Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 946

Am I on the right track?
I'm new to editing on Wikipedia but so far I've found it to be very interesting. I've read all the documentation I can find about creating new articles, Wikipedia's policies, and conflict of interest. I'd like to disclose that I am writing on behalf of a company but I'm doing my best to cite only reliable sources and provide unbiased information. I've started a draft in my sandbox which I'm not finished with yet but, before I go any further, I'd like to know if I'm on the right track and if this is worth my time trying to do. Any feedback is much appreciated! --Maraviva (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for being open about editing for a company. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for guidance and requirements for your situation.   It would be better if you edited only articles not related to the company you work for.  RudolfRed (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding! I've read WP:COI and WP:PAID and understand that editing on behalf of a company is frowned upon in the Wikipedia community, as it should be. Based on what I read, there seem to be two options - I can either request that an article be created or I can attempt to draft it myself. I've chosen to draft it myself and I want to know if the draft I have would be seen as an acceptable start by any reviewer. Would the sources I've cited in my draft be considered reliable and independent? Thanks for your time and consideration! --Maraviva (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . One of the purposes of the Articles for Creation process is to enable good faith paid editors to write drafts for review by uninvolved editors. I think that you have made a good start but I would like to point out some problems that I see with User:Maraviva/sandbox. In the spirit of full disclosure, I want to state that one of my sons is a very active member of a similar maker space in California which I have visited several times. In my opinion, you have excessive information about the founder of the company. Discussing his family background, father, education, and previous 3D printer venture make it seem like the article is a biography of this person rather than an article about the company. Similarly, you have what I perceive as excessive information about previous tenants of the various buildings this company now occupies. This is a draft article about a company, not about the history of various buildings or about previous failed companies. Listing the street addresses of each company location is promotional, and that is the function of the company website. You include an unreferenced list of tools available for use. All substantive content should be properly refererenced. I hope these comments are helpful to you. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to look through my draft. That's very good feedback and it's exactly what I was hoping for. As a new editor, wasn't sure how much information was too much information and I didn't want to leave anything relevant out. --Maraviva (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PAID, your User page disclosure is not specific enough. Need to clearly state that this is a paid situation and name the company. David notMD (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I also took a quick look. The tools and equipment section cannot be referenced, so it should be deleted.  Otherwise it reads like a straight brochure.  For sourcing, you might add [] and []. [] and [] are less reliable sources but can be used to source non-controversial info. In addition, I would cull the external links section except for the company url, coded like this:  * nextfab.com/  Hope this helps. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Medical editing for the first time
Hi, I am editing a topic that I have 20 years of experience in. I have including citations. But some of what I want to include is my own expertise. Is that OK and how do I represent that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPMary (talk • contribs) 20:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to make it better.  All information must come from published reliable sources. See WP:MEDRS and WP:REFB for guidance.  RudolfRed (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel confident in what I have done so far, I need more references before I publish and I need to stop now. Will my changes be available to me to edit at a later date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPMary (talk • contribs) 20:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't see anything in your edit history -- what article are you editing? I suspect you've been editing without publishing? If you haven't hit publish, the work you've done will not be saved. --valereee (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , FWIW, don't worry too much about it not being perfect before you hit publish. You can even put a note on the article's talk page explaining that you had to stop in the middle and will be back to clean up. --valereee (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If not clear, "Publish" does not mean publish - in means save your changes to content. You can work on a draft in your Sandbox or a Draft space. Both differ from Wikipedia's main space, in that they do not show up via search engines such as Google. All articles are always a work in progress. David notMD (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Though it does mean "publish" in the sense that anyone on the internet can read it, if they know where it is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Updating the title of a page
Greetings,

My group (www.calce.umd.edu/dr-robert-utter) created a page titled "Mixed flowing gas" (quite some time ago). First, it applies to mixed flowing gas tests or testing. Second, most people refer to it, and we believe would first try to search for it, as "MFG." This is the common acronym. We have substantially expanded the page with what we believe is helpful further information. My dilemma: we retained most of the text from the "mixed flowing gas" page. If we were to create a new page titled "Mixed Flowing Gas (MFG) Tests" with the text on the current page, would it be considered plagerism? Or, is there some mechanism for updating the title of the current page? Thanks for your time and attention. Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertgutter (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.  There are several issues to cover here.  Firstly, I have added an entry for Mixed flowing gas at the disambiguation page MFG, so if somebody looks for "MFG" they can find it.  Secondly, there is a serious issue with that article - it does not have any references at all.  Every article, and every claim within each article, needs to be supported by cited sources.  See Help:Referencing for beginners.  Thirdly, you have several options depending on what will be most meaningful to the reader: you could just expand the existing article (this is the easiest, and the current article is quite short so IMhO this would be simplest), and if you want you could add a redirection from a different title.  Alternatively, it is possible to rename an article (which changes the title) using the "Move" facility.  That is restricted to more experienced editors, so drop me a note if you would like me to rename it for you (let me know precisely what you want the new title to be).--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Gronk Oz,

Being a newbie, I have no idea regarding the proper method for replying to your email. I'm taking this approach as my first route.

I had an opportunity to discuss this with my boss midday. He - as the operations manager for our center - would really like the page title changed to "Mixed flowing gas (MFG) Tests." We looked at the version history. The page didn't originate with us, but my position predecessor, Bhanu Sood made a number of early edits. In response to your other comment, I have significantly expanded the page to nine references and ten industry specifications. We'd like to add this information to the existing page - with renaming - if possible. During my midday chat with my boss, he posted my newly created page on Flowers of Sulfur (FoS) Tests. Which brings us to another question: We would like to add a few figures to both pages and we do not know how.

Thank you for your continued support.

Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.70.186 (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello (I'm guessing this was you, though you were not signed in so it just shows the URL .)  Yes, this is as good a way of replying as anything, though when discussing a specific article the best place is normally on the Talk page for that article.  Each article has an associated Talk page where editors can discuss how best to improve that article. e.g. Talk:Mixed flowing gas testing.  I have moved the article to Mixed flowing gas testing, and redirected the old title to this (just in case somebody tries to access it, they will go straight to the new title).
 * The article on Flowers of sulfur tests is there successfully, and I am happy to see it is well referenced.
 * Adding figures / images is a great idea, though it's a bit more complex than you might first think. This is because Wikipedia's licensing means that any image posted here must be free for anybody to use for any purpose, which requires the copyright holder (normally the creator) to release it.  If these are figures you created yourself, then you can provide that release yourself.  The image should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons rather than to Wikipedia itself, using the "Upload Wizard".  See the steps at Finding_images_tutorial for guidelines, or ping me for more specific help.  I hope that all makes sense - if not, please ask.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Waterloo campaign
The content on the Waterloo campaign is so factually incorrect that edits are not even possible.

What does one do when confronted with such a situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6011:A2:84A4:26CF:D87B:98B4 (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Start a discussion on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you mean Battle of Waterloo, it has a Good Article rating. Over years, the article has had thousands of edits, and also heated, extended discussions on the article's Talk page. I recommend proposing changes in a new section at Talk rather than directly starting to edit the article. (I see that valereee has made the same suggestion on your Talk page.) David notMD (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , there's a good chance they meant Waterloo Campaign. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow! Not being military historian, I had not realized how many Waterloo-related Wikipedia articles there are. David notMD (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Removing External links in biopage (remaining commons link-out)
Hello Teahouse friends,

I just removed an item in External links on Rosanna Davison's page (it was an external story rather than official website). There is a commons "related media" notification in the nearby area. Am I able to remove the "External links" heading without affecting this, or is it considered to be in this category? Sorry for my uncertainty, I haven't ever made any edits in relation to those little boxes, so I appreciate your advice!

Thank you! SunnyBoi (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse! According to the MOS, "If the article has no "External links" section, then place sister links at the top of the last section in the article." It might be helpful if you could find an official website for the person, but you are under no obligation to do so. For more information, see MOS:LAYOUTEL.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think he was asking about something else. Yes, you can go ahead and remove the   header. It won't affect the little box to the side. —  BladeRikWr  16:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I understood the question. She removed a link, and now there aren't any more links in the El section, but there is still a box for the wikicommons project. I linked her to relevant policy.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh shoot you are right. I did not understand the term "sister projects" until I clicked through to the policy link. I apologize for my ignorance. SunnyBoi, follow what he said. — BladeRikWr  17:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No prob!--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Sister links are external links. If the sister link (the link to Commons, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, etc) are the only external links, then they should be converted to the inline version (e.g.,  instead of  ). If you use the box templates instead, and they appear in the "last section" which would typically be the references, then it normally mangled the formatting of that section.
 * Yes, the MOS could be interpreted differently, but that section is pretty badly written, and does not reflect current practices very well.  G M G  talk  17:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agreed.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much and  and  :) I have made the change and the commons box was preserved, thank you for your patient advice! SunnyBoi (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of Start date
I read the template docs but am still confused as to what the underlying purpose is behind the template. It just literally displays a date, but more complicated since you have to put in parameters. Does it add the article to a hidden maintenance category? What secrets lie behind the template? — BladeRikWr  21:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * One example of its use is within Film date. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As the template documentation suggests, this is a very well-used template, now deployed in over 300,000 articles. For example, you'll find it is a key part of Template:Infobox event, and I think its purpose is simply to ensure uniformity of formatting in Infoboxes. Its use helps avoid the confusion between how N Americans and Europeans present their dates, ensuring we don't simply add content in free text format, which for others would be confusing. For me in the UK, the month of May clearly starts on 01/05/2019, but not everyone on the other side of the Atlantic would agree. "Start date" presents this information in an Infobox as "May 1, 2019" and it would take a real dunderhead to misunderstand that. I have tweaked the template's documentation as a result of your question. Let me know what you think of it now. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , contrary to logic and consistency, most folks west of the Atlantic like me would render 01/05/2019 as January 5, 2019. We cannot allow the misguided ways of 330 million people to affect the encyclopedia, so we need standardization of date data recording, if not date displays, which can be country specific. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You and I are in complete agreement on that point, then. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * and thank you both for clearing this up for me. And thanks Nick for editing the template documentation to better clarify that! —  BladeRikWr  16:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Translation of an English Language Page into Spanish
Hi...I'm a Wikipedia neophyte trying to translate an English language page [Reflections (Sufi Literature)] into Spanish, and wondering if I can copy the English code and just translate the content therein into Spanish and then post it on Wikipedia. So far I'm trying to learn in the Sandbox...hoping not to run afoul of copyright issues. Thank you so much for any guidance on this. I guess I'm working in 'mobile view'...so sorry if this is a dumb question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewirkala (talk • contribs) 15:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes,, you can copy everything from the Wikipedia article. Just say that you did so in the edit summary when you save the page. Instructions are here: Translate us. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Need to block an user
How to block an user on Wikipedia who frequently changes a page for no reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MridhulaSuresh (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * report them at Administrator intervention against vandalism – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What article is this about, ? John from Idegon (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The article is about an Indian television show that had two seasons,I have separated the season1 main cast and Season 2 main cast to avoid confusion,but it is frequently getting changed by another user. So I didn't know to proceed further — Preceding unsigned comment added by MridhulaSuresh (talk • contribs) 16:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * MridhulaSuresh appears to be in a quasi-edit-war situation at Ishqbaaaz. The discussion has been taken up at the articles Talk page, but clearly not resolved. David notMD (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah,I have warned by someone not to change the picture too,but then I didn't get any warnings later To avoid confusions,I have separated the season1 and  the season2 main cast.But still an user is frequently making changes without any proper explanations.What is the solution to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MridhulaSuresh (talk • contribs) 17:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, whenever adding a comment to Teahouse or on a Talk page, type four of ~ at the end to 'sign' your posts. You and Cyphoidbomb should continue to discuss at Talk page for Ishqbaaaz. Consider posting a note at the talk pages of Himan and Mallika800 to see if they will join the discussion. I saw that Cyph suspects you and Himan are working jointly to edit the article. If this is not true, say so at the article's Talk page or Cyph's Talk page. I hope you all settle your differences for the benefit of the article. And then perhaps move on to editing other Wikipedia articles. David notMD (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

MridhulaSuresh (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Thank you,I have already said my points to Cyphoidbomb.Accordingly I have edited the page,but now the other user is frequently changing.So I have reported about that user. Thank you
 * Appears you mean Mallika800. This person, unlike Cyphoidbomb (more than 42,000 edits) has been editing at Wikipedia for less than two weeks. My recommendation is to stay away from the article for a week or two, then return to making responsible, referenced edits. Very likely that by that time Mallika800 will have abandoned being a Wikipedia editor, or will have moved on to other articles. If an editing dispute reoccurs, then take up discourse at the article's Talk page or at Mallika800's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

MridhulaSuresh (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Yeah I meant Mallika800. Thank you for letting me know about these, though I joined Wikipedia to make edits in the same page that I have mentioned since it was improper. Thank you again for your immediate response.

Editor needs help with citations and reliable sources
I think this is the right venue for this? So I put an article (Elis Paprika) up for AfD for a variety of reasons including that the creator/main editor seemed to be a SPA. Cachizalo was very responsive to my concerns and I did my best to point them at resources for improving the article. Their problems seem more related to inexperience or I would have taken it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Sometimes noticeboards are not helpful when there is no actual conflict. seems unclear on what reliable sources are for the purpose of citations. I don't really have more time to devote to mentoring them and wondered if anyone might be interested in helping. I think Elis Paprika is notable enough from the Google News results. Does anyone have feedback on this? Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . If you believe that Elis Paprika is notable, then nominating the article for deletion is not the right thing to do. You can tag the article, you can remove BLP violations, you can comment on the article's talk page, or you can communicate directly with the main contributor. We do not delete articles about notable topics written by SPAs. There are countless articles about notable topics written mostly by good faith SPAs. Some go on to be productive editors working on many types of topics. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand the problems with my AfD. It would be better to tag the article with the problems I see but I dislike passing problems on to other editors. Overhauling the article will be a massive amount of work including stripping almost all the sources and cutting probably 80% of the text. I certainly wasn't using SPA in a derogatory manner or assuming bad faith but as a descriptor of their lack of broader Wikipedia experience. I lack the time or energy to engage with them beyond pointing to the basic WP principles and guidelines. I'm trying to help them by seeking guidance other than just myself. Perhaps I need to just tag the article and let it go. Thank you for your input. I appreciate it. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mark Ironie and Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328, thank you for including me in this discussion. Like you said Mark, I believe that some of the issues with the original (Elis Paprika) article stem from my inexperience in editing here. With your help, I was able to edit the article further, eliminating all potential partial and promotional language from it, and actually also found some good reliable sources to include for events and people mentioned in it. I hope this will help in the AfD nomination the article's in now. But please, if there is further work I can do, and anyone here has the time to help me out, I welcome the help. Cullen, thank you for your input. I've also began working on small things on other articles related to the Elis Paprika one, and continue to learn. Cachizalo (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer question: Is Translation of more content the same as editing?
Hi every one, hope you are doing great! I have this problem: I want to volunteer to translate some medical articles from English to Spanish; however, there are many of them that were partially translated. Then my question is: can I add the missing paragraphs as part of my work as translator?

Thank U very much

Cesar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:107E:12:35A5:406B:5B87:F874:A26A (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the Spanish Wikipedia, which is what I assume you're referring to, but there is an English template that tells users that the article was translated from another language. Here's the example for Spanish Template:Expand Spanish. There may be one on the Spanish Wikipedia to tell users that the article was translated from English, and that interested readers may be able to get more info there.  I'm thinking this will be handy if you just do a translation of the article text, but don't include the citations. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  00:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Cesar - another editor posted this helpful link below in response to a similar question Translate us. Was that your question also? <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Enigmata: Stellar War
Hello Teahouse, I am working on a Wikipedia entry for the video game Enigmata: Stellar War. Here is what I have so far: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Enigmata:_Stellar_War

There is not much more infomation about it on the web, and I am having trouble finding sources.


 * If you'll please sign your posts by putting four tildes ~ at the end of your posts, that would be very helpful. If you aren't finding much information, it might mean the video game is not yet notable, which means we can't include it in Wikipedia. --valereee (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Video Games has many resources. You should check out their list of vetted sources, which includes a Google Custom Search.  Articles about video games are a little bit easier to write than most topics on Wikipedia thanks to all the help you can get at this WikiProject. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Tool to calculate current value of money
I think I saw this somewhere in Wikipedia. A tool (template) that will take X U.S. dollars in X year and compute value or purchasing vower in current year dollars, like the tool that computes someone's current age from their birthdate (Template:Birth date and age). Can anyone help me? deisenbe (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I think that you are looking for Template:Inflation. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's it. deisenbe (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding a update to the aftermath section of the page on Robert Berdella
I am attempting to add a new update to the Robert Berdella aftermath section of his wiki page. However, the addition keeps getting removed because the moderator says it isn't encyclopedia-worthy. Here is what I am trying to add.

"In 2016 after the death of local Kansas City native Del Dunmire, all of Robert Berdellas property including crime scene evidence received by Dunmire from the Kansas City Police Department was sold off to multiple true crime collectors. With the largest percentage of the collection going to a Tampa Florida collector and owner of the "Supernaught true crime website" Kenneth Karnig."

I believe this is worthy because there is still a victim living and immediate family still living and the police released this evidence and allowed it to be put out for sale to the general public. If need be I can add a link to the video of Del Dunmires auction and the site where the evidence it to the reference section please help me get this info on the page.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobberdellakc (talk • contribs) 01:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . You shouldn't add back unreferenced content to Wikipedia after it has been reverted by another editor. You must provide a reference to a reliable source that draws those conclusions. This is required by our policies Verifiability and No original research. Please discuss article improvements at Talk: Robert Berdella, and read Refererencing for Beginners. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Falsely attributed revision
I just now posted the following on the talk pages of the Bee Gees article and of the editor who reverted the (inappropriate) revision concerned.

''I received a notification saying a revision of mine to the Bee Gees article had been reverted, but I did not make this revision. I previously noticed the change when I was notified of it (since I'm watching the page), and how inappropriate it was, but not that I was supposed to have made it. I'm changing my password and hope this will suffice to avoid further occurrences of such misattribution (there was another in the last couple of days, which I did not make and never would have), but I'm not sure it will since whoever's doing this might be within Wikipedia itself and thus presumably have access to my new password as well. In any event I regret the inappropriate change even though I didn't make it myself.''

One will understand my concern about this, as inappropriate revisions purportedly made by me will make me look bad as an editor. Can anyone advise me on this, for example on the frequency or infrequency of such incidents, or on what can or should be done about them (aside from changing the password, which is obviously a first order of business)? Can inappropriate edits falsely attributed to someone ever be deleted from his/her editing history? I wouldn't expect that, though it would be fair in cases like this.

In the immediate Bee Gees case, I purportedly changed "Brisbane radio DJ Bill Gates" to "Bill Gates", making the article read as if the group had been presented to the Microsoft mogul in 1958. Prior to that, I purportedly deleted two separate paragraphs from an editor's talk page. My reaction to that was that while it was imaginable that I might accidentally have deleted one paragraph, it was inconceivable that I accidentally deleted two, in two different places. And I certainly didn't make any of these (fortunately few) changes intentionally.

Thanks for any info or advice. –Roy McCoy (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello,, welcome back to the Teahouse. Your account history certainly shows that your account did attepmt to make the edit you describe (see diff). It never went live as it was reverted at Pending Changes. I have never heard of the mediawiki software mixing up edit attributions so that one account is credited with the edits from another. So the probable scenarios are that your computer was briefly accessed by someone else whilst you were logged on at 23:14 UTC yesterday; that your account has been compromised (which has been happening a bit recently, even to some admin accounts), or that you did make that relatively innocuous but unhelpful edit, but dont remember doing so. If you can rule out the first and last scenarios, we're left with a system error or account compromise, of which the latter seems most likely. I'm guessing by now you've already changed your password to one you've never used anywhere else? That leaves suggesting you include an email address for future account reactivation. I note that your account history only shows one such odd edit at that time - more typical of someone having brief physical access to a logged-in device. Should anyoneone hear of any reported system issue causing widespread false edit attribution, I'm sure they'll let you know. Hope this helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * in both cases the spurious edits involved accidentally undoing other edits immediately prior: on the Bee Gees page, another editor had just added back the disambiguation which you accidentally re-removed, and on the user talk page, the other person had just added the replies you reverted. I expect that you got caught in a silent edit conflict: you had the old version of the article open to edit, and, even though you didn't make any changes, when you hit "publish changes", the other edits that had been done in the meantime were undone. When changes happen in the meantime while you're editing, you're supposed to be taken to an "edit conflict" screen where you can merge the other person's changes in with yours: but there's no warning when you and the other person are working on different sections of the article. What I do (especially on busy pages) is hit "show changes" and check whether my edit would undo other people's work; if so, I copy my additions, hit "cancel" to get to the up-to-date version of the page, and then reopen the edit window, paste them in, and publish. Cheers, gnu 57 08:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and. Since my computer could not imaginably have been accessed by anyone else during the period concerned, since I still don't think I could have accidentally made the changes, and because there have been no other recent indications of my account having been compromised, I think the latter's explanation is more probable and so I'll try to adopt the described show changes procedure for avoiding the problem in the future. I've changed my password and my email address was already under Email options in my preferences.

Dadasaheb Palk Awards
Hi,

I need to write a wikipedia page on Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards

Kindly let me know if it is notable or not?

Regards Darsh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.106.163 (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Darsh. 'Need' is an odd word - is someone paying you to create an article, or are you doing it as part of your job? If so, you really ought, first off, to read these two important policies about conflicts of interest and paid writing: WP:COI and WP:PAID. However, if you simply 'want' or 'wish' to write an article about this film festival simply because you're interested in it, and think it's been overlooked, could you supply links to the Reliable Sources that you would base it upon, showing how other organisations have covered it in detail and in depth? Being an event, these would be needed to show that it is able to meet Notability (events), so if you provide us with the links to look at, we might be able to better assist you? You might need to show how it relates to (and is different from) either Dadasaheb Phalke Award or National Film Awards. For more information on creating a new article (which is one of the hardest tasks here) please read the help available at Your First Wikipedia Article. Hoping this helps you a little, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Article Draft
Hello,

I wrote an article about a local service provider in my country of residence a little while ago but said article was never published so i would love to hear any advice about how to make the article better so that i could possibly resubmit it for review. It is titled "Service Hero" on my page.

Thank you in advance, Mahmoud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MahmoudGohary96 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Your draft Draft:Service Hero hasn't been published because you have never submitted it for review. I have added a header with a button where you can submit it for review when you think it is ready. But please address the comment from first. --ColinFine (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you,.

My wiki entry is all wrong and has been heavily edited. Now it is semi protected and I cannot correct anything ???
My wiki entry Louise Robey   has been heavily edited and played with to the point of libelous. It has now been placed on semi protected and I cannot get in to edit anything. I am distraught and have no idea what to do as this directly affects my work. I know who must be behind this as I am in a lawsuit against them. (redacted)  I would appreciate it if someone contacts me by email. I live in the UK. Thank you. Louise Robey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.187.132 (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not wise to post personal contact information in this public forum. You should use the article talk page to give any concerns you have, along with any supporting independent sources, unfortunately we cannot just take your word for information. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * would you consider privately emailing me the email? There is content in that bio that could be libelous if not true -- that she posed nude, for example, sourced to source I can't get to. No good posting to the IP's talk, as it's apparently a public library. --valereee (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If You are aware of any issues with the article, fix them and, if ncessary, ask for revdel of inappropriate unsourced content. There is no reason to involve the subject of the article. --bonadea contributions talk 12:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you would like to discuss the article over email, please contact . Cheers, gnu 57 12:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Louise Robey is not protected and has only had a few edits in the past six months. Is that the article you mean, or are you thinking of a different article? --bonadea contributions talk 12:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think it's possible this person won't think to check back here; she may not realize she'd have any need to. --valereee (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is always the case, so I have no idea why you think it necessary to point it out. If the IP user checks back, he or she will see the repolies, otherwise, they won't. Other new users may read responses and potentially realise, for instance, that they will get better and quicker help if they mention which article they are talking about. (Please do not ping me here. Thanks!) --bonadea contributions talk 12:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the ping, it's an automated reply gadget. I will try to remember not to ping you in future.--valereee (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

What tag do I use for file with unknown copyright file?
Possibly copyrighted however possibly free. For context, I am questioning about what template I should use for File:Snapcode.png. -- 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 00:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's tricky, and maybe better suited for WP:IMAGEHELP, where experts discuss unclear cases. Clearly your suggestion "dunno =&gt; fair use allowed"&#x2009; is a rather dubious legal theory, but IANAL. –84.46.52.203 (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a passing comment to ask if anyone has ever pointed out to you how terribly difficult your signature is to read? For anyone with less than perfect eyesight I suspect it may be quite a challenge. So just a gentle nudge from me to see if you fancy tweaking it a little. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Citing sources in other languages
Greetings! I'm a new editor to Wikipedia. For my first article, I wrote about Saudi Arabian human rights activist Fowzan al-Harbi. The article can still be viewed in my sandbox. My article was unfortunately declined, and one of the reasons mentioned had to do with the reliability of the sources I used. I tried looking for more reliable-nutural sources on the Internet. I could find a few, but most of them aren't written in English. So my question is: Can an editor use sources that aren't in English as references, as long as they're reliable? If not, then what's the best thing an editor can do in such a situation? Thanks. - Justawriter19 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Yes, if there are not enough or suitable sources in English, then you can cite sources in other languages (but be aware that it might take longer for a draft to be reviewed, as editors who don't read the language in question might pass over it). See NONENG for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

How do you make a wikipedia?
Read the title — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oofloopz (talk • contribs) 20:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't need to "make a Wikipedia" as it already exists, since you are here!  I assume that you mean "a Wikipedia article".  Successfully making a new Wikipedia article is probably the most difficult task here.  It takes much time and practice.  New users who dive right in to creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work is mercilessly edited and deleted by others.  I don't want that to happen to you.  New users are much more successful if they spend much time first editing existing articles to get a feel for the process and what is expected in articles.  Starting small and working your way up is the best path to take.  However, if you still want to attempt to create an article, you should read Your First Article and then use Article for Creation to submit a draft for review, so you can get feedback before it is placed in the encyclopedia instead of afterwards, when it would be treated more critically.
 * Either way, it would be good for you if you used the new user tutorial first. Good luck, and thanks for wanting to participate here. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

legal cover if I use any Wikipedia material for my book?
I am writing a book about WW1. If I download and then slightly edit some material from Wikipedia about history and persons related to WW1, do I have to acknowledge or write any comment that this is material from Wikipedia? Can I feedly edit any downloaded material from Wikipedia? Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sattler613 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . If you want to use Wikipedia's text materials in your own books/articles/web sites or other publications, you can generally do so, but you must comply with one of the licenses that Wikipedia's text is licensed under. Please see Reusing Wikipedia content for how to ensure you comply with some quite simple requirements. It would not, however, be appropriate for you to use Wikipedia content, modify it very slightly, and then claim that it is your own copyright. It would, I think, need to be released under a similar licence as you used it under. That page will explain it better than I can. Good luck with your book, but do remember that Wikipedia should not be regarded as a Reliable Source, but that the sources linked to within the articles as references are themselves deemed reliable and should be used for fact-checking. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a pretty good video on how to use WP "for good". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång It sounds like this guy wants to do what I want to do eventually, but only once I've got all the small facts correct on Wikipedia first, along with creating missing articles which I haven't even attempted yet. It might take me 10 years or more, but I want to create a blog in a photo album style listing my city's people, places and things, which I'll get around to doing eventually, and maybe do a book or books on the same things. My main source for information is Wikipedia obviously, but it won't be my only source again obviously, as not everything on Wikipedia is correct. The blog/blogs and book/books will be similar to the book "Bradford's Own" by Derek A.J. Lister. I've added the above video to my "watch later" playlist as it looks like it could be useful. Danstarr69 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Review Draft Pending for 10 days.
Kindly Review this draft any admin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Evgeny_Konnov

I also want you to review all 9-10 days old drafts aswell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.63.83 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The draft has been submitted. All you can do is wait. There are people reviewing these all the time, and we won't let anyone skip the queue. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have missed what it says in the brown box on the draft: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take more than two months, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3073 pending submissions waiting for review."  --David Biddulph (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your draft looks good, and a review can really take over 80 days at the moment (tested). –84.46.53.175 (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Getting tone right for Draft: Red Circle Authors
I have been working on Draft:Red Circle Authors. I had some very good feedback form people here which removed much of the promotional tone, thank you, saying this was now not an issue, but more references were required. I thus added in more references to be told there are many and asked to highlight the most important three. This I have done and it seems that we are now close to being okay on this front and there are many other references and reviews of this publisher's books etc. I did not mention the references in The Complete Review etc which were highlighted as good initially several months ago. But the issue of being promotional in tone has come up again. I don't work for the company/am not being paid, but know them and have declared so; and I am thus not sure what to do next. Can anyone tweak/edit the text to get this to the level & tone required? I have also been asked to find someone to review the Japanese references which I am not sure is really required, but would I think be helpful too! Many thanks in advance for anyone who can help!--WikiGeoffrey (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC) RoySmith has now suggested asking Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan can you help? --WikiGeoffrey (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Why has my contribution not been reviewed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_using_procedural_generation

I have added another listing to this page, but it has not been reviewed in over a month. Has that page been abandoned by its editors?

The new listing is one of the oldest versions of this type of game and I feel it would add real historical context and value to the page.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan Kilburn (talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Otherwise lists often degenerate into spam link collections. Some lists permit sourced entries, something can be "notable" even if it has no page yet: If you want to change the rules for this list suggest it on its talk page, wait about a month, and if nobody disagreed implement your suggestion. –84.46.53.175 (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Check out the edit summary for the revert: Only entries with articles. That's a common and very good rule for many lists, only if something already is a "thing" defined by "has enwiki page" it can be listed, because existing pages are supposed to be "notable".
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, that page has not been abandoned, though some articles don't get edited for many months on end. Anyone is free to edit and add valid content to List of games using procedural generation at any time. Edits to that article don't have to be reviewed before they are visible (unlike those small number of articles subject to 'Pending Changes' review. Here are your edits. They were reviewed...or at least seen by an interested editor... but was found wanting. As a result it was removed four minutes later, and the reason was given in an edit summary. The reason being that 'List'-type articles should only have new items added to them if an article about that item already exists, and one for The Pyramid of Peril does not. Assuming it meets our Notability criteria for software/games, you would be free to create that article and then to subsequently add it to List articles, but not until. Sorry. Does that explanation make sense? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. It appears it boils down to there must be a corresponding article. No problem, I have one prepared.

Reporting an editor for malicious behaviour
Hello.

I would like to ask how I would report an editror for malicious and aggressive behaviour?

I have just received a vitriolic message from a message accusing and accosting me of something I do not think was fair.

Thoughts? --Reginald


 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. The first step is to try to discuss the issue with the editor in question. If that fails, see WP:Dispute resolution. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, User:Binksternet. I would like to discuss this reasonably with you. I feel you accosted me cruelly. I feel that quote is fine and beneficial and I would like to thoroughly re-edit the page to ensure that it meets a standard that befits a McCartney album. I hope you let me do that, as well as putting the great Eric Stewart quote back. Otherwise, I will have to look further into the dispute resolution.--Reginald


 * Respondents, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005 - MrOllie (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is block evasion by User:Rorylyng. An archived discussion can be found at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005, describing the violations of WP:REFSPAM, with the persistent promotion of articles written by Irish writer Eoghan Lyng. There's also a sockpuppet investigation page here. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

As you said, cite Eoghan Lyng. This Is citing the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReginaldRiver (talk • contribs) 16:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC) secondly, you accosted me for something that has nothing to do with me, which is unprofessional. This Is supposed to be a site "anyone can edit".-Reginald Thirdly, that you said "Irish writer" with such derision would suggest a racial undertone. It strikes me as a slur.Being second generation Irish myself, I dislike It.--Reginald


 * You're on a fishing expedition with that "unprofessional... racial undertone... slur" bit. There's nothing racial about me noting that the writer named Eoghan Lyng is based in Ireland, which is entirely relevant to this matter as most of the IP addresses that were used to promote the writings of Eoghan Lyng were also from Ireland. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

regarding page title edit
Hi,

i'm asking about the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAM_College_of_Engineering

we want some edit in title of the page. but unable to edit. we forget the origin of the article user credential.

kindly help us to proceed.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamwebteam (talk • contribs) 05:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I am sorry, but I will have to block your account because we do not allow usernames that imply shared use, sure h as a team for an organization. Please open an invidual account for use by one person. Then, take your request to Requested moves, where experienced editors will assist you. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Additions
Occasionally I'll stumble across a file or article which has deen deleted.

The people who delete things on Wikipedia seem to get a kick out of it as that's what most of their Wikipedia "contributions" consist of.

As someone who looks at TV pages a lot, I've even seen articles for some of the biggest BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, UKTV, and Sky shows being deleted, even though when I checked them just before deletion they were full of citations.

Today while looking at the list of people from my city Bradford, England I noticed the logo from the Bradford company The Scott Motorcycle Company has been deleted by a guy called Yann whose first language is French, and can speak Hindi and English. They seem to be huge fans of India too. My point is I doubt they know anything about British motorcycle companies.

As usual when something is deleted there's no explanation of why it was deleted. It just says it was SPEEDY deleted https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scott_motorcycle_badge.jpg

That image has been on Wikimedia Commons and the various Wikipedia pages which used it since the 9th July 2008.

Therefore it's been on Wikipedia for over 10 years with no problems, until now.

I've checked Google to see what the image looked like and it looks ok to me. It's just a photo of the logo on a bike, which was clearly taken by an amateur not a professional. Therefore in my opinion there was nothing wrong with the image, and from what I read recently it didn't break any rules as far as I can tell. I heard that things like logos for the main image of an article are allowed without permission.

Or are Wikimedia Commons rules on logos different to Wikipedia rules on logos?

The company hasn't existed since 1969, and the motorcycles haven't been produced since 1978, so if "permission" was the reason for the deletion, then how exactly does Wikipedia or Wikimedia expect the uploader to get permission?

What I also want to know:

1 - Is there any way for people to see the exact reason why something was deleted?

2 - Is there any way to reverse the deletion of an article or image, so you expand on it, and add more citations if that is what was needed?

3 - Do you have any idea why the Scott Motorcyle Company logo was deleted?

Danstarr69 (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You'll find advice on logos at WP:Logos. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the answer at Teahouse/Questions/Archive 930. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Others have posted links to the relevant information, but I'll attempt to answer you directly.
 * First, while there may be a few people who "get a kick out of" deleting things, I am confident that almost all deletions are done out of a concern to improve Wikipedia by eliminating material that does not meet its policies. Note that apart from Speedy deletions, there is always at least the opportunity for a discussion. Repeated specious nominations for deletion would be treated like any other disruptive editing.
 * The file in question was indeed deleted in a "speedy deletion",though in Commons, rather than Wikipedia. It is true that there was no specific reason given, but the deletion log does contain a link to c:commons:SPEEDY, which explains the process and the available justifications. If it's not clear to you which of these applied, you could ask the deleting admin on his User talk page in commons Commons:User talk:Yann.
 * Since I can't see the deleted file, I can't be sure, but if it was of a logo, I'd lay money that it was one of the first three items in the "File" section of the Speedy page: Commons only accepts material that is free to reuse, and Fair Use images (which is what logos usually are) cannot be uploaded to Commons. (The fact that this one was apparently missed for ten years in unfortunate, but not really relevant)
 * Whether is familiar with Bradford or motorcycle companies or not, and which are their main languages, are 100% irrelevant to this case, and it is disrespectful for you to suggest otherwise. They were exercising Admin functions according to the rules of Wikimedia Commons, and did not need to be familiar with the content.
 * In general, it is possible to ask for deletions to be reversed, by contacting the deleting admin. If, as I suspect, this was deleted for copyright reasons, then it will not be undeleted in Commons. But English Wikipedia does allow fair use images provided all the criteria in non-free content criteria are satisfied, which can usually be done for logos. It may be that Yann would be willing to send you the deleted image, so that you can try that: I don't know. If not, you can probably find a copy of the logo somewhere, and upload it.
 * By the way, I lived in Bradford for nearly 25 years, though I don't know anything about motorcycle companies; but I have acted in a dramatic walk round Undercliffe Cemetery where another actor portrayed Alfred Scott. I hope that I have answered your questions: come back if you have more. --ColinFine (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine So Basically the only things you can upload to Wikimedia Commons are images which you know for certain are free, and images you have taken yourself as long as they don't contain copyrighted material like logos?

The deleted image can be seen on Google by searching for the link. I've searched for the link but as it's now deleted, it only appears as a 242x208 sized image. However like with all images on Google and elsewhere, a larger size of the exact same image can be found by "searching by image". Here's a Google link to 30 sizes of the now deleted photo with the largest being 1000x862 https://www.google.com/search?hl=en-GB&q=scott+motorcycle+company&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSkwEJGu3XMsK5mZ0ahwELEKjU2AQaAAwLELCMpwgaYgpgCAMSKO8W6hbpFqUR8BbuC_1IWxR7YHP0WiimiKaMpoSmGKZg0qTfkKeMphDQaMPVkcsffRExaTrOUFdkiJyMIfmjqrODErEJ45_1qQkF6lDYpCVLjV3nmBd_1GAjFty2CAEDAsQjq7-CBoKCggIARIE0hNt_1Aw&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj6nfvVwvPhAhWmTBUIHSn5D3oQ2A4ILCgB&biw=1366&bih=654#imgrc=_

So if I downloaded that image, or a clearer looking photo of the logo, would I be able to upload it to Wikipedia?

Also what do you mean by dramatic walk around Undercliffe Cemetery? Do you mean that it was as part of a tour, an educational project, or just a bit of fun between friends for example? Or was it in an actual film or TV show?

Danstarr69 (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * More or less, . For an image you took yourself, you can explictly releases it under a suitable licence as you upload it to Commons. Information about uploading logos to Wikipedia is in the link that David Biddulph gave you.
 * It was a theatrical tour of the cemetery called A Walk through History, at the charity's Open Day in 2013. I played Sir Titus Salt and Alfred Illingworth; others played Scott, Sir Anthony Gadie, William Mawson, Robert Smith (station-master at the Midland Station), Walter Calver, a maid to the Brontë family (perhaps Tabitha Ackroyd, I'm not sure), and others I don't recall. --ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yann is a perfectly fine admin on Commons, it's a multi-lingual project, and everybody there typically knows what is or isn't "public domain". Your images linked above don't belong to the "ineligible" cases such as, so if you want "fair use" you have to upload the logo here (not on Commons) with a "fair use" rationale. –84.46.53.175 (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, This logo is in my opinion too complex for UK law, which has a low threshold of originality. We have also File:Scott No90, pic4.JPG, which is of much better quality, but I also have some doubt about the copyright here. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)