Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 895

Edit warring
An editor, User:SounderBruce continues to remove my content. Initially Neighbors Against Greenhaven, was admittedly not neutral, and a separate article, however, it was whittled down and then was told to add it to the Greenhaven article. After multiple edits it was whittled down to one sentence with a verifiable source. I thought it was settled but they took down my content because I inadvertently left a citation, they removed my entire content,  not just the citation.

I removed the extra citation and they removed content again saying it was a duplicate content, but it wasn’t. Multiple times I was told to discuss on the Talk page of the article in question, but they never discuss there. I posted on their talk page but was told I was edit warring.

Please advise TravelinFool 02:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelinFool (talk • contribs)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . There is already information in the article about two community groups that oppose the formation of the proposed city of Greenhaven. You have repeatedly been trying to add information later in the article about one of those two groups. So the other editor is correct that you are trying to add duplicate content. I have reviewed most of your edits, and have you complained several times that people are removing your "approved" content. That word indicates that you may not understand how Wikipedia works. There is no such thing as approved content because when it comes to content decisions, all editors are equal, as long as what they propose is in line with our policies and guidelines. We have no content approvers here. You need to convince other editors on the article talk page that it is a good idea to discuss this opportunity group twice in this fairly short article. Gain consensus, because that is how we make decisions. You must stop edit warring, because that can lead to a block. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, I apologize. I never saw a post that said this content was added in any of the edit remarks, so hopefully you can see my confusion. My last comment would be why isn’t an external link to N.A.G allowed if there is an external link to the pro side Imagine Greenhaven? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelinFool (talk • contribs) 13:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

AFA(Atheist Foundation Australia)
Hi there!

I've recently made some small edits to the AFA page you've got, was going to do more such as delete a section that isn't true anymore & maybe add some pictures to brighten it up a bit & some quotes from famous atheists but wanted to be sure it was OK to proceed since I'm a member of the AFA council.

Zabebew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabebew (talk • contribs) 13:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for asking.  If you are a member of this organization, you should avoid editing the article about it directly; instead you are welcome to make a formal edit request on the article talk page(click that link for more info) detailing any changes you would like to see; your request will be reviewed by independent editors.  You should read about conflict of interest and make the appropriate formal declaration on your user page. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Reflist Format
Hi,

I'm doing a copy-edit of Strand Road, Kolkata. I've gotten as far as the History section. I need to figure out a convenient way to format the reference list, particularly when a section is referring to the same source and different pages within that source. Hoping someone can give me some tips. Thanks! RandomGnome (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the long wait in getting you a reply. I've taken the liberty of changing the first two uses of Cottons 1907 book, but will leave you to fix the rest. The trick is to give a 'name' to the first use of a reference, and then you simply call it up again when you want to reuse it, without the need to retype the full reference. You'll find a detailed explanation at WP:REFNAME. Then, after each use of that reference you can specify the exact page with the template (please click that link to see detailed instructions). Thus,  appears as immediately after the reference to show which page to go to. Does this help or make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, that's exactly what I needed - someone to do the first couple to show me how it's done. Thanks for your help and the link to REFNAME. RandomGnome (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Gibb as surname
Wikipedia asks for people to edit content when they have more relevant and correct information and then deletes anything that they do not like without any discussion. I have published Ten edits in regard to the origin of the name GIBB with proof's thereof. I cannot find anyone who will actually discuss this or answer for their actions and constant denial will not change fact. The entire Wiki system appear to me to be set to stop any edits not promote them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Gibb (talk • contribs) 10:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you didn't read the edit summary for ? You were told that your text had been copied to Draft:Gibb (surname), so that you can work on it there and eventually submit it for AFC review when it has been properly formatted.  Please read the advice at WP:Your first article. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Richard, and Welcome to Wikipedia. I have replied on your talk page to your concerns, but let me assure you that Wikipedia wants any constructive edits that meet the standards of the encyclopedia that you can contribute. --  No COBOL  (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think you have, . I think you posted to User talk:Philipnelson99 instead. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:OOPS, I'm an idiot. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I will rectify it. --  No COBOL  (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

There are existing names lists Gibb and Gibbs (surname). Neither is a place for a discourse on the origins of the Gibb/Gibbs surnames. Richard's text currently parked at Draft:Gibb (surname), but if that ever to become an article, it will need a better title to avoid confusion. When I looked at Smith I saw a link to a list of people with the surname smith and also Smith (surname) as an article on the origins of the surname. David notMD (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

My first question would have to be why is this entire system so damn awkward and why is it apparently impossible to get a) Contact with one person and B) Assistance in what I am trying to do?

I am trying to correct facts about the name GIBB/GIBBS. I have cited English Heritage, The Vatican and the Royal Archive but apparently such are not regarded as Reliable Sources which I would like someone to explain that to me. If this were a proper e-mail I could send you COPIES of letters from the Royal Archive as well as other fully documented information which you would find impossible to dispute. So far, it seems to me that WIKI are not interested in REAL facts.

I am the current Remembrancer (Chronicler) of the family, a position that has been passed down to me. My predecessors over the last 900 + years never had to deal with Social Media which simply did not exist and where apparently anyone can publish any amount of nonsense without any comeback. In the past our duty was simply to keep the family history and in olden days to appear at the Court of Heralds in respect of any disputes. One of my predecessors was indeed Clarenceux King of arms who wrote the book everyone now holds up as the Guide to Heraldry Now I am getting on (Retired) and not the greatest of experts in this Social Media/WIKI subject which is why I require assistance, which I humbly request. I do rather hope that someone will kindly step forward. Apologies for being a touch terse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Gibb (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , you have received assistance in the replies above, but you appear to be misunderstanding the problem. Social media is generally not regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles, but neither are private letters. Sources need to be published in some form, and accessible to readers either online or through a library. I suggest that you read Reliable sources to better understand this. You also need to give more detail about the sources being used, so that readers can find them if they want to. A reference such as "Battle Abbey – English Heritage" is not sufficient, because it's not clear whether that's even a publication, as opposed to a place. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , One reason you can’t get one person as a contact is that we are all volunteers here, and none of us is authorized to decide on the validity of unpublished primary documents. Instead we depend on the reliability of published reliable secondary sources which in turn evaluate the primary sources. Apparently your draft references unpublished documents: Have those sources been analyzed by published reliable secondary sources? That is how Wikipedia verifies such information.
 * BTW, I removed the false etymologies from Gibb with the explanation that it was “unsourced.” I expect that removal to stick. —teb728 t c 23:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The draft content is still out there as Draft:Gibb (surname). Your sources are not being challenged. What is needed is to convert the mentions of sources into references in format acceptable to Wikipedia, and then submit to Articles for Creation for consideration for publication. David notMD (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

deleted product infobox
Hello, I recently added an infobox @ pennsylvania bluestone and @ flagstone. Bluestone Flagstone is a product so I used a product infobox to display a picture of the product which was missing from the article. That seems correct to me. The infobox includes a link back to a blog post with a description of pertinent high quality information regarding the subject. I was told by one editor that it was commercial in nature though I don't believe there is anything there to justify that assumption, particularly if one is assuming good faith. Another editor mentioned that the blog might non-WP:RS. The information is just not likely to be refuted or viewed in a skeptical fashion because it is completely neutral. The fact is there are no books on the subject. Being an expert in the field I want to share with and educate those interested in the product. Furthermore, the site currently has no references that speak to the pages content, sadly. Thanks for any input.Stevenvieczorek (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . As a general rule, blog posts are not acceptable as reliable sources. Two exceptions come to mind: First are blogs under the direct editorial control of published newspapers and magazines that are themselves reliable sources. Second are blogs by recognized experts in a topic area whose work has been widely published by reliable sources. Other references to blog posts should be removed. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your welcomeCullen328. Have you looked at at the the actual edit in question?  It is not a contentious issue nor is one where someone would be likely to challenge.  It simply a picture of a product.  The blog it links to has industry insider information which is useful.  Have you read: "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" at WP:RS?  Wouldn't you agree that that applies here?  I would very much appreciate consensus here.  The information is good.  I will check out  Let's discuss it .  Thanks again for your input!Stevenvieczorek (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that a picture of product (bluestone, flagstone) belongs in the body of the article, not an info box, and definitely not with a bloglink. The blog appears to have been created by Stevenviesczorek, who is in the stone business. David notMD (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Word limit
Is there any word limit for an article to be created on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfli18755 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no fixed limit for articles outside the technical limitations of the software which no one is likely to ever breach. However, you can refer to the guideline at WP:ARTICLESIZE on how to handle large articles. In general, articles that are larger than 100,000 characters will almost always be split into smaller sub-articles to maintain readability. The second link also contains instructions on how to propose such a split. Regards So  Why  16:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

What to do when a noticeboard question goes unanswered?
Hi. I've only been a member of Wikipedia for 15 years, so bear with me. I posted a question to WP:NORN, the noticeboard for questions about the WP:OR policy and its application. That noticeboard apparently has little traffic and after eight days, I still have not a single comment on my question. Is there a place where one can ask for people to comment on such a question without appearing canvass-y or annoying? After all, the noticeboard is the correct place for the question and I cannot find any other venue that would be equally correct. Regards So  Why  16:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You might get a little more attention with a formal Request for Comment. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In my mind, RFCs were always for when you want to make changes to pages, not when you need input on an interpretation. Thanks for the tip! Regards So  Why  17:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

"Refimprove" vs. "more citations needed"
What is the distinction between and  (or whatever date applies)? I occasionally see the former changed to the latter by editors, and I don't understand the difference. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Please take a look at the documentation at Template:More citations needed. That is the name of the actual template. is a common redirect to the master template, and I was surprised to learn just now that there are no less than 32 different redirects to the main template. Functionally, both chunks of code perform the same, but some editors enjoy reducing unneeded redirects, and that is a useful thing. It makes the encyclopedia run a bit more efficiently. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  03:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, . I had never thought of redirects being used for templates, but it's a logical approach. I will try to remember to use the master template in the future. I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Automatically archiving user page
How do I get my talk page to automatically archive old conversations? Puzzledvegetable (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC) + edit


 * User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo tells you about one method. Help:Archiving a talk page talks of others. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Lowercase SigmaBot III
I recently edited my talk page to automatically archive old posts using the above bot. I set the “old” parameter to 10 days. Does this mean that the thread will be archived 10 days after being created, or 10 days after the most recent post? Also, I have already created an archive page manually. How do I tell the bot to start archiving from page 2? Puzzledvegetable (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

IP editor
An IP editor has said on my talk page with edit summary Words of encouragement. '''Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_English Why did you undo my correction of the Glottocode for New Zealand English? How was it "unconstructive" when it's entirely factual and up to date? I see you've been in trouble with Administrators before - I wonder why. But fine: have it your way; keep your little fiefdom; I couldn't care less. and I replied Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I am sorry if I undid a constructive edit. I have reverted your edit to New Zealand English. Hope that helps.''' Should I be concerned? Mstrojny (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No. You've come across an obnoxious editor, editing from an IP address. It's not worth a second thought. Maproom (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, welcome back again to the Teahouse. Should you be concerned? Probably not, but that depends what you mean by 'concerned'. You certainly won't be taken to WP:ANI for that, and you did absolutely the right thing both by asking here for feedback, and for reverting your edit. was right - the IP editor did come across rather unreasonably to you, though I can understand why to some extent. I looked at the sequence of events, and I do think you made two, possibly three, mistakes. So, yes, you should be concerned to understand what you did wrong, and how to resolve any problems you might have caused, just as any good editor should. The trick - as in the real world - is to appreciate what those mistakes were, learn from them and not to repeat them, and to understand that wrong decisions and unjustified warnings can really upset others (after all, there's a real person behind every IP address. But they should have responded in a WP:CIVIL way to you, which they did not.). Let's break it down, shall we?...
 * ...First off, the IP editor made this valid edit which improved the page. (Admittedly, like you, I'd never come across 'Glottolog' codes before this question, but by following the link in the Infobox, it was easy to see it's a legitimate language database (we even have a Wikipedia page about it. see: Glottolog). It's really important not to jump to conclusions about IP editors - the vast majority of their edits are just as constructive as those of registered users. OK, so you saw their edit (maybe at 'Recent Changes'?) and reverted it with Twinkle without leaving any edit summary, and you then took up Twinkle's offer of templating the IP editor, and gave them a level 1 warning for vandalism on their Talk Page. That was quite unjustified and your second mistake. You really should have spotted that wasn't vandalism. So, not surprisingly, they came to your Talk page and expressed their frustrations with your actions. They did not cover themselves in glory in the way they went about addressing you. You then did the right thing by reviewing your actions, reverting them, and apologising to the IP editor. So that was great. Well done. I think you could still go one step further and go back to their talk page and remove your templated warning, leaving an edit summary along the lines of "removing warning template - I added it in error, sorry". Not removing that template was your third mistake, and you can still correct that one if you wish.
 * I do think it was a little unfair of the IP editor to highlight your past problems and block - though perhaps understandable under the circumstances, though the 'obnoxious' way they did it was not OK. It certainly looks like you're really doing your best to now be a constructive editor - and that's absolutely fantastic, and what we want to encourage. You certainly don't need to be concerned if this is a one-off error, and you have to learn not to be upset when people aren't polite. Just be careful not to make too many more. i.e. err on the side of caution, especially avoiding accusations of vandalism and not reverting or rollbacking edits without leaving an edit summary. But unless you do stuff here, you won't be helping; and whenever we do stuff, inevitably we sometimes make mistakes. I certainly do. The trick is to try to recognise when we've made an error, rather than rush on to resolve the next issue. Stay a while longer and consider whether your actions were justified.
 * So don't be concerned that this single, genuine mistake will affect your ability to edit. You dealt with it OK. You do seem hasty in placing some of your higher level warning templates, (like this level 3 notice, and this level 2 one). And in future, don't quote other people in bold - either use italics or, better still, the template, which puts quoted text in green like this.
 * Finally, and on a completely different note, what I would suggest is that you remove the WP:REDIRECT from your Userpage to your Talk page, and simply place there a few honest lines about yourself and your past mistakes for which you were blocked, explaining what you're now trying to do to make up for it, and the type of editing you're now doing. That way, when someone comes to ask why you've done something, they'll see a positive statement about your current approach to editing, rather than lots of old talk page messages just highlighting past issues. I hope this (rather long) explanation serves it purpose, and that you go on to serve Wikipedia well over the years ahead. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your advice, . Mstrojny (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Can't find article I was working on
Hi all!

I was working on an article on event cameras about one month ago, which I wanted to finish off and publish. However, I can't find the page any more. Is it possible that the page was deleted because it was stagnant for a month? I thought that the URL was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SquidWhisperer/EventCamera, but maybe I have gotten this wrong. Can I somehow view all of the pages in my namespace (SquidWhisperer)?

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquidWhisperer (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a relevant search at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=prefix%3AUser%3ASquidWhisperer%2F&title=Special%3ASearch and it finds nothing. Similarly your contribution record shows no edits except for your question here.  Perhaps you forgot to press the "Publish changes" button to save your edits? - David Biddulph (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

How long does it take a wiki page draft to be active or Live?
I have contributed to Wikipedia by drafting a page. I am wondering how long it usually takes for the page to be active? Right now the pending queue is showing 1453 articles to be read before mine. This number is increasing day by day instead of decreasing. Appreciate your feedback. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzzane lasale (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Drafts are reviewed by volunteers, who do what they can when they can.  As you are aware, there are hundreds of drafts awaiting review; it will likely take many weeks.  Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In the submission box it says: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order".  One thing which you can usefully do while you are waiting is to remove the misplaced external links from the article text.  You may have intended some of them to be references. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Cardinal Robert Guibe
It is very clear to me that Wikipedia is total nonsense as are the people involved with it. To suggest that English Heritage, The Royal Archive, the Heralds, Burkes peerage and the Vatican are unreliable sources of information is frankly insulting to anyone with one working brain cell. Fact and Reality as well as common sense are clearly something Wikipedia cannot deal with and by the way, your page on Cardinal Robert Guibe is WRONG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.27.147 (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi IP 78.147.27.147. It's not clear which article you're referring to because your edit at the Teahouse is the only one listed in your contribution's history. If by chance it's Robert Guibé, then you can be WP:CAUTIOUS and start a discussion at Talk:Robert Guibé about any problems you feel need fixing or you can simply be WP:BOLD and try and fix them yourselves. Nobody has edited the article since July 2018 and it appears to be fairly stable for the most part without any disputes over article content or sources, so maybe you mean a different article. As for reliable sources, reliability often depends upon the context in which a source is being used, but if the sources you mentioned above satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable sources, you should be able to cite them in articles. If you'd like more specific feedback about a particular source, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This may be related to the section above.  It would be wise for Richard Gibb and the IP to read WP:Referencing for beginners to understand how to cite the sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And it would also be wise for them to rein in their frustrations and not to insult all and sundry here. Every editor contributes voluntarily, and through the best of intentions. It can be a challenge to understand how things operate but, as in life, a little diplomacy can go a long way in getting the support or guidance one needs. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Richard Gibb You are railing against strawmen. The issue is your citation in an opaque and vague manner to sources like "The Vatican", "Collage of Arms", "National Records Kew ", instead of transparently citing a particular piece of information to being verified, for example, by the text located at a particular page of a particular book, identified by year, name, author, location, ISBN, etc., so that others can verify the information. This is a basic requirement of academic writing and citation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Userpage formatting
Is there a way for me to align Template:Userpage blue border short on the left and and have my service badge aligned directly on the right, so that they are level? (Link to my userpage in signature) Puzzledvegetable (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Puzzledvegetable. Does the alignment change I made suffice?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's perfect. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Puzzledvegetable: Great. Anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Please take Jack in main characters
Please take jack in main characters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.192.87.77 (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. This is your only edit using this IP address, so we don't know what Jack you're referring to, nor what "take" might refer to, as to which main characters, of what show.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Help with getting my article approved
Hi guys

I have just finished a draft of an atricle i want to add to wikipedia. It is simply a rock band from the 1960s.

It has given me this is message at the top of the draft now: "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies."

I really don't know what to do from here.

Im happy to show someone from the Wikipedia volunteer team my draft and if someone can please assist me on what I need to do with it to be approved etc

I hope to hear from someone soon,

Gino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegman81 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, . The notice was placed on Draft:Daisy Clover (band) by, who also placed a longer message on your User talk page, suggesting that you may have a conflict of interest. GSS has not, as far as I can see, given any reason for believing that you may have a conflict of interest, or be a paid editor, so the appropriate action is to ask them why they say this. You can do this in any of three places: the talk page of the draft article, their own user talk page, or on your own user talk page, replying to their message. I have just pinged them above, so they will see this message and, I hope, respond.
 * One point you might not be aware of about Wikipedia: we are a huge collection of volunteers, all more or less equal. Anybody may put a message on an article like the one GSS put on Daisy Clover, if they think it is justified; anybody may remove it if they think the issue has been resolved. However, given that the message relates to your contribution, it would be a bad idea for you to remove it without discussion. I confess I am puzzled why GSS has put such a message up without giving any explanation of why they think it is appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Colin. Yes well I'm new to all this, I'm not even sure how to reply to you here. I'm hoping this is it?

Ok I will try and reach out to user GSS nd see what I can do.

Thanks again.

Gino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegman81 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes,, you have successfully replied to me. Two formatting points: if you reply to a message on a talk page like this, please indent your reply with a colon at the start of every paragraph (or one more colon than whatever you are replying to). Secondly, please sign your posts on talk and discussion pages with four tildes ( ~ ). --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Colin. This GSS user is still giving me grief about my article. First it was that he thought that I paid someone from Upwork to make the article, which i have since explained i haven't. Then is was the photo i used. the photo is simply an image from a newspaper from 50 years ago that would have no copyright issues with me uploading it. Anyway i have just removed the photo and will look into getting approval to use it or find a different photo of the band. For now I will leave it with out one. Now he is taken issue with the fact that the drummer in the band was my father! He has put another message about my draft. Are you able to, at all, please assist me in getting this draft approved and uploaded to Wikipedia? Im happy to amend any of it to suit but I believe that I shouldn't have to as I have made it neutral, true and accurate as possible, with many cites and references. Please see if you can check out my article and assist me thanks mateThegman81 (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The banner placed at the top of the article IS appropriate, as you do have what Wikipedia considers a conflict of interest (see WP:COI). This does not mean that the draft will not be accepted if every else OK. If accepted, the banner would remain. On the Talk page of the draft you should create a section to declare the nature of your COI. The photo (since deleted) did have a copyright issue. David notMD (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Why my word Hello is wrong?
Please tell me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Trump (talk • contribs) 05:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your friendly welcome User:WillKomen. I can't wait to start editing! Pooja Shrivastav08 (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the article was deleted as you stopped working on it. The submit function sends it to review for an article which the word 'Hello' is not. You are free to leave it in your userspace though. RhinosF1 (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

How do i make my Wikipedia page live?
I have drafted a Wikipedia page about a man by the name of 'Baddy Oosha', how do i get it published? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Baddy_Oosha — Preceding unsigned comment added by RochL (talk • contribs) 04:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Place at the top of the page and it will be sent for review but this can take up to 6 week 2 months (backlog is even higher than normal). RhinosF1 (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll take mint and the legislative info box
Hi I edited the Andi Story article. She is a new Alaska state Representative (elected in November, sworn in Jan 15). I cited the new page of representatives. But don't know how to change the place in the infobox (on the right) that says "Member-elect" would appreciate direction to tips to read or the answer right here. Thanks, orcalover  orcalover (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have fixed the wrong display of "Member-elect" (instead of just "Member") in Andi Story with this edit. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea why the other parameters don't work (and am too lazy to dig into the spaghetti code of Template:Infobox officeholder). But you could use the alternative parameters for now, and I'll report the issue at Template talk:Infobox officeholder to let the coding experts for this template know about it. GermanJoe (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, . There is no doubt that Andi Story is notable as a newly elected member of the Alaska legislature and ought to have a Wikipedia biography. The current article is just a beginning, and ought to be improved over time. Your help is appreciated. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

how to change Pictures
I am new to wikipedia,I have seen some celebs wikipedia pages and they have quite old pictures...I want to modify them, can I do that?? If yes then how. Grewal SInder (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can not exchange them for ones you find whereever on the internet, since those are almost always copyrighted. "We" have a place called Commons where people can donate/search for "free" pictures. If you have celeb photos you have taken yourself you can upload them there and then they can be used on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Setting up a new page
Hello,

I would like to set up a new page for a legendary movie producer who doesn’t have a page on Wikipedia currently; how do I go about doing this? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamela RPor (talk • contribs) 23:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia.  It takes much time, effort, and practice.  If you want to dive right in, I would strongly advise you to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia and the process. If you have any connection to this director, you must disclose it per the conflict of interest policy and (if it is a paid connection) the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, . When I see somebody ask about "setting up a page for" someone or something on Wikipedia, I always think that they are confusing Wikipedia with social media or a directory. I urge you to replace that phrase in your mind with "writing an article about". If such an article is written, it will not belong to the producer, they and their associates will be strongly discouraged from editing it directly (they are welcome to suggest changes), and they will have no part in deciding what does and what doesn't appear in the article. Please see WP:PRIDE. --ColinFine (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Is it just me?....
Hi. I recently changed the font on my talk page to veranda, now when I go on any user talk page the font is veranda, is it just me? Thegooduser  Life Begins With a Smile :)  🍁 04:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Thegooduser. You mean Verdana. The font in User:Thegooduser/Templates/Talk Page only affects User talk:Thegooduser. Are you sure you see it everywhere? That would require a change of your personal css or your default browser font. Maybe you only saw talk pages which happen to have the same or similar font. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Finding sources
Having difficulty finding sources for a page I'm working on despite knowing that the information is correct. There exists real-world artifacts which could be a source... but no such luck for websites. Is it okay to not have sources under some circumstances? Zantarctica (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse . There must always be published sources, but they don't have to be online. Newspapers, magazines, and books are acceptable. —teb728 t c 11:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: BigDFT (January 21)
I created the BigDFT page a long time ago and the creation of a new page about BigDFT with the version 1.6.0 was not from me. Is it a bug from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdoune (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No, not a bug from Wikipedia. User:Tdoune/BigDFT was a userspace draft that you were working on back in 2012, but for some reason User:Robert McClenon submitted your draft for AFC review, but he then immediately declined the submission himself on the grounds that BigDFT already exists in mainspace. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * ... and the mainspace article was created by yourself on April 4, 2011‎, before you started the draft, and you have edited it 2012, 2013 and 2014, as well as today. I suggest that you just delete the old draft to avoid confusion.  Db<i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  14:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I WANT TO BECOME A MEMBER OF WIKIPEDIA. PLEASE
I plead or wish to become a honest,loyal. member. of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praisenwachi200 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse.  You have already joined Wikipedia by creating an account and we look forward to your edits.  To get you started, you might like to try WP:The_Wikipedia_Adventure.   <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  14:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome both to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. There is no membership, as such. You have now become a registered Wikipedia editor, and you are free to contribute to any article that needs improving. Of course, just like school, we have lots of rules we ask everyone to follow. You might like to visit Five pillars which explains how we are an encyclopaedia, based solely on reliable, factual information published elsewhere. In other words, we don't just add stuff from our own personal knowledge or beliefs.
 * Do try out The Wikipedia Adventure, which is an interactive tour, allowing you to gain 15 badges along the way to show your understanding of how we work. My advice is to start simply, perhaps making only small improvements of, say, spelling or grammar, to articles you have an interest in. Every article has its own talk page where issues or concerns around that particular topic can be discussed prior to adding to the article itself. We work by consensus (agreement) between other editors. So, if another editor reverses (reverts) any edit you have made, look at the 'edit summary' in the 'View History' tab associated with that page to understand why. They might even leave a note on your talk page to explain if they think you made a not very good edit. Don't panic over that - but listen to what they say and try to understand the reasons why. If you don't understand, you are, of course, entitled to ask them for an explanation. Do come back here again with any questions you might have, or visit Help:Contents to try to find answers for yourself. I'll pop by and leave you a 'welcome' message on your talk page, and I wish you luck at the start of your own, personal 'wikipedia adventure'. Oh, and try to sign every talkpage message so we know who has said what. To do this, simply type four keyboard tilde characters right at the end of the post (like this: ), and your user name and timestamp will then be automatically added when you save (publish online) your edits. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not exactly know how to make an article.
Hello everyone! I noticed that there are certain articles that can be made, like the biography of Robert Topala for example. I would love to contribute to Wikipedia by making accurate and up to date articles! But I do not know how to! I think it might have something to do with the "upload files" page, but my account is not verified yet and therefor I haven't tried that yet. A quick overview of the guidelines and ways to upload articles would be nice! Thanks! AnimationChromaAnimationChroma (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is unfortunate that so many new users think that the best way to contribute to Wikipedia is by creating a new article. It is useful to do so, of course, if the subject is notable; but improving existing articles is if anything more valuable, and a good deal easier. I always advise new users to spend a few weeks or months improving existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works, before they embark on the rather difficult task of creating a new one. When you do decide to have a go at creating a new article, Your first article is the place to start. "Uploading", by the way, is generally for photos and other visual or audio media, not usually for text. --ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft Deletion
I discovered a page on Wikipedia that I wanted to create (which is located here). This link contains my draft. Since I made the draft, can I delete it since I don’t need it anymore? LPS and MLP Fan (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. As sole author you can tag it for deletion by pasting   at the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Pearl of Wisdom Needed
Sadly I cant get a article or edit to stick. My information is sought after yet there are no reliable sources to site. The knowledge I wish to share is not published anywhere. My own articles are valid and useful but are viewed as unreliable. For example: http://flagstones.org/2019/01/20/natural-cleft-pennsylvania-bluestone/. Do I have a leg to stand on or should I give up trying to provide useful information here. Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenvieczorek (talk • contribs) 16:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If the information you want to post is not published in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about the subject, it cannot be on Wikipedia.  If you just want to tell the world about your information, you should use social media or other website that you personally can operate. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Many of us are experts about something. We do not add links to our own websites or blogs. David notMD (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Alan Bennett ...the audio  diaries part 2
Hi,

can anyone let me and others know, what music  is used  at intervals during this recording on his CD. It sounds like  a piano trio,..piano, cello, violin.

It's wonderful music and a great  way to break up the diaries.

Thank you

brian puddifer  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian puddifer (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi,, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, we're only here to help editors who need assistance or guidance in how to edit Wikipedia pages. We're not here to research esoteric topics unrelated to editing. You ought to be able to use search engines to find such information yourself although, if you get stuck, there is a bunch of people over at the Reference Desk who just might be willing to assist you. Regards from the Teahouse, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Spikeball vs. Roundnet Wikipedia pages
Hi there,

I have a question for the group - I am someone who competes in a sport called roundnet, and has done some work for a company that creates equipment for that sport (Spikeball Inc.)

Currently the Wikipedia page for roundnet exists and describes the sport fairly accurately, but the Wikipedia page for Spikeball equates the two and is merely a redirect to the roundnet page.

What is the best way to go about getting that relationship clarified and an accurate page for Spikeball Inc. added to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5c4:c400:9b73:b4dd:8820:d242:1aa (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The roundnet article describes "Spikeball" as a brand name for roundnet equipment by one manufacturer. If that is accurate then there is no need for a separate article on Spikeball. A redirect routes readers to the common article. —teb728 t c 23:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you like, a redirect might be created from Kankakee Spikeball to roundnet for users searching that way. —teb728 t c 23:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * A separate article about Spikeball Inc. would be possible only if the company meets the criteria for notability - and you should preferably not be the person to write it, because you would have a conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

How to get an Music Album article approved?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnw28/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnw28 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. The mechanics of getting an article approved is to edit it to insert {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top.
 * However, if you do that now, your draft will certainly not be accepted. In order to have an article about the album, the album must be notable (in Wikipedia's sense) - generally, that several people unconnected with the artists or producers have chosen to write at some length about it, and been published in reliable places. The two references currently there may or may not be regarded as reliable, but they are not independent: they are clearly based on a press release. It is quite rare for an album to be notable only a few days after release: see TOOSOON.
 * My advice to you is, see if you can find two or three independent reviews, published in major newspapers or magazines, which together provide enough information (on their own) that a reasonable article could be written from them. If you can't find these, give up: it will be a waste of your time going any further at present. If you can find them, then start again, basing your draft entirely on what those independent sources sa (but in your own words). If that gives you a reasonable article, then you can add a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information from non-independent sources.
 * One last point: if you are in any way connected with Worthy, or his studio or producers, please read conflict of interest carefully. Wikipedia may not be used for promotion. --ColinFine (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Capillary Pressure... the standard accepted equation is wrong
The standard capillary equation found in text books and Wikipedia is the Young-Laplace equation. This equation is wrong. It implies the spontaneous increase surface energy does work to push a column of water up the tube. Surface tension has nothing do with the rise of fluid up the column, it is the charge (charge) on the surface of the glass or crystals, that provides the energy for the capillary rise. The ionic character of the SiO2 molecule leave the glass or crystal surface covered with a weak negative charges. When water is contacts SiO2 this charge energy dissipates into the water through hydrogen bonding. The heat released from the hydrogen bonding is called the heat of adsorption (about 70 mN/m for silca). This bond energy is the driving force causing the capillary rise.

How do I open a discussion on this, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddydxplornet (talk • contribs) 01:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you believe information in an article needs to be changed, you should start a discussion on the associated article talk page.  However, Wikipedia information is based on what independent reliable sources state.  So, you will need your own independent sources to support your claims- and even if your claims merit inclusion(taking care not to give undue weight) that doesn't necessarily mean the existing information should be removed. 331dot (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Categories
Hi, I’m new-ish to large scale Wiki editing, and I recently turned Ivy to Roses from a redirect into a proper article. One of the big parts that’s missing is all the category info. I tried my best but frankly, I’m not sure what I did right/wrong. Help would be appreciated!


 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. As a general principle articles are usually not added to broader main categories, when they are already included in more-specific subcategories of the same category tree. For example: all "2017 mixtape albums" are implicitly part of "2017 albums", so there's usually no need to add the broader redundant category. This principle has a few occasional exceptions - WP:Categorization contains more comprehensive and better-explained information about all these categorization-related aspects. Hope this helps. GermanJoe (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PS - please make sure to sign talkpage messages with 4 tilde character ~ for a formatted signature. GermanJoe (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyright images in Flickr
Hi. I found some images in Flickr that are "all rights reversed" and I really think these images are useful. I want to use them in Wikipedia. What are the possible ways to upload them to Wikipedia. If geting permission (by paying money) from the owner is the answer then what are the steps to get permission and then prove to Wikipedia that the owner has allowed me to use his own work in Wikipedia. I am new in these things so I don't have much idea about these things. Thanks in advance --SharabSalam (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You cannot use those images, except for the very limited cases that meet all the criteria at WP:NFCC. The owner would need to release the image under a free license that allows reuse for any purpose (not just for Wikipedia).  RudolfRed (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) Hello, Wikipedia requires permission not only for use on Wikipedia but also for use anywhere for anything, including commercial use and making derivative works. The way to request permission is described at WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 18:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . In addition to the advice you've been given above, you also need to try and assess whether the Flickr account holder is actually the originator of the content per c:COM:LL. Some people upload images they get from other sources to Flickr and then add a license to the image; this license, however, might not be exactly the same as the one given to the content by the person who created. If the Flickr account holder seems unlikely to be the original source for the image (for example, it's a really old photo or a scan from a newspaper or magazine which looks unlikely to have been originally taken/published by the Flickr account holder), then it's possible that file may actually have been originally released under a different license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

wants to send me money...
Bernard Arnault was the one that brought me to Wikipedia but let's face it, ANYONE known, or assumed to have, extra money could be named in a phishing scam MY QUESTION IS do we have a way to warn people who look up people named, possibly even using a multi use tag showing for instance green for famous person but not known to give charitably (roseanne barr) a yellow color tag for a person known to be giving away large amounts of money but not known to have a phishing scam naming them. (Bill Gates and his billionaires club have vowed to give away 80% of their wealth but haven't heard them mentioned in a scam) and RED if they are known to be mentioned in at least one scam (Bernard Arnault since i've already recieved one)

Tags ain't my speciality but i know similar "DEF - CON" Systems have been embedded in tags and even had bots inserting in appropriate pages so what's the policy? Qazwiz (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (Some context for this question can be found at Talk:Bernard Arnault.)
 * Hi Qazwiz. If I understand what you're asking, we would never modify articles on individuals to systematically categorize them by whether the subjects' identities have been used by unsavory people to pull off scams. Oh, it's possible that if a particular person had been used in this manner to such an extent that it became a true cause célèbre, such that, for example, multiple newpaper articles had written about the phenomenon in particular connection to the person, that might merit a sentence in the article on them. Barring that, however, this sounds like an idea that would seek to elevate connective trivia; to insert, modify or classify articles by something far too unfocused and tangential to the article subject. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

CIA
In Wikipedia, is there a list of famous CIA standoffs or anything of that sort ? 005X (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , the CIA list articles that currently exist are List of CIA controversies and List of CIA station chiefs. CoolSkittle  (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

How My Account Will Be Confirmed?
In How Many Days I can be a confirmed user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangita12345 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you gone through the process to verify your user identifier/registered username? And have you made the minimum amount of edits?09:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9149:8300:7C35:42EA:E43D:D94A (talk)
 * , you are currently autoconfirmed as your account is older than 4 days and you have made at least 10 edits. As an autoconfirmed user, you can create articles, move pages, edit semi-protected pages, and upload files.
 * You will be extended confirmed after your account is at least 30 days old and you have made 500 edits. When you are extended confirmed, you can edit extended confirmed protected pages. CoolSkittle  (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You will be extended confirmed after your account is at least 30 days old and you have made 500 edits. When you are extended confirmed, you can edit extended confirmed protected pages. CoolSkittle  (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)