelines are written at WP:ORG(please read).  You have provided only two sources, both of which are routine, press-release style announcements.  Those are not acceptable as sources.  An independent source needs to, on their own, have chosen to write about this company extensively.
 * Are you associated with this company, such as in being an employee? If so, you will need to read about conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking for help on abusive behavior
Hi, I'm looking for advice on what to do. There is an editor who I feel is not acting in a polite manner. I tried to solve this on their talk page, but in their answer they claimed to keep doing it.

Diff of the answer

Two of the latest diffs are here:

[|Diff 1] [|Diff 2]

And some earlier:

[|Diff 3] [|Diff 4]

I'm not trying to get him blocked or anything. But I have no other issues with any other editors. Everyone is very polite and in general a great resource to Wikipedia. I'm also not a "lone ranger" on these topics here as Thomas.W claims, as is evident by support from other editors. I just don't want to experience constant insults and prejudice from the mentioned editor. According to Wikibullying, the editor is doing Wikihounding based on what they have claimed themselves and also False accusations are the main ones. And also Assume bad faith. I'm not clean myself, for example I got blocked for 31 hours for edit warring and take responsibility for that. But I don't assume bad faith from other editors or discredit them. Am I crazy? Should I change something in my own behavior? What should I do? Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit: Here's another one - he's also attributing false actions to me which I have not done. I did not add anything to the original article. It was the editor in question who originally removed what had been in the article as long as I can see in history. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Reverting/opposing an edit-warring POV-pusher is not abusive behaviour (see Talk:Oeselians, Talk:Vikings and Talk:Norsemen). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's good you brought out the talk page URLs. Anyone can see what's been happening there. Also, labelling people, espeically in argumentation, is considered to be a red herring. And in general, impolite. How many times have I labeled you? Blomsterhagens (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't really have any context here, and I wasn't aware there was some POV to push with regard to Vikings, but the standard advice is to follow the steps in the dispute resolution process, especially WP:RFC, and if that fails, consider filing a report at WP:ANI. But that should be a last resort, and whoever crosses that line would be well advised to have their nose clean, because ANI is not exactly known as a warm welcoming venue.  G M G  talk  14:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Everyone filing a complaint there should also know that the behaviour of the editor filing the complaint will also be scrutinized, to the same extent as the behaviour of the editor the complaint is about, so people who don't have their noses clean are best advised to stay away... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk
 * I'm aware of an ANI option. I did not go there, because I'm not looking to get Thomas in trouble. I was hoping of getting some advice here. But if this abuse continues, I will go there. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Diff 1" and "Diff 2" are the same, as well as "Diff 3" and "Diff 4" in your original post. Onto the advice asked:
 * There is no behavioral problem from the diffs you linked. Certainly not something that raises to the level of abuse or constant insults and prejudice or Wikihounding or assuming bad faith. Maybe there is more but you just did not show it. Unsubstantiated accusations of that kind are a breach of WP:CIVIL, by the way.
 * For content matters, see dispute resolution processes. I gave a quick glance at the pages though, and I would warn you that my impression is that you hold the wrong end of the stick here. I am not saying that to prepare a "I told you so" moment, but to make you realize that the dispute is not obviously from Tom's fault, so you better prepare to make a tighter case that what you have shown so far.
 * Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Whoa! (or maybe Woe?). At those disputed articles B & T and many other editors are using Talk to debate at length and at times heatedly on definitions of Vikings, Norsemen, Oeselians (?) and so on. Why not leave the articles alone until emotions cool, and meanwhile contribute to a more simple project, perhaps Jews? David notMD (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oeselians are inhabitants of the island of Øsel, now in Estonia. Maproom (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

General queries
Hi. I am new here, therefore the only things ik are editing, creating new page and emailing. Can someone tell me how to use general features like 'talk' and stuff? It would be really appreciated. Thanks!Hindutva (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, ! I've posted a welcome message on your talk page that should answer most questions that new users have. You can find it here. User talk:YourEditorNextDoor.


 * As for talk pages specifically, as has been pointed out to you, these are the primary means of communication here on Wikipedia. If you want to explain what is lacking about a specific article, you can raise the issue on the article's talk page. If you want to ask about a specific user's actions, you can ask on their user talk page. Email is rarely needed, and I suspect most Wikipedians prefer contacts on the talk pages. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome
I'm Conner! I'm currently in undergrad studies at CCC. I look forward to working with ya'll! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big.macncheese (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Conner. Welcome to Wikipedia. If you ever run into any issues and have questions about editing, you've found the right place to ask, and there's usually always someone around willing to help. Hope you enjoy your stay and happy editing!  G M G  talk  18:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

How article rating works when part of numerous Wiki Projects
If an article is rated B on one wikiproject and Start on another (and it is clearly not a start article), does the article need to be reviewed by a member of the other WikiProject or can it be automatically switched to B for all WikiProjects it falls under? --Michail (blah) 20:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Michail. Ratings between start and B are comparatively arbitrary. If you feel a rating is pretty obviously wrong, you can feel free to update it, even if you are not listed as a member of the project.  G M G  talk  22:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, User:GreenMeansGo. And in the case of GA articles, if an article is reviewed and passes GA, does it become GA for all WikiProjects involved? --Michail (blah) 22:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup Michail. A GA or an FA is either a GA/FA or it ain't. It's not dependent on individual WikiProjects. The major exception to all that is A class, which is really only used by the Military History WikiProject, but which is widely accepted as a legitimate class, since WikiProject Military History is one of the most active, if not the most active WikiProject.  G M G  talk  22:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed a milhist mention here, and wanted to chime in briefly before this gets archived. The military project here on the en.wikipedia tends to be the standard by which a lot of other project's articles and processes are judged - not through any forced means, its just that the military history project's bars, infrastructure, and other related processes tend to churn out a lot of the quality work on Wikipedia. Within the military project, a distinction is made between start and B-class: a start class article is usually heading towards greatness, but lacks a lot of the context needed to cover all aspects of the article's subject (perhaps there's a missing picture or no background information or so forth in that manner) to justify a higher rating, whereas a B-class article adequately covers all aspects of the B-class check list leaving nothing for want. Of particular note is that a B-class article in our project must have all information in all sections cited to reliable sources and cover all aspects of the topic with no obvious omissions for the lead into the subject, the subject itself, and the subject after its completion. While ours is admittedly a higher criteria, a number of other projects borrow our criteria for their project so its a good idea to check and make sure that the assessment of the article matches whatever the project's assessment department (if present) believes that article should be rated at. In the case of the Military history Project, you can find our assessment criteria and examples here. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Inline citations
How do I create an inline citation in on a Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChillATM (talk • contribs) 22:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , see Help:Referencing for beginners – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Responding to Kirbanzo
I'm trying to find out how to answer Kirbanzo, which is so far a huge, time-consuming and fruitless effort.

On the odd chance that this eventually reaches him, I accidentally deleted info I was trying to edit. I'm a first-timer here.

However, the point of my attempted edit was to post the following:

"The Swiss, non-profit organization, FIGU, was falsely listed as a "cult". This is not only defamatory but inaccurate. Anyone disagreeing should present evidence that: they were solicited to join, give or donate money to, visited by alleged members for the aforesaid purposes, given unasked for brochures, etc.; also show that there is a leader who must be believed, obeyed, followed uncritically, etc."

I will be delighted to discuss, and substantiate, my statement, which should certainly result in the removal of the false claim of a cult. I (Michael Horn) have almost 40 years of experience in researching the Billy Meier information, which I represent in the US and English-speaking world.

And, since Meier and his information is attacked by parties with their own, unpleasant agendas, I'll assume that Wikipedia would prefer to be responsible, not contribute to defamation and be willing to discuss ANY of the elements pertaining to this information, etc., should they feel contrary to what I have stated.

I'm screen capturing this page for my records and I hope we can resolve the inaccuracies.

Best,

MichaelHorn812 (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * G M G talk  18:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * In the message which Kirbanzo left on your user talk page, the "talk" link will take you to User talk:Kirbanzo. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * - Thank you for explaining your rationale further. And we all make mistakes - that general notification is meant to assume good faith. You're free to reinstate your edit. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of the user sandbox wanted.
OK, I am new, and am wondering what the sandbox is for and how to use it. All suggestions welcome. Thanks

Well, the user sandbox has a simple purpose; to mess around with ideas in editing without having to edit the actual article. The primary use for the sandbox is to simply play around with ideas Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

New user question re steps to create article with COI disclosure
New here and want to make sure I did this correctly. I have created an account and

1. On my User Page is where I put the  and published it.

2. Then I created a User space draft of the article with references and publish it. But on the draft was I supposed to reference the COI or do the editors automatically know the COI because I have the name of the article on my User Page COI notice?

Thanks so much for your help!


 * I think the page at WP:PAID should answer most of your questions. Then look at H:GS for help in starting the editing process.  Regards, Ariconte (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

i want to publish the page
i want to publish the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilyadavinbox (talk • contribs) 06:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Before you submit a draft for review through the AFC process you need to ensure that there are references to published reliable sources with significant coverage independent of the subject, in order to demonstrate notability in Wikipedia's terms. Try also reading the guidance at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Recreation Of Deleted Pages
Hello! is it allowed to recreat a page that was recently deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollback95 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can as long as the article meets WP:V WP:NPOV WP:N WP:OR etc.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 08:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Maiden to married
Hello, how do I address my name change in a Wikipedia page, (1999 World Special Olympics Summer Games) from my maiden name Cheryl Quiambao to now Cheryl Burchfield? Thank you very much for your help!

Cheryl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B047:F007:7CB6:6C2D:F919:3BA5 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you competed under your maiden name in 1999, the article on the 1999 World Special Olympics Summer Games should include you under that name and not your current name. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The mention has been removed. (I agree with the removal.) Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I need help
Reporting. a user is hard can someone just tell me a easy way to just click on something and report a certain user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pugland (talk • contribs) 13:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Vandalism: WP:AIV, Edit warring: WP:AN3, Dispute resolution WP:DRN, Username violation: WP:UAA, Sock puppetry: WP:SPI, Behavioral problems or urgent issues: WP:ANI. You may install Twinkle which may assist you in filing reports.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 13:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If this concerns your reverted change to Clan MacTavish, the best place to have the discussion is on the Talk Page for that article. Provide reliable, independent sources to support the changes you are proposing.  Then all the affected users can contribute the conversation and reach a consensus about what is the best approach for the article.  If the user refuses to abide by that consensus, then feel free to report as AE described above. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

How do I make a collapsible table that spans the whole page?
For instance this

But I want to set its horizontal width to fit a certain amount of pixels (or the whole length of the page). Thanks Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 16:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * never mind, I figured it out. Apparently just add  to it. Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 17:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Create page
Hello Sir! How to create a red link page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal7pro (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Royal7pro: I'm not quite sure I understand your question, but: if you want to create an article, Your first article has some instructions. Most importantly, you first need to make sure there are proper reliable sources that has written about the subject in question at some length.
 * If you want to create a red link, you just need to add these around any word that does not already have an article. /Julle (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:FL Technics
Hi. The draft above was recently reviewed and declined by saying the draft was written from the viewpoint of the company and not enough content was present to merit a standalone article. As I wrote the draft I personally felt the sources I used were reliable enough to be used as citations for the article, but the reviewer suggested I ask here for other editors' opinions. I certainly don't agree with the sufficient content point as the draft would be Start-class in terms of the amount of info provided. What needs to change or be added for the draft to be approved? Thanks in advance. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 14:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I would vote keep, or, issue, based on the sources and fairly neutral npov. It also has a good amount of content for a a starting article.
 * The Growth and Expansion... section may, in fact, be too detailed. Perhaps highlight the most notable of those points and leave the rest to further reading? Although that is the main body of the article, you will understand how what basically reads as a list of achievements and business deals, no matter how accurate, does not come off well for the tone we try to convey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfabet (talk • contribs) 19:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The draft has 31 references, and I'm not going to check them all. But the ones I did check are not to "reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of the subject". If you have found any such sources, I suggest you make them easier for a reviewer to find by removing most of the others. Maproom (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Peculiar case of micro-edits. Concern?
I was patrolling Recent Changes, as you will, when I stumbled upon Relic:_Guardians_of_the_Museum and investigating its history, found it had not just dozens but hundreds of (typically) single characters edits by user:fanoflionking all in the past few days. I honestly don't know what to make of it, except that perhaps they're trying to inflate their edit count for some reason? Testing a bot or vandalism filters? (Not much on their talk page though)

Not familiar enough with Wikipedia about whether this out-right frowned upon, I bring this to a broader audience for insight. I could see the behavior as disruptive as it could be used to hide something in a flurry of activity, and it's simply not conducive to wade through the hundreds of changes individually to check. e.g. making an edit once for each letter in spelling out the secondary name 1.

Thoughts and appropriate next steps, if any? --Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have recommended next steps, but this looks like someone trying to get extended-confirmed, and I would frown on this editing behavior because it fills up the revision history and leaves a weird article state until the editor has finished. Chris857 (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not that, they have over 3000 edits. They should have been extended confirmed for a while now. -A la d insane  (Channel 2)  19:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's really weird then. Chris857 (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow. An amazing 204 separate edits just to make these minor changes. Wanders off to investigate if there any policies and sanctions on trivial repetitive editing like this. It's a new one on me. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Show simplified view nag popup
I use my mobile device (a Planet Gemini PDA running Android, but it could be any tablet) in landscape orientation and I use it to read/edit Wikipedia in desktop mode. A nag popup at the bottom constantly appears, offering me the simplified view which, to make it crystal clear, I absolutely do NOT want. No matter how many times I close the nag popup, every change of page pops it up again. Is there any way to shut the wretched thing up for good? And why does the popup not have a widget to do just that? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Creating a page that includes a list
I've attempted to create a list of impact investing firms around the world (firms that make investments which also contribute to social good -e.g. sustainability, education, improved healthcare etc.): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_investing_firms. I was hoping to connect it to the Impact Investing page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_investing.

However, it's been flagged for deletion because it is in violation of WP:NOTDIR. I've seen many similar lists on Wikipedia, which are also for for-profit organizations e.g. this one of banks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_(alphabetically)

What makes the List of banks appropriate for Wikipedia, but not a list of impact investing firms? How do I go about creating such a list without being flagged for deletion? Thanks! Jiajiayi (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . It might be possible to create such a list of notable companies, with each one cited to reliable independent published source that says that it belongs in that list. Wikipedia is basically uninterested in anything which a company (or any other person or entity) says about itself; especially for a value-laden claim like "contributes to social good" we would require a solid published source for each company, wholly independent of the company in question, which describes it in that way. IN any case, a list like this will usually only contain items which are already the subject of Wikipedia articles (which in turn requires that they be notable in Wikipedia's special sense). --ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Question about an article was moved to "draft"
If an article was moved to "draft", can you edit the article on that draft page or do you have to create a new article? Lupine453 (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Lupine453. Ideally we will edit the draft and improve it so that it can be moved back to an article.  G M G  talk  19:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I edited a draft. But now what happens next? Can I move it myself to an article? Or does an administrator have to do that? Lupine453 (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Lupine453. You can move it yourself. There should be a option under "more" at the top of your screen (on PC). Once it is moved back as an article, it will be reviewed by our new page patrollers, who can make sure there aren't any major outstanding issues.  G M G  talk  20:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll do that, thank you GMG. Lupine453 (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you created an article, and it was moved to draft space, that was done as an alternative to requesting deletion, and meant that at least one editor, the one who moved it to draft space, thought it was not ready to be in article space. I would advise improving it in draft space before trying to move it back to article space.  If you move it back to article space and an editor thinks it is still not ready to be in article space, it is likely to be nominated for Articles for Deletion.  If you created an article, and it was promptly moved to draft space, I would suggest treating that as a strong criticism for putting it in article space when it isn't ready, and to learn from your mistakes.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Two iterations of "Transactionalism"
I've been editing the philosophy of "Transactionalism" page since its inception. For about 9 months or so, a term with a different meaning has been showing up in the news that could be collapsed with the philosophy stemming from the work of John Dewey. How could I go about distinguishing one from the other? Do I add it to the talk page? Find articles and mention it somewhere in the philosophy article. Should there be a disambiguation and if so, how do I do it? The term "transactionalism" used in recent news about Trump seems to be related to the "transactional practice" of corporate law not philosophy. Any guidance would be useful. sheridanford (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, . That sort of thing can be difficult. The thing to remember is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary: its articles are about things, not about words. If a word means two different things, only one of those things should be covered in an article. If both things are notable, then there can be two separate articles, with names suitably disambiguated, and hatnotes between them. I'm not sure how one would disambiguate them: WP:NCDAB might help. I also don't know how to handle it if there aren't articles about both. It's certainly possible to have an article about one that completely ignores the existence of the other; but if the other is newsworthy (even without meeting the criteria for notability) that might be problematic. WP:REDHAT cautions against creating a hatnote to a non-existent article, unless you are about to write that other article. Sorry I can't help beyond this. --ColinFine (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add my educational blogs/ebooks to relevant sources
I would like to add my educational blogs/ebooks to relevant sources, lease let me know how to do the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giridhara Raam (talk • contribs) 11:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The relevant advice is on your user talkpage. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You joined today and have made multiple edits to six articles, all of which have been reverted to what was there before. Your blogs/ebooks are not considered valid references and should not be added to articles. David notMD (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding links, blogs and articles
There are cases where few vendor based pdf's, articles, blogs, guides are included with a page, let me know how to do this? Please share some video or source to understand how to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giridhara Raam (talk • contribs) 13:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Advice has been given at your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

How to add a relevant PDF/Blog to a page?
How to add a relevant PDF/Blog to a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giridhara Raam (talk • contribs) 13:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All of your attempted edits are to content you wrote, and all the content ends with a recommendation to contact ManageEngine, a company you work for. This is considered promotional spam, a conflict of interest, and undeclared paid editing. As the warning on your Talk page states, persisting in this practice will get you blocked. David notMD (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to edit the articles that interest you. Just don't reference your own work and don't mention the company you work for. David notMD (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

How to determine the best Wiki venue from an important but complex submission
I clearly understand the guidelines you require for submission. I am having difficulty in finding the correct Wikipedia venue position; there are so many options, restrictions, POV and forks etc it is difficult to decide where and how to correctly place what I want to contribute. In an attempt to maintain an encyclopedic content and high neutrality, the information (which is old and archived) yet this information is so newly re-discovered, it somewhat demands a venue of its own. It appears to go beyond editing or adding to any current Wiki Article. How and why it was discovered is even a greater information-plus to be placed with a pre-existing Wiki article. The information will dramatically affect the art community worldwide and a number of vital misgivings in the academic world.

I think I am going to need a mentor. B Baron--BARRY BARON (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If your goal is to reach the broadest audience for this information, you surely won't mind sharing here the name, so interested editors can research its notability and determine if you have a shot at a standalone article. Have you read WP:GNG for the notability guidelines? <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Two days ago you submitted a question about "A major revelation has been discovered in the content of a Caravaggio work that will affect the presentation of the painting 'Saint Matthew and the Angel'." The answer then and the answer now is that Wikipedia is not a place for breaking news. Once the information has been made public, and other sources have written about it, information may be suitable to add to the existing article Saint Matthew and the Angel. David notMD (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Savela
Hello, does anybody knows how or where to access to Savela lists? I do contributions by adding verifications or citations about moths or butterflies in this case, and some of the references or recommendations ask to access the Savela lists for further reference. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon york (talk • contribs) 20:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are probably looking for, a website by Markku Savela (but without a specific Wiki-link I am not hundred percent sure). Such links are usually provided in the "References" section or further down in a separate "Further reading" or "External links" section. If you need additional advice or information about this source and its usage from more knowledgeable editors in this topic area, you could also ask editors of related Wiki-projects at WikiProject_Insects or more specifically at WikiProject Lepidoptera. GermanJoe (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I appreciate the feedback. I think that is the link I was looking for. Many of the species articles have references to Savela list, therefore, I don't have a specific wiki-link so I will start from there. Thanks. Anon_york 00:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Concerning an article about a new discovery
As per the last posting about this information. I suppose it is not really 'Breaking" news but rather more old news rediscovered. The information about the discovery is 30 years old. It has sudden just come to a revelation in the last three years. Not a news flash, just a missed historically lost solution and answer to a big question plaguing the art world for 73 years. --BARRY BARON (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , every question you've asked here has been on the same subject. Please do not start a new thread each time, but rather add to the existing thread. To add to the responses, if the work of art is already notable, that is, has an article, add content with reliable secondary sources to that article.  If it doesn't and you believe you have enough sources to support notability for the work of art, create a draft on it and submit it via WP:AfC. Without you sharing the sources that support your statement, there is nothing else we can do for you. You have to do your own research. John from Idegon (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The work of art has had its own article since 2005. Either edit the article or start a discussion at the article's Talk - not here. David notMD (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

How do I to change the title of my draft?
I am working on the draft: Joseph Lee (actor/artist) which I created yesterday and I would like to change the title to: Joseph Lee (actor/fine-artist) but I can't find an edit option for the changing the title. I did go to Advanced Settings and thought I was changing it there but it just created this line (with the double brackets on each side) in my draft: DISPLAYTITLE:Draft:Joseph Lee (actor/fine-artist) without changing what I see as the title of the draft. What am I doing wrong?

Thanking you in advance for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtwinlauser (talk • contribs) 23:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, . You change the name of a page by moving the page. However, that would not be an appropriate change: we use the term in parenthesis only to distinguish between different people of the same name, and we use the most general description which will distinguish: see WP:ATDAB. But in any case, I wouldn't worry about the title of a draft: when a reviewer accepts the draft, they will move it to an appropriate name in the main article space.
 * Looking at Draft:Joseph Lee (actor/artist), I recommend you read referencing for beginners. You may not use Wikipedia, IMDB, or any other user-generated source as a reference, because they are not reliable sources. And it is much easier to evaluate references if they are given with proper bibliographic information, rather than bare URLs. --ColinFine (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the information and will make corrections to the reference sources. Dtwinlauser (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation quandry
There are articles on four people with very similar names, and I would be grateful for your suggestions about the best option to disambiguate. They are: It has got a bit too complex to handle using hatnotes, and I think a disambiguation page is warranted. What confuses me is the two different spellings (Brian vs Bryan). Is it acceptable to set up a single page "Brian Schmidt (disambiguation)", to list both spellings there, and refer to that from all four articles? Then it might also need a redirect from "Bryan Schmidt (disambiguation)" to there. Or would it be better just to refer them all to the existing Schmidt (surname) page where the reader can figure it out? --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Brian Schmidt (born 1967), U.S.-Australian astrophysicist and Nobel laureate
 * Brian L. Schmidt (born 1962), music composer for video games and pinball games
 * Bryan Schmidt (born 1981), an American ice hockey player
 * Bryan Schmidt (footballer) (born 1995), an Argentine footballer
 * A dab page with different spellings at one of those spellings is acceptable. See for example David Gilbert which also lists Daves. The other spelling can redirect there. Regards So  Why  15:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Is the palm beach times a reliable source
Is it? Huff slush7264  Chat With Me  20:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * the forum to ask this would be Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Generally, though, reliability requires context.  A source can be reliable for one statement but not a different one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it okay to reference a post from a forum if the poster is a renowned expert in the related subject?
Are there any rules about what platforms you can and can't cite as a source?

When researching for an article on an extinct shark, I came across a post in the Fossil Forum from Mikael Siverson (a well-known shark paleontologist) where he discussed what he and his colleagues say about a certain evolutionary proposal.

Is it okay to cite a forum post if the poster is a reliable source, or is that not an acceptable type for reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macrophyseter (talk • contribs) 01:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Identifying reliable sources is the appropriate guideline. The best place to ask about a specific source is Reliable sources/Noticeboard.  In general, forum posts are not usable on Wikipedia.  Anyone can claim to be a well-known scientist, but how do we know that they really are?  If someone's identity is not in doubt, and they are an acknowledged expert in the topic, we could cite them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Image needs to be change. it provide wrong information
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_noninvasive_arterial_pressure#/media/File:Arterial_Pathway.jpg the above page contain an image that is give wrong information https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05633.x just go through this page it says that blood pressure decrease from calf to artery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krish2211 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't understand your point. That article compares BP measurement at the arm, ankle and calf.  But the picture does not include either ankle or calf - it just shows different locations on the arm.  They don't seem to relate to each other.  Please explain how you think they should be interpreted to relate the picture to the article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the source cited by, the image is obviously wrong. It shows the pressure variations increasing the further we get from the pump. Maproom (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been looking for a reliable source on this, but no luck yet. While the wrist is further frrm the pump, it also has narrower arteries so it is not clear how the net result should go.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Signature question
hey i try to switch signature but it comeing to raw code help plz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handatoe (talk • contribs) 23:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. I suggest reviewing Signatures and perhaps you can find your error there. Sometimes, characters such as brackets in the wrong place can create errors, so check your code carefully when reviewing. I've had this problem in the past, and doing test edits of your signature in your own personal sandbox (you can access that on the top right corner in between the talk and preferences buttons) will help if you try to debug your code! Regards, Rosalina2427  (talk to me) 00:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - I think your problem here can actually be solved with just one click. Go to your preferences to the signature section and make sure the "Treat the above as wiki markup" button is CHECKED, and then save your changes. If it still doesn't work after this or if you've already checked the button in your preferences, let me know and I'll try to figure out how you can fix the problem.-- SkyGazer 512 <span style="background: linear-gradient(aqua, #d580ff);">Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Conversely a more common problem is when the "Treat the above as wiki markup" button is CHECKED when it ought not to be. If it is checked, uncheck it and see whether that works. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Some one took off my edits
I edited our company page information and 3 weeks later it had been removed. Website update and 2 references. Is it possible to tell if someone else removed them? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.205.130 (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your effort to keep Wikipedia up to date! I assume the article in question is Central Security Group? I think the problem is this: "September 10, 2018, Central Security Group Unveils Alert 360 as new company name and logo which aligned brand identity with evolving and complete line of smart home security and automation solutions". That's not neutral, and not the language used to write an encyclopedia. In short, it reads as promotional, which is a big no-no. Since you have a conflict of interest, my recommendation would be to instead write on the talk page to indicate what needs to be changed and link any sources that can be used to verify it. /Julle (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Article approval
Hi, I made the necessary edits and provided references in my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edukasyon.ph but haven't received any feedback for quite a long time now. Thanks in advance! Hope you guys can help me and if there's any other thing that I need to apply in my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dukasyon (talk • contribs) 06:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * When your draft was rejected, it lacked references establishing that the subject is notable. It now has over 40 references, but all the ones I have looked at are not independent, they're either to the business's own web site or to articles based on press releases. Please be aware that when a reviewer checks whether the references now establish notability, they'll be looking for quality, not quantity. Four good references to reliable independent sources will be far more effective than 40 dodgy ones. Maproom (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,, welcome to the Teahouse. There is a huge backlog of articles waiting review at WP:AFC and it can sometimes take two months or so for a repeat review. The longer the article, and the more it is padded with trivial or promotional references, the more likely it is to have to wait some time. It is obvious from you username that you created this account solely to promote this organisation, so you are obliged to declare that association under the guidelines stated at conflict of interest and especially paid editing. Having done that, my advice would then be to spend some time stripping out all the trivial biographical mentions of its founder and the numerous self-referencing links which only serve to pad out the article, but not actually establish its notability. I hope this helps. (Please remember to sign all your talk page posts with four keyboard tildes like this: ) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Two questions on Wiki Ed page
Two questions on Wiki Ed page: CiaPan (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Whom should I notify the page       Wiki Ed/University of Cincinnati /English 2089 Intermediate Composition (Fall ) has superfluous spaces after 'Cincinnati' and after 'Fall'...?
 * 2) Does the title of the page mean the course takes place 71 years in the future from now...?
 * For the second question, most likely, that is a university coding system (like "Chicken Plucking 101"), not the year. The course page shows that a schedule going through October/November of this year. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 08:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, it seems you're right. Inspired by your reply I looked around and found Univ. of Cincinnati, College of Arts and Sciences / English and Comparative Literature / English Composition Program / Course descriptions. --CiaPan (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Writing
I would like to be an young editor. What advice do you get me as a teenage from South Africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thato Maseko (talk • contribs) 09:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. I hope you like the place. I would say you should edit whatever Interests you the most. You can even start with minor edits. Wikipedia Adventure can be a good place to learn. Sine you have pointed out that you are a young editor, I would like you to read Guidance for young editors. Always make sure that you don't reveal your personal information :-) If you ever need more help, you are welcome at the Teahouse. Regards, Knightrises10 (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

England Touch Association
Hi there, I have just recently done a lot of work on this page. England Touch Association. It has a lot of shouty banners on top, which I believe are now dated. Could anyone give it a review and take some of them (all hopefully!) down? Multiple sources, including ABC, and in particular the BBC now, so feel that it is a solid piece. What's added there is what I feel the reader of the page will be looking for. What has the ETA, and its teams done? What is the ETA? Credible sources etc. many thanks SamCardioNgo (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Anybody may remove the cleanup templates if they think they no longer apply; but asking for somebody to review it first is a good plan. However, I for one am not inclined to review it until somebody formats the references better, with proper bibliographic data (in particular, title, date, and the publisher or organ). Without this, it's harder to evaluate the references. Please see REFB. --ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I have updated as requested! SamCardioNgo (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, . All your citations were formatted as external links with no substructure. I worked them into templates. This is not mandatory, but this way you get nicer looking auto-formatting and I find they are easier to read and work with, when it's not all one linked block of text. 2.247.241.98 (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Very cool, thanks! I'm guessing "numbers";) because not logged in? Thanks also . SamCardioNgo (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

PROD drafts?
Can you PROD a draft or do you have to MfD it? &#91;Username Needed&#93; 10:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * From WP:PROD: "PROD is only applicable to mainspace articles, lists, set indices, disambiguation pages, and files not on Commons. Books may also be proposed for deletion, using a similar process. Proposed deletion cannot be used with redirects, user pages (except user books), templates, categories, or pages in any other namespace." --David Biddulph (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Nokia 3.1 needs gpu validity
I'm not sure what is the GPU of Nokia 3.1? I don't know if there is a source validity on Wikipedia. Perhaps, the GPU is need some reliable verifications. There is a fairly chance of getting the validity source? Apollo C. Quiboloy fans (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Help
Can anyone help me expand the article Five Kingdoms?Thank you really much.(l made that article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColeCole714 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not expansion it most needs, it's references that establish that the subject is notable. Without those, it's likely to be deleted, making any expansion a waste of effort. Maproom (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

QUICK REVIEW RESPONSE
How do I get my articles to be reviewed quickly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelbarleyissifu (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Write them about somebody other than yourself. What you are doing, writing about yourself, is considered very bad form. -Roxy, in the middle . wooF 17:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC) -
 * Your draft article has been reviewed and declined, and also nominated for Speedy deletion. Reasons for decline given. David notMD (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems to have already been deleted. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  17:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)