Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 901

Just wanted a quick second/third opinion if possible
Is the title of this article suitable - University of Farmington scam, or does anyone have any better title names? (The page was created just now). Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Scam" usually indicates illegal activity. In this instance a fake university was created legally as an undercover operation to catch non-citizens who wanted to be in the U.S. knowing that their student visas would be a sham. On a different note, Hudson University is a fictitious university used in dozens of television shows. Filming is on real college campuses, but the location always identified as "Hudson University." And on another different note, there is a real University of Maine Farmington. David notMD (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * An interesting point to note, thanks - that the fake university is legal but the immigration "pay to stay" scam is illegal. So considering this, the title is not entirely accurate. And yes, I had come across the real University of Maine Farmington while developing the article... Hmm... DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This article needs to be merged with University of Farmington David notMD (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Editing help for senior editors
Hello. My name is Jeff, I have just retired and my nephew said I should have a go at editing Wikipedia. I have had a go at etiting a few pages but am not sure if I am doing it right and don't want to break anything. Could anyone show me how to do it please? Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Loveland 1970 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Welcome to Teahouse. I have sent you a Welcome message with links (click on the blue highlighted texts) for further info. To insert inline citations (sources) pls read referencing for beginners. Do pop back here if you have specific questions. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Also,, don't be afraid of breaking anything. As a regular user, it's practically impossible to break Wikipedia, any edit you make can always be undone if necessary. Our policy on this is to be bold, others will fix things if you make a mistake. rchard2scout (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the page Changtu, Liaoning should merge into Changtu County
There's only one place called Changtu, which is a county in Liaoning. Changtu County is the original entry; while Changtu, Liaoning is partly another entry that describes the same topic. I think Changtu, Liaoning should merge into Changtu County, but I don't know what to do.Honoka55 (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's info about how to start a merge Merging. FWIW, I think you're right. Tieling is the prefecture-level city in the Liaoning province that includes Changtu County. I don't think there is a city named Changtu in Changtu County. The hard part will be sourcing this. I'd start a discussion on both talk pages per the merge instructions. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * forgot to ping user. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  00:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , : I've opened a merger discussion at Talk:Changtu County and tagged both articles. Richard3120 (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to query information on a page?
I am researching A1/A2 milk, and on the Wiki page titled "A2 Milk", the following sentence interests me:

"The A1 beta-casein type is the most common type found in cow's milk in Europe (excluding France), the USA, Australia and New Zealand.[2]:20"

I would like to know why A1 milk is not the most common type found in cow's milk in France. Highlighting the reference [2] brings up the following info:

European Food Safety Authority (3 February 2009). "Review of the potential health impact of β-casomorphins and related peptides". EFSA Journal. 7 (2): 231r. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.231r.

I have accessed this document, and it contains only one mention of the word "France", and only one mention of "French", neither of which are relevant to the above statement. I don't fully understand the link reference, ie: doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.231r, and I don't know if the ":20" is important.

Is there a way to query the statement, in the hope that the person who made it might clarify the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natubat (talk • contribs) 12:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The :20 means "page 20" which is the only page that contains the word "France", and in that case it is only listing the country of origin of a cattle breed "Normande". There's actually no statement in that chart, and no clear data, that supports the statement "The A1 beta-casein type is the most common type found in cow's milk in Europe (excluding France), the USA, Australia and New Zealand."  I will add a flag to the reference, and if no one fixes it, we should remove the statement after some time.  -- Jayron 32 13:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the statement so it shows that the source does not verify the information in the Wikipedia article, and also left a note at Talk:A2 milk. Feel free to contribute there if you have anything more to add.  -- Jayron 32 13:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron. I'll know how to do this in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natubat (talk • contribs) 14:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This file is missing evidence of permission.
Hi Diannaa,

You sent me a message regarding my wikipedia edit for VPP Wikipedia Draft. The file in question is for a logo fd-io_red_white.png. We use in many of our documents. I believe it was created by the Linux Foundation Marketing team and I think it is open source. Is an email from the Linux Foundation marketing team enough to get permission or is there a better way to get permission to use this?

Thanks so much for you review. Jdenisco (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)jdenisco


 * Hey, Jdenisco, and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, an email from the Linux Foundation to permissions-en should do the trick, but just from looking at it, I'm not sure that such permission will be forthcoming. It seems that, while the Linux Foundation releases their software under open-source copyright, they don't do the same for their logos and trademarks. Their site says that: A copyright license, even an open source copyright license, does not include an implied right or license to use a trademark that may be related to the project developing the licensed software or other materials. [...] your right to use any specific trademark of The Linux Foundation is not determined by your use of software made available under an open source license. Basically, the open source license that the software might be released under does not extend to the logos and trademarks associated with that software, and several of the restrictions that their trademark policy place, such as no commercial reuse and no modification of the original image, would conflict with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Writ for the quick response. I will try and get permission. If I can't get it quickly can I just remove the logo from that box? The box has some useful information. I will also make sure I get the VPP license correct. Thanks Jdenisco (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)jdenisco


 * On, it says everything (I assume including the logo) is "© Copyright 2018, Linux Foundation". Meanwhile, on their own website, [], it says "© 2019 The Fast Data Project. Copyright © 2018 FD.IO Project a Series of LF Projects, LLC. For web site terms of use, trademark policy and other project policies please see https://lfprojects.org. " I'm not seeing anything on their website about the logo being under a free license, so we have to assume the logo is non-free. In that case, the logo should probably be marked with non-free logo and Non-free use rationale logo. However, IIRC, you can't use non-free images on Drafts, which means the logo should be deleted for now, and if the draft is accepted, the logo can be reuploaded with the correct tags and explanation. rchard2scout (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I will remove the logo thanks for all the help.

Jdenisco (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)jdenisco

Getting off to fast on matter what I do
What is the best way I can be all I can be wity lover — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8670:AE30:CC79:FC28:D1A5:3CEB (talk) 15:44, Today (UTC+0)
 * This place is for questions related to editing Wikipedia, especially if you're a newcomer. There are plenty of online sources of the type of advice you're looking for. Neiltonks (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

How do I explain how the 2010 Flash Crash?
There are many pages about what caused the 2010 Flash Crash on Wikipedia. I've read the explanations from various people.

I was on this site a little while ago and got some good feedback and everyone was really nice. I'd like to seriously follow thru with the material my husband and I have concerning this event. Since 2005 we have known about a code/computer program embedded in the Dow Index that insiders use to trade. This was found accidentally while looking at the Dow 1 minute boxes found on a trading platform. There seemed to be timing with how the Dow went up and down. Someone had to write this. No one can trade the Dow so most people don't look at the boxes. After clicking on a particular 1 minute box you could see the high, how many points to the high and that's when we started to document this computer program. There are many numbers and after you see the repetition and the familiar areas the programmer uses to call out the future it is impossible to make the numbers work if they don't work. This documentation has been vetted by several qualified numbers people. How do I get this on Wikileaks the correct way. I have charts, the rules of the code, etc. and can prove 100% that this is how insiders are trading. The market does not go up and down each day in the time frame of 5 days or less because of news events. The same companies involved with this hidden communication system also control the media. This is a huge white collar crime. Our material was sent to the SEC December 2010. Additional material was sent in Nov. 2018 so the material is current to Aug.2018. The code is still being used as of today. Former people from the SEC, attorneys, professors are aware of what we have but don't want to get involved. How do I start to introduce this? The explanations for the flash crashes and big moves like the Brexit play all blame traders,etc. Why no on has bothered to look at the trading platforms and the feeds to them to answer the question is surreal. How to I get started on the right foot introducing this material. All the previous explanations are not even close to what I have? Besides the Flash Crashes and big moves in the market since 2005 we also have proof that the S&P 500 Futures follows this code. That was a big issue when the Vix event happened Feb 2018. Many of the law firms that filed lawsuits concerning that are aware of what we have and know it's right on. No one wants to expose it and I don't blame them.

Thank you for reading this. Patty GoldmanThink about good things (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Think about good things. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. If you have discovered something novel or new, then you should seek to publish it in traditional sources, and if it is widely covered by such sources, then it may one day be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Until it has, then it is not appropriate here.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  18:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you connected with User:Think_about_normal, who asked two very similar questions on this topic recently? RudolfRed (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Apart from informing you that the only connection between Wikileaks and Wikipedia is the first four letters, we cannot assist you. As advised previously, you need to find another route to publicise your ideas, not here. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Steve Jobs
Does anybody know facts about Steve Jobs childhood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireweasle2 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Check out the childhood section on our article about him. Eman  235 / talk  20:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding an image to an article I created
I created a page and would like to add one or more images to it. How can I do this? stloth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stloth (talk • contribs) 19:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC) If you need any help, be sure to let us know. Also, don't forget to sign your posts with ~. –eggofreasontalk 20:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, Stloth! For information on adding images to Wikipedia articles, reference Help:Pictures. Here's a simpler syntax for thumbnailed images to the side of the main text.

Formating
I'm new here and trying to create a page for the Late Howard Dill Of NS Canada a notable person of our history and Giant Pumpkin grower. My page has been rejected from being published... Is there a template or something to help set up pages about a person? The note I got was that it's not in encyclopedia style? or form. I'm shocked they don't have it formattes so you can add info as you edit the page and some form arrange it the way they want it?

Help!

Michael212427 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael212427 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . It is not easy to write an acceptable new article for Wikipedia, and I suggest that you spend some time reading and studying Your first article, which has lots of useful advice. Your draft has not been rejected, but rather has not yet been accepted at this time. It just needs more work. You are welcome to revise and resubmit it. One obvious problem is that you need to write in complete sentences and paragraphs. Do not mention his enthusiasm for hockey unless reliable sources describe his involvement with hockey. It seems to me that he is notable for breeding pumpkins and selling pumpkin seeds, not as a sports fan. Do not include any information that is not discussed by reliable sources, and include more information that is in the sources you cite. Also, be aware that you are writing for a wordwide audience. When most people like me read about a place called Windsor in Canada, they will immediately think of the Ontario industrial city of 220,000 people, not a small town in Nova Scotia with less than 4,000 people, and will not know that NS stands for Nova Scotia. I never heard of that town until just now. Spell it out and wikilink it as Windsor, Nova Scotia. That enables readers to easily learn more about his home town. So, please spend a day or two expanding your draft based on all the information in the essay, Your first article. I would be happy to look over your draft again at that time. Good luck. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  22:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

remove copyright content copied from
I am working very closely with Ole Troan on the draft Vector Packet Processing A section was removed with the following error: remove copyright content copied from Intel Network Stack. I thought this link would be ok since it was properly referenced.

Would you be able to tell me why it is not appropriate and the proper way to reference a link like that?

We do have other links that are similar. I would like to make sure they are appropriate.

Also, if I want to reply to your comment do I just edit this section after your comment?

It seems like that would be hard for you to watch and I may not get a reply.

Thanks for all the help. It is our first try at submitting a page, so the help is greatly appreciated.

Jdenisco (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)jdenisco


 * You received detailed feedback, from one of Wikipedia's copyright experts, at User talk:Jdenisco, with many useful wikilinks. Was there something specific in that advice which you failed to understand? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Jdenisco. Based on what you've said above, I'm not sure, but I think, maybe, you're under the misapprehension that it is okay to copy copyrighted material so long as you cite the source you are copying from. If so, please understand that this is not correct. We cite source to verify where information is corroborated, but aside from quotations (more on this later) you must not copy the words of a source. Instead, you must put the information you've read in proper paraphrase: digest the facts of the source; put it in your own words; cite the source to verify the information. As we often phrase it: " You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. " It is also not okay to modify a source's word's only at a surface level, changing a word here and there, while leaving the majority of content and structure of the original intact. This does not avoid copyright infringement or plagiarism (see close paraphrasing). By contrast with what I've said above, it is permitted to use short quotations of text. This is allowed under the fair use exception to copyright; the reason quotes must be limited is to comply with the "Minimal extent of use" aspect of the doctrine. When quoting, you must show you are quoting, by placing quote marks around the material (or by other, rarer methods, such as setoff), and you must immediately cite the source you are quoting from, using an inline citation, that transparently identifies where the quote comes from (i.e., citing a book, without a page number, would be insufficient). This is not what you did in the draft—and even if you had placed quote marks around the material you copied, it would have been far too long to meet fair use. Pretty much nothing I've said here is not already included, in sum and substance, in the template posted at your talk page (which I've had a hand in drafting--I'd be interested to know whether you can you tell me what part you found confusing? Or was it just that it has too much to digest?), but I hope this has helped to focus in on the specific issue you may not have understood. If you have any questions, please do follow-up. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The article on New International Version
In the New International Version, and in other translations, the word "lord," when used to mean Yahweh is spelled with a capital L and small capitals O, R, D.  In the Wikipedia article, quoting from the Bible, it is spelled with all capitals. I suggest using the small caps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimoregonJimoregon (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, Jimoregon. Thank you for asking your question at the Teahouse. I don't actually know a lot about the Bible, but I think you can just go and improve the page if you are sure about it. Or you can discuss it on the talk page of the article. As someone once told me, be wp:bold! James Booker fan (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * Thanks for your interest in improving the consistency of Wikipedia articles' style. The proper place to raise this issue is on the talk page of the New International Version article. I don't have a copy of the NIV at hand, so I can't verify your assertion, but I was able to find this copy of the 1983 NIV preface which discusses the various conventions for rendering "Lord" as simply capitalized or styled with small capitals. These appear to be fairly common conventions.
 * Wikipedia has its own manual of style and is not required, when quoting a text, to follow every last detail of text styling used in the original. The MOS (at WP:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters) does have this guidance: In religion, renderings of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) – but not of Adonai – can be formatted with the templates LORD and GOD, when the distinction is important. These employ a mixture of all caps and small caps common in many Bible editions:.
 * The NIV article does not use these templates in the quote you were looking at. You should feel free to fix it.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 08:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Assistance in validating my draft.
Hi Team,

I am looking for your assistance in my first draft.

I want a neutral view on how can I make my first WP Draft permissible as per the policy.

Draft:Nirbhay Pathik

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Poohrwah (talk • contribs) 07:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * I've replaced your draft content with a link to the draft. The text you posted here did not include references and can't really be evaluated here.
 * Your article uses a lot of honorifics that Wikipedia encyclopedia style does not use. You have also used laudatory, or at least, biased, descriptions at many points in your draft. These are the sorts of things that will have to be toned down for the article to avoid being considered promotional, which was the reason it was declined.
 * I expect that it will be possible to show that the newspaper is notable, in the Wikipedia sense, but you'll need to do more than have a short description of its founding and a list of people associated with it.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 08:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Advice
What are the main things someone need to learn to be part of wikipedia,when is for first time here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stridhi2112 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to Wikipedia @Stridhi2112, I've just posted a welcome me very sage on your talk page with about 60 links to all kinds of handy stuff, policies, and tutorials. If you have any further questions I'd be happy to answer them. Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken   (talk)  09:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much TruthToBeSpoken!
 * You're welcome! Be sure to sign your messages with four tidles though ~ Kind regards TruthToBeSpoken   (talk)  09:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Newbie needs feedback on biographies submitted.
I have only been able to publish one out of four biographies I submitted for review. Would someone be able to take a look at the others and provide some feedback? Are shorter bios better? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjhasacar (talk • contribs) 09:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * When asking questions, helps to indicate the articles or drafts, for instance your Draft:Anstella Robinson. And sign your User name by typing four of ~ at the end of your queries or comments. To your question, for a person to be notable, there has to be significant amounts of published material ABOUT that person - not citing what they have written, not brief name-mentions in articles, not interviews. David notMD (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Jjhasacar. You must not violate copyright again. I have removed infringements from two of the drafts and scrubbed their histories, and deleted the other two drafts as unsalvageably tainted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Typographic error in moving
I made a typographic error in moving Taifa of Dénia and moved it to Taifa of Dnia. I have moved it back but there are redirects left. I don't know where to post a request to have this corrected by an administrator.

My intent was to move it to Taifa of Denia, because all sources, reliable and unreliable, without exception use that form. But I know how to request that.

Many thanks deisenbe (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I now realize Dénia is the spelling in Catalan. That I have to investigate more. deisenbe (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey deisenbe. Done. For future reference: just tag the redirects with (or by its intuitive redirect ). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

New entries
Relying on publications may not be the ultimate wisdom. In a particular (german) case I had endless discussions due to the fact that Wikipedia would rely only on published sources, and to those rather blindly, but not on "common sense". I realize that taking what has been written may be easier than thinking, arguing, investigating, even judging oneself. But in this age of fakes and of articles that nearly always have a bias and like to emotionalize the readers, cool personal judgement of the reviewers might be needed. In the present case I wondered why I didn’t know what this thing was that I saw advertized on TV (on a harmless Bollywood channel, Zee one), and that "guaranteed orgasms". So I googled this womanizer: Lots of promotions, ads etc.. But Wikipedia had nothing on this subject, neither the German nor the US version. So I thought, maybe it’s too touchy a subject. Turns out "vibrator" is explained at length and without restraint. Now if you look at newspapers etc. these sex toys aren’t featured ("covered") as often as, say, cooking recipes. I would have liked to ask: Is womanizer on Wikipedia’s index, taboo? But then I tried to write an entry, I took time, produced a very factual short explanation, and still: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." What do you expect in a case like this? Or is it really better, not to mention the device? – In short: Please rely more on your own judgement, if something is important to know. This is a lexicon for the public, for those who want to know (quickly) what’s what, not a scientific, proof-fast thesis. And let us have a quick way to check if there is a chance for a specific entry. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Almost all Wikipedia policy is determined by consensus, and very occasionally parts of it change, as people make proposals and persuade enough other editors that the consensus changes. You are welcome to try to change this policy: the place to propose it is at WP:VPP. --ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Colin, for your suggestion. The rejects I got naturally came from one person, with a lengthy standard statement. Naturally disappointed I will try no further: I know what a Womanizer is, having researched elesewehere; if the useres of Wikipedia want to know too, is now less important to me, I’m afraid. And to change a well accepted and proven Wikipedia policy I would not want. I argue for sensitivity and common sense with new subjects that may not have "significant coverage". –  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritz Jörn (talk • contribs) 03:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . I have read your draft and did a quick research. I think it would have helped if you first developed the article further, outlining its distinction to a vibrator. This could entail reference to its inventor or origin/development and how the device works (e.g. how it stimulates through suction and pressure waves or how it mimics oral sex). A Huffington story also cited a study that showed the device can address orgasm disorder for menopausal women. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! Just a quick note: The suggested HuffPost piece (here) was written by a non-expert contributor , and should not be used in the article because it is questionable. The line "I learned of the study when I was contacted by a Public Relations firm" also undermines the credibility of the piece. While the contributor piece would not count toward notability, Lifehacker's review is a little bit better and is usable in the article.
 * Please refer to the Referencing for beginners guide for an overview of how citations should be formatted. In most articles, the only link that should be in the "External links" section is the subject's official website. Reviews should be in placed in citations, instead.
 * Also, in Draft:Womanizer, the sentence "The womanizer is expected to replace the vibrator as sex toy for women." is uncited and promotional, so please remove it. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!  —  Newslinger   talk   08:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comments on the notability guideline, one of the reasons we require at least 2 independent reliable sources with significant coverage before a draft can be published is to prevent companies from using Wikipedia as a promotional outlet for run-of-the-mill products. If a product is unable to meet this requirement, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but please feel free to write about it somewhere else. —  Newslinger  talk   08:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Colin & Fritz Jörn, interesting discussion. In an era where fake news is quite a prominent part of our daily lives, Wiki's policy of sourcing seems a tad sweeping. Why should anything that appears in an online or print media be taken as gospel, especially in controversial news that has little educative value, which I presume is the primary motive of Wikipedians? Wiki is across the board a space of knowledge and inspiration and anything not pertaining to that must be flagged and removed by Admins, I feel. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayaki75 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me reassure you that Wikipedia policy is not that "anything that appears in an online or print media be taken as gospel", . Sources need to be evaluated on their merits and information cross-checked across sources. See WP:RS. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your friendly replys. They warm my heart. But please understand that from afar I will not try to improve the entry with more citations (I just don’t have them in Germany), and to work on an entry that might end in the wastebasket. If I have triggered an entry for someone else to write I’m already happy, and your users will find an explanation of the rather unexpected use of the word womanizer. At first I just had tried to add it in the womanizer disambiguation with a short mention, but the system wouldn’t let me without a full-fledged Wikipedia entry. (I think it might be nice and politically correct to describe the harware piece completely chaste with a twinkle.) By the way I have no contact to the inventor nor do I work for a company any more, see Joern.com. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Fritz Jörn Welcome to The Teahouse (and welcome to the Wikipedia Runaround) I fully concure with your distain and flustration. Wikipedia tends to have a snobish "we know all, you know nothing" facade that gets irritating when hours of editing gets deleted with zero to little feedback, and what little feedback is given turns out to be generic "one or two keystroke" form responses that require additional hours of reading only to come to a WTF moment where you understand that no one understands your POV, but further you feel like Sisyphus because no matter how hard you try you end up no better off than before you first tried
 * I also have hit the conclusion that this site is next to useless.
 * sure there are many honest editors on this site but this site rewards activity with increased access to tools. which in turn allows those with ulterior motives to get faster promotions by "gaming" the system. I have no idea if you have encountered anyone who is trying to infiltrate Wikipedia upper eschilon but a way to leave a trail of these abusive edits (along with the real ones) without accusation one way or the other so patterns will be easier to find.  They need a place inbetween "full published" Wikipedia and the incinerator called "revert"...  i suppose some may think a sandbox does this but as you pointed out there is little access and no reliable way to disperse sandbox articles (you virtually need to contact every person before they find out where / what is in article) most bug report sites allow search of all articles written but if sandboxes are ignored there theoretically could be thousands of people writing about this womanizer but you have no way to connect with them since you cannot even link to a disambigous page.
 * you might want to persue a "sub wiki" that would retain your article with other rejects that includes infoboxes as why rejected, editor who rejected, those who concure, and those who help improve article, thus weekend editors could come to the (lets call it) Wikincubator to nurse their baby to health.
 * but I'm afraid i can only promise to support as i too have encountered the the quick click reverts personally and even saw one guy's article deleted because English was a second language for him (a few misspellings and many gramitical errors, the editor deleted the article instead of doing what a Wikian EDITor is supposed to do, EDIT!!!
 * so much for my rant, i hope you will persue further, if you do try then write on my "wall" or whatever it's called, I should notice in a month or two (i stopped visiting more often after my 3rd or 6th all-nighter was again reverted /or/ deleted) Qazwiz (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Qazwiz, know that you are not alone in this view as I have similar experience and frustrations. I hope, however, that these do not deter you from contributing and helping improve Wikipedia. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you but my observations in the last few weeks seem to be unfortunately deviant from what you say. My issues are the following:


 * 1) 1. In an educational resource like Wiki that children of all ages use, why use yellow journal style material like Sexual Harassment allegations on any person's page no matter how well they are sourced or not? How can children be benefited by these 'information'? Certainly, Wiki is not to be used as a space by Admins or Editors for allowing these to be posted. They must be flagged and removed instantly. Those interested in gossip can find the relevant allegations in so many other online sources but they should never be part of Wiki.
 * 2) 2. Why delete well sourced material that I (among several others) had personally researched and cited adequately in some pages like N Ravikiran with absolutely no effort to check the sources or point out specific sentences that may have needed citations?
 * 3) 3. Why delete sections like awards without due diligence from any of the Admins in his page? Even a cursory google search would by anyone would have revealed that many of the deleted ones did not merit deletion at all.
 * 4) 4. Why delete a whole page of Chitravina N Ravikiran - which I and presumably others used to researh into his compositions? I even pointed out that they be renamed as N Ravikiran Compositions. Any objective person would have needed only a couple of minutes to note that that page contained at least 30-35 citations from reputed media. Similarly it would have been obvious that barring one or two sentences that was similar to N Ravikiran page, the rest of the info was not only distinctive but study material for scholars about Indian classical's most prolific composer today. Yet, there were insistent moves to delete that page.
 * 5) 5. I protested and was asked to transfer relevant content there to N Ravikiran page and when I did it, it was immediately summarily deleted even within a minute or two. How could anyone reasonable not see that the information was well sourced and contained facts like list of a composer's works?

The above points out to personal bias and a desire to undermine a prominent figure rather than objectivity which I am afraid is not healthy for a site of immense value like Wiki. I hope that my concerns are addressed seriously and sincerely by all Admins in good spirit:-) Nayaki75 (talk)
 * Thank you all for your open words. In this case of a new proposed entry, I think we should act like a newspaper’s team: First decide if that subject is worth bringing, “let’s feature this subject or not”, using mainly common sense (or Google frequency, or …), then have someone (the initiator typically) write a base entry, even if it’s not perfect, and then positively and productively edit it to perfection. This way we’d all stay motivated. For the time being I added “An electropneumatic gadget for autostimulation” to the Womanizer disambiguation page, without any further link. Let’s see, how long that stays there (and in the German Wikipedia . The Bavarian womanizer has no disambiguation, but mentions John F. Kennedy as example and illustrates perusal in the barn [Schtoi]) — Fritz Jörn (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Review my new article
I have created new article for one of the company called "Agaram InfoTech Private Limited". So kindly check and revert if am missed anything... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthik Dev81 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse For the article to be reviewed you need to submit it, jut insert   to the top of the draft. I must warn you though that the topic does not appear to be notable. Theroadislong (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the Info. I have removed the citation due to insufficient notable points. Please guide me if anything inappropriate.

Suggestion for the page "Editing Wikipedia:Teahouse (new section)"
Would it help to add a line to the welcome box / Page notice on Editing Wikipedia:Teahouse (new section) that could read: "At the end of your post, type four tildes (~), which will automatically add your user name and the date" ? Garlic Frog (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, Garlic Frog. That sounds like a very good idea, and a nice catch on your part. Can't hurt, can it? Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @Garlic Frog, Hamster Sandwich: We used to have this, when the ask a question button at the top of the page worked in a different way (I actually didn't know it had been changed, since, well, I never use the button – so it may have been ages ago). At that time, the button wouldn'vt let you post your question without the tildes in place. Wonder what happened to the old button. Anyway, see this discussion, which included a suggestion for some specific language to be used in such a signing reminder message, that maybe could be adopted in part.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The old button was removed about a year ago after I reported that it wasnt working on iOS devices. It was found that the old script it was using wasn't functioning correctly, so was removed (see here). Nick Moyes (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It had some useful features but it broke a lot of times--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Will my first article be approved?
Hello! Prepared his first article for Wikipedia. Draft:Vitaly Tepikin. Everything is designed according to the rules? When will the decision be made about the fate of the article about the scientist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5Traveler (talk • contribs) 13:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You haven't submitted your draft for AFC review, but there is no point in doing so yet, as there is only one reference and that seems to be written by the subject. Less importantly, the draft is also rather malformatted as it looks as if you were trying to include an infobox. You need to read the advice at WP:Your first article, & Wikipedia's definition of notability, & particularly WP:notability (people). --David Biddulph (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Who made Wikipedia?
Who made Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexCruz289 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * See History of Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

expert article editor on economics
Hi I'm a Wikipedian who have created over 50 articles in Wikipedia. Since I'm an economics university student, I'd like to know someone who is expert on editing articles on economic topics. Thank you for helping me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike hangzhou (talk • contribs) 13:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics, if you haven't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent Changes
There is a certain setting that I like to have when monitoring RC. The annoying thing about that is that I have to change it to the settings I want every time I go into RC. Is there a way to have RC preloaded with the settings I want? Mstrojny (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the setting?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Mstrojny Set the filters on Recent Changes. On the filter bar, to the far right, select the Save current filter settings button. In the dialog that opens, there's an option you can select to set the saved filter settings as default. Check that, and whenever you go to Recent Changes, it will use the filter settings you saved. Schazjmd (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

How to increase likelihood of being published
Hi, just had the first of two submissions rejected. If I understand the notability rule it's for the subject, and not the content. I interpret that to mean: no amount of improvement will make a difference. I'd like to an opinion re: the second article before it gets rejected too. I'd considering merging the first one into the second one. I translated both from German Wiki, made edits and added references. Apparently the topic is notable in that context. I considered appealing to the reviewer, showing relevance in English Wiki. Several articles refer to these machines. I hate to see my effort wasted, and the details lost. Rejected article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hand_Embroidery_Machine Not yet rejected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Schiffli_Embroidery_Machine. Riedener (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * Notability at Articles for Creation is sometimes a difficult issue. While a substandard article might not be deleted at Articles for Deletion if the subject is clearly notable, many reviewers expect drafts to at least establish the notability of their subject before they will accept the draft as a new article. To some extent this is a practical consideration: the contributor is often the best person to find the notability references and is presumably motivated to improve the article to the point where it will be accepted.
 * For your two drafts, one thing that struck me was the amount of text without footnotes. Clearly this information is coming from somewhere – it's quite detailed – so we expect to see a source.
 * For a reviewer, validating references that are offline, in books in a non-English language, makes for a difficult challenge. These are also serious challenges for the ordinary reader. Anything you can do to make the bibliographic information more complete (and following the citation standards for English Wikipedia) is going to be helpful.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 07:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In English Wikipedia, articles with this amount of detail would be expected to have dozens of references. Weaving has 57 references. Your drafts have specifics on factory equipment, employment practices, etc., without citations. David notMD (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I had a look at your draft for Schiffli embroidery machine. In my opinion, it does appear to be a notable subject. So with that one, I believe you are on the right track. However, I agree with the other replies that you need more cited sources. As it stands, only a few of the claims you stated have a cited source. (I helped you out by adding two more I found to back up two of your claims, but don't have the time to research more today). I suspect perhaps the three books you reference are General references for much of your material. So they could perhaps be listed as such, instead of inline citations on just one or two of the claims. Of course, I understand that is less than ideal as well. My recommendation? Continue to research and compile more citations. Since the article is still waiting for review, you may have built it up enough by the time it is reviewed. That's just my opinion though. As a new editor myself, I may be completely wrong in all I just stated. So take my statements with a grain of salt. Desertborn (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like your article got accepted. Congrats! Of course we should still work on adding citations. It's an interesting subject so I may do some more research myself and help, if I have time and don't get distracted by other ideas. Desertborn (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

United States Army Corps of Topographical Engineers
the 1818 calendar has this organization as having been founded on 1 August 1818 whereas the Wikipedia page on this organization has it founded on 4 July 1838. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjrobbins (talk • contribs) 14:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Such content-related questions are usually better asked at the article's talkpage, a WikiProject for this topic area or at a reference desk. But I'll give it a try: both are probably correct. 1818 in the United States does not refer to United States Army Corps of Topographical Engineers, but a predecessor office (kind of) called the Topographical Bureau. These institutions are not identical but closely related, so the latter title redirects to the former main article (unfortunately specific info about this bureau is missing in the main article, so the redirect is a bit confusing). You'll find some more details about the development of this corps and its predecessor in this external PDF (page 6, pages 19-23), which looks like a reliable source. GermanJoe (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Inserting Google Maps into an article
I was editing a page about my town and wanted to include a Google map. I found a number of old (6 yrs) YouTube tutorials that used a "widget" that I can't seem to find. Two questions (1) is it possible and (2) would that violate a copy-right policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxglycine (talk • contribs) 17:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello . The Google maps terms of service is inconsistent with Wikipedia's license. What is usually done here is to use coord to provide a link to a page that provides links to several map services for a location, including Google maps. —teb728 t c 18:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For example, the infobox for Los Angeles contains 34.05°N, -118.25°W. —teb728 t c 18:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To be precise, the infobox for Los Angeles contains 34.05°N, -118.25°W which displays as 34.05°N, -118.25°W. --CiaPan (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

make a page
Hello Can we make a wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civil air patrol cadet (talk • contribs) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, anyone can make a Wikipedia page. However an article must be based on reliable sources and it needs to be relevant. If you have any more questions I'd be happy to answer them. TruthToBeSpoken   (talk)  16:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not "We." Editors are individuals. If you are a person in a group, the group can decide for a person to be an editor, or individuals can each be editors. There is guidance on creating an article, but new editors are advised to learn how to edit existing articles before creating one. David notMD (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Shubam Sharma
Hello, would a page on a cricketer named Shubam Sharma not get rejected?

Also I am not talking about the cricketer by the name of Shubham Sharma. They are two different people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystery Bros (talk • contribs) 18:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No. Just make sure it doesn't violate our guidelines and policies. No original research and promotions or advertising. Also add reliable sources. Sincerely,  Masum Reza  talk 18:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Mystery Bros has created Shubam Sharma (Cricketer) which should quickly be converted to a draft, as it is in no way the beginnings of an article. I did not tag it for Speedy Deletion because MB had previously created an article that was tagged SD, and then MB was chastised for removing the SD tag. And advised that two other articles MB created were redirected to existing articles. Hoping that this latest attempt at creating an article can follow a different path. User talk:David notMD|talk]]) 18:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I've moved it to Draft:Shubam Sharma (cricketer) so that he can work on it there. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Zee Keralam page absent in wikipedia
A page related to Zee Keralam, Indian Malayalam language popular entertainment channel from Zee Network, is not created here on Wikipedia. Can anybody create a page for Zee Keralam channel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A2Zabcd (talk • contribs) 09:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone can create such a page! Since you, A2Zabcd, both know about the channel and wish to see such a page, then you are the person best qualified to create it. See your first article for guidance. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.251.247 (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

PRODNOM long list of content of a site?
Hi.

New User here. I discovered this lengthy list, while copy-editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Squared

and was wondering whether this belonged on WP or would perhaps be better be served with a link to their directory, if at all necessary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intelligence_Squared_US_Debates

Didn't want to open a PRODNOM, plus am a bit confused about how these things work. But if you think it should be done, I would like to try and PRODNOM it myself (just to learn).

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by RainyVision (talk • contribs) 13:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * You should definitely propose that list for deletion. Reproducing the list here on Wikipedia is unnecessary.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick response, now let's see whether I'll be able to follow those PRODNOM instructions. :)  — RainyVision
 * You've done it fine RainyVision. Two suggestions. First, when nominating an article for deletion by any deletion method, be it PROD, speedy deletion, or through Articles for deletion (AfD), we expect users to provide a notice to those heavily involved with the article that its been nominated (this would be typically, but not always, just the article's creator). It's made pretty easy: if you look at the prod tag you added to the article, the bottom section has instructions about such notification, and provides a filled-out template to do so, by copy and paste to the involved user's user talk page. (It's quite possible you already knew this, and just hadn't done it yet). You would find the person(s) to notify by looking at the article's page history. Second, while the link you provided in the prod tag to this discussion does work, it would be better if you used a wikilink. Here, this would be done with this markup: Teahouse . I think you would get a great benefit out of taking a tour through the Tutorial, which will teach this and other types of bread and butter editing matters. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I read about the mentioning on their talk page, but as I am new, I prefer to not have to argue with them, which is why I asked here. I can of course write a brief not on their talk page, though they did not seem to be particularly active. The templates and different link styles are really quite hard to wrap one's head around as a new user. I'll have a look at the tour again, the problem is not the not reading it, the problem is the it not sticking in my head. :) I would have to practice all these different examples. I will write on their talk pages, I hope I will be friendly enough. The template btw didn't work at first when I used the visual editor. Thanks for taking the time and explaining all this! (Sorry for pasting Fuhghettaboutit into an earlier message) RainyVision (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

On edits
I'm bran new, forgive me, and thank you for this service opportunity.

I wonder how long an edit would take to show up?

If an edit is accepted that's neat, however if it is not, how would one find out the particulars?

I'm old school, but enthusiastic to contribute.

Thank again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karuna Devi Dasi (talk • contribs) 04:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, in most cases edits show up right away. For example, this edit, which you describe on your user talk page, showed up right away, but it was reverted two minutes later. You can see that (as I did) by looking at the article's history (which you can see by clicking "View history" at the top of the article). Is that what you wanted to know? —teb728 t c 05:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)