From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search


Most recent archives
841, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 856, 857, 858, 859, 860

The labeling of "fake news" seems inappropriate and biased how can we change that?[edit]

Collapsing this for WP:NOTFORUM violations. I am convinced the OP is in good faith and might still have legitimate questions about reliable sources, how to identify them and use them etc.; but the present state of discussion (whose responsibility does not entirely lie on the OP) ensures a near-zero chance that future enquiries in that thread will be usefully asked and answered. If needed, open a new thread without being an apologist for any news source, politician, etc., asking precise questions such as "is source X reliable for fact Y", etc. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

CNN has been called "fake news" by THE PRESIDENT OF THE US, and many more sources. If that is not a valid source I don't know what is. Yet if I were to put that in their description on their wiki it would most certainly be reversed. Yet with news stories like this "Sessions firing planned like a murder" [1] which is implicitly biased and clearly over the top I would hardly disagree. Yet, I would still find it inappropriate to do so.

Yet, on the other hand, InfoWars [2] is called fake news in their description. If I were to remove that it would most certainly be added back. But this is a dangerous accusation and unfair in my opinion. I am already aware, that most of you reading this will have a difference of opinion, but I ask you as reasonable people to hear me out, and help me correct this issue.

Wikipedia should not be used to discredit or censor those most people disagree with, it is our obligation to maintain a fair and objective look at each group. When it comes to news organizations, we need to be particularly cautious as to not let our bias get in the way. As much as I dislike CNN's unfair reporting, I would never call it fake news. And as someone who actually listens to InfoWars, I can attest that they are not fake news, though they are biased. The sources linking to them being fake news don't even make sense to be honest, non of them make InfoWars "fake news" yet the claim sticks. The strongest "reference" is the one about his claim about Sandy Hook. Though he mulled the idea around that it might be fake, he never implicitly said it was and reported it that way. Even then that is his opinion and not fake news.

I believe this is an unfair accusation with misused sources and I would like to remove it, but I know I will face a team of opposition, and I just realized I don't have enough edits anyway.

Can anyone help get the right thing done, and remove that label?

Best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healinglaw (talkcontribs) 17:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

To keep the references close to the text that uses them, I moved the list here. Pretended leer {talk} 18:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Healinglaw: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't need a certain number of edits to post on article talk pages, which is the proper forum to give this sort of comment. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Infowars is labeled as fake news because multiple independent reliable sources have called them that, and demonstrated multiple instances where they have invented stories out of whole cloth. Statements by Donald Trump are not treated as a reliable source, because Donald Trump is not a reliable source. In fact, he lies often enough that it is possible to begin to analyze the issue statistically, and estimate that he makes on average, somewhere around 5.01 public false statements per day. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for epistemological relativism or assertions of moral equivalency. We do not seek to provide balance where none exists. If you regularly consume information from unreliable sources such as Infowars, then the fact that Wikipedia's content does not align with your worldview is not a bug, it is a feature. GMGtalk 18:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@331dot:Thanks for letting me know, I was having difficulty finding the right location. I will do tht from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healinglaw (talkcontribs) 05:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Please cite your sources, or carry on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healinglaw (talkcontribs) 05:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Almost all of that is horribly inaccurate. President Trump is not a reliable source because he's the "President of the United States", and not a "reliable source" according to Wikipedia Policies. He's a political figure, and not a news organization. This would be true of any President, and any political figure. So you can't say "The sky is blue." because President Trump said it was, but you CAN say "ABC News reported that Donald Trump said the sky is blue." The difference may be hard to understand to a newcomer, but it's critical for an encyclopedia. The comments above by GreenMeansGo about Trump's character are inappropriate for several reasons, the most important of which is that it leads by a bad example. It's not just wrong, but it allows New Editors to think and believe wrongly, which creates more problems for other people to have to deal with. What happens when this New Editor shows up to an Article and starts advocating the inclusion of some politician's statements as a "reliable source" because this goofy "truth index" thing says they "always tell the truth", and you told him it's okay as long as the magic, truth-detecting gonkulator approves said politician's speech? The New Editor asked a question that goes directly (and only) to the definition of what a "reliable source" is, and did not solicit your opinions on the "truthfulness" of politicians or the "reliability" of one news outlet or another. The "feature" aspect of Wikipedia you mention exists precisely because your faulty understanding of "how it works" is the exact opposite of what actually takes place here. It's about the policies and guidelines, and not the personal opinions of the Editors being elevated to the encyclopedic level.Tym Whittier (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Healinglaw said as someone who actually listens to InfoWars, I can attest that they are not fake news, -- IMO, this is almost sufficient for a WP:CIR block. InfoWars has pushed conspiracy theories that:
It is the McDonald's of Tinfoil Haberdashery. If I see any further defense of InfoWars, I'm just going to block under WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


Hi Ian, Thanks for the Info! In response to your sources: Info Wars hosts a variety of guests, and they are not scripted. They are allowed to freely talk about what they want, for the most part. In specific your "Children on Mars" link, I listened to that show myself when it came out, he did not say anything like that, his guest did, furthermore he dismissed the claims the following day. Note that the article states his guest Robert David Steele said that and did not quote Alex Jones.

As for Pizzagate he apologized, though I am not sure he pushed it much to begin with. :*[[1]]

For the school shooting, he briefly said he thought it might be staged, he did not say it was, just that he thought it was possible. He later walked that back, and last I checked an opinion that is wrong, is not fake news. False flag events do happen. :*[[2]]

Hilary Clinton... is probably a witch. Can't argue with that :P

And its atrazine, an herbicide in the water causing frog to not reproduce, not chemtrail. He did say it was turning them guy, which is not entirely true, as they were actually changing genders :*]]

It's not fake news, it is news with a bias, just like CNN, just like Fox, the Hill, the WSJ etc. If CNN can say Sessions firing planned like a murder Alex Jones can say They are turning the freaking frogs gay

It's his slant. News has always had a slant, that's how you make headlines. He doesn't hide his like others. That doesn't make it fake, just different. No one should believe everything they hear no matter the source, not because of fake news, but bias and slant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Healinglaw (talkcontribs)

Like I said, if I saw any further defense of InfoWars, I was going to block. Filling out the relevant stuff now. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I've just re-read this whole thread for about the 5th time in as many days, and now have a question using "Infowars" as an example. First I accept the idea that Infowars (and similar) "news outlets" are not, can not, and should not be used as a reliable source, but a stopped clock is right twice a day. Here's the hypothetical:
reliable source A says "the sky was blue on Tuesday, according to Donald Trump"
reliable source B says "Hillary Clinton said the sky was blue on Tuesday, despite the fact that it was raining"
Infowars says "Despite the fact that it was raining, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump said the sky was blue on Tuesday"
Point of this exercise is to illustrate how an "unreliable" source might take two facts that are corroborated by two other, and reliable sources, and "fuse" them together in a single sentence, thereby allowing the Editor to convey the same information by using one sentence from an "unreliable" source, thereby making the Article more readable. (shorter, more concise, etc...)
What do other people think?
Tym Whittier (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course not. Unreliable sources should not be used, and scare quotes will not make Infowars acceptable under any circumstances. --bonadea contributions talk 19:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read WP:RS several times. That would likely be more productive. Reliability for a source has no connection to being correct in a given instance. Instead, it has to do with the procedures the source has to ensure correctness, and its reputation for providing accuracy. John from Idegon (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:AI_Peer_Review - requires revision, chat, probably more revision[edit]

Greetings and Salutations Wikonians, Ok fine, in that case, consider a revision of the entire Section AI-complete problem: AI peer review. --Gravitoelectrotensor (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Gravitoelectrotensor. I find this post a little confusing; is this a question?
P.S. The demonym for users of Wikipedia is "Wikipedians" :).
Thank you,
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 01:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Rebestalic[dubious—discuss]. The title link Draft:AI_Peer_Review is to the article I'm asking for the Wikipedians and perhaps a few Wikonians to comment on whether the comments by the reveiwer have been met to justify resubmitting the article.


Gravitoelectrotensor —Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Gravitoelectrotensor, and welcome to Wikipedia! I think this draft has an understandability problem. How about starting it like this:

Artificial intelligence (AI) peer-review is a machine intelligence replication of the human intelligence peer review evaluation: an evaluation of a work by people of similar competence to its authors.

or even like this

A peer review is an evaluation of a work by people of similar competence to its authors. Artificial intelligence (AI) peer-review is a machine intelligence replication of the human intelligence peer review evaluation.

Normally, articles should start with their titles or at least have it in their first sentences. But you could probably prioritise readability over consistency with other articles here. Later sentences in the article could use even more editing, but I don't understand the text well enough to do that myself.
Other issues I've noticed include:
  • A multi-line quotation formatted as multiple one-line quotations. That, and its use of weird characters might be considered accessibility problems. I might look at this at some time, but there are other things I'd rather do first.
  • What does "logical objective refinement" mean? What's logical? The objectives or the refinement? Or is the refinement logical and objective? Considering the topic of this draft, you might find "Time flies like an arrow" interesting to read.
  • Just because something is a name, it doesn't mean it has to be in bold. :: And something that gets mentioned multiple times should probably not be bolded multiple times. I'm not saying bold shouldn't be used, but don't overuse it in paragraphs. Using it to show that the word that is a pronoun might be okay. What you do in the first sentence is probably also okay, but I'm not sure about the latter. – Pretended leer {talk} 22:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Pretended leer {talk}, Thanks for the welcome, I've watched Wikipedia explode with info since the mid-2000's, hope to contribute something myself here. Regarding understandability, here is the first sentence of the existing Wiki Peer review article:

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of the work (peers). It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility.

which (without showing the references here) I modified slightly to

Artificial intelligence (AI) peer-review is a machine intelligence replication of the human intelligence peer review evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work. Research and development towards an AI peer review capability seeks a further refinement of the methods of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility in determining an academic paper's suitability for publication.

Note that I did start the article with the title in the first sentence. Generally, as much of the article as possible is copied from the existing Wikipedia articles it connects together.
Regarding the other issues you noticed:
  • What are the sadly weird characters you are referring to here: "A multi-line quotation formatted as multiple one-line quotations. That, and its use of weird characters might be considered accessibility problems. I might look at this at some time, but there are other things I'd rather do first."
  • OK so I revised this phrase out of the article's second sentence shown above: "What does "logical objective refinement" mean? What's logical? The objectives or the refinement? Or is the refinement logical and objective? Considering the topic of this draft, you might find "Time flies like an arrow" interesting to read." The context of this article is formalized, i.e., machine readable, logic. Peer review is supposed to be objective, i.e., based on logic. An AI peer review machine learning cognitive system would represent a "logical objective refinement," however yeah if that's sounds like an essay then ok fine.
  • OK just one bold.
So I think I'm ready to resubmit the article, after taking out the essay parts without direct references.
If I were to really write an essay ... about the oncoming trainwreck called AI we're told we are completely unprepared for, I would start with the fact most engineers and scientists, including the self-defined Aspen CERN LHC 10,000 physicists, are completely unfamiliar with the formalized mathematical logic underpining all of AI. To the extent, in spite of the widely held belief, the universe operates according to some mathematical group operation ... even the 10,000 particle-multiverse physicists cannot state their "theories" in the mathematical language of a logical conjecture — which formalized conjecture if verified could then join the list of proven theorems. Gravitoelectrotensor (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gravitoelectrotensor: I've fixed it now. You were using <blockquote>text</blocquote> multiple times in a row. And then you were using the character • as a bullet for the bulletted list. What we normally do is having lines starting with asterisks. Unfortunately, I made a mistake when fixing it and now I can't get a diff for the fix. But I can show the code before and after.


<blockquote>• No evidence for supersymmetry so far at LHC </blockquote><blockquote>• Without supersymmetry, we don't understand how the Higgs boson can exist without violating basic mechanisms of quantum physics</blockquote><blockquote>→ Either the new run of the LHC should discover superpartners, or radical new ideas are needed </blockquote><blockquote>[[Maria Spiropulu]] ([ see ''The Future of the Higgs Boson'' - YouTube APS video at 20:32])<ref>{{Citation|last=APS Physics|title=The Future of the Higgs Boson|date=2014-04-14|url=|access-date=2018-09-14}}</ref> </blockquote>


<blockquote>* No evidence for supersymmetry so far at LHC* Without supersymmetry, we don't understand how the Higgs boson can exist without violating basic mechanisms of quantum physics{{arrow|alt=Therefore}} Either the new run of the LHC should discover superpartners, or radical new ideas are needed</blockquote>{{Block indent|1=[[Maria Spiropulu]] ([ see ''The Future of the Higgs Boson'' - YouTube APS video at 20:32])<ref>{{Citation|last=APS Physics|title=The Future of the Higgs Boson|date=2014-04-14|url=|access-date=2018-09-14}}</ref>}}

As you can see, the before code looks like several one-line quotations rather than a single multi-line one. Not very readable. And I used template:block indent for the author of the quote after not finding anything in the Manual of Style saying how that should be written.

Sequences of lines starting with asterisks become bulletted lists. But having <blockquote> at the start of a line stopped it from working, so I added a line break before it. Then I didn't need the other "bullet" characters.

I also used {{arrow|alt=Therefore}} to make an arrow that screen readers could read as a "therefore". The template had had an error which had to be fixed before I could use it here. Because of that, I waited before putting it in the draft. – Pretended leer {talk} 22:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gravitoelectrotensor: Some sentences still look rather long, but I guess I'm not in the intended audience. But at least now I can feel I understand the lead section.
And one thing you can try to do when writing is to read the text aloud after writing it. It helps notice hard to read passages. – Pretended leer {talk} 22:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Pretended leer: I just copied the bullet format of the YouTube Video - but the resubmitted article just got rejected again because of "Copyrighted material" which I took to be the YouTube quote and link. So those direct quotes are not so direct anymore and the YouTube link is gone in the once again resubmitted article. Yes, some sentences are long. Reason for that is the article connects together some rather complex fields of research regarding the interconnected problems involved in an AI peer review cognitive system solution.--Gravitoelectrotensor (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Matthew S - i need your help[edit]

Hi everyone, I'm Kiodos from Germany!I've just started writing here on Wikipedia.I am very happy to be able to help this website.I only need your support to start positively!

I did a considerable amount of research to find all the articles, there are Italian and foreign articles about this artist.I would like to create articles about artists winning important contests.He won an MTV award.This is the article: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiodos (talkcontribs) 20:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kiodos. Once you are happy with Matthew S and you think that it reads well enough to be a high-quality article, you can submit the draft for review. Page reviewers can then consider your article for publication.
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 01:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Rebestalic.
How can I send the article for review?
It should be ok now!
Kiodos (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello again Kiodos. It looks like the draft has been sent for review. Good work! I'll help contribute to the article as well.
Happy editing,
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 08:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much!--Kiodos (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

a user has added suggestions in the article, can they be useful?--Kiodos (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Protection request :[edit]

I want to get the article Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Statistics , which contains a good deal of important Tottenham Hotspur F.C. records and statistics protected so that vandals don't do anything or make uncited edits . How do I do it ? I WOS A CHOC (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@I WOS A CHOC: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Articles are not protected preemptively; however, if there is an actual problem with vandalism, you may make a request at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: Thanks , I will see if I can get it protected . I WOS A CHOC (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I WOS A CHOC blocked as a sockpuppet of Anuchak. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Content Requirement & Less[edit]

Could I please be informed of the content requirement for a new article on a Youtuber? --QuantumPen (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Atbreuer11: It's the same as for any person: That the person in question has been covered in a significant way by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals have more information about criteria that can indicate whether a person in a specific field is notable enough for inclusion. Regards SoWhy 11:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks --QuantumPen (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
You also need to learn proper formatting for references. David notMD (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I will fix the reference formatting. --QuantumPen (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: Are the references now in compliance? --QuantumPen (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Please inform me if my page still does not contain enough independent sources. I have observed so far a level of hostility in some of Wikipedia's members that concerns me. What is my conflict of interest with your organization? I know there are many other pages to be reviewed, but I have a feeling mine has a set of eyes on it. --QuantumPen (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

By the decisions of other consciousnesses, and no more no less, I sit here in a state I never could think imaginable. Yet still, I retype my username already knowing of my ban, so that if it is lifted some will not have to spend energy to identify me. I need to say hello. --QuantumPen (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey QuantumPen. It's not clear exactly how the nature of consciousness is terribly relevant to your question. But as to your question, a fan made Wiki, his own LinkedIn profile,, Famous Birthdays... none of these are reliable for the purposes of writing biographies of living persons. Those sources that do seem fairly good, such as the Forbes source and the European Journal of Cultural Studies source, are fairly brief in their coverage, and it's not clear that they provide sufficient in-depth information for us to write a well balanced encyclopedia article.
It's also not clear to what you are referring to as your ban, but if you have had a previous account on Wikipedia, you should disclose that account, usually with a declaration on your user page. GMGtalk 14:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Please let me talk to SalimJah (talk · contribs). The Kite Runner. "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" --QuantumPen (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Referencing format improved, but still not ideal. More to the point, what you are using as references are not suitable to establish notability as Wikipedia defines it. There is no intended hostility. Asking a question at TeaHouse does bring eyes to your now FIVE TIME REJECTED draft. The volunteer editors here may not be maximally tactful, but their replies have been intended to be useful - your references are not good enough. Please be aware that "conflict of interest" has a specific meaning for Wikipedia - in means that an editor has a personal relationship with the topic, often a family member or friend. You are not being reprimanded for having an undeclared COI. None of the editors here have a grudge against Draft:Lewis Hilsenteger or you. You are not banned or blocked. But please stop resubmitting the draft. Because it is getting really, really annoying. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I am annoying. And smart and other things. I will do better. --QuantumPen (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Four time rejected to be pedantic (sorry). After all its just Wikipedia, --QuantumPen (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well I'm not seeing where anyone has been calling you these types of names, either here, on the draft, or on your talk page. But given that an article on this topic has apparently been deleted four times now, the best advice here may be that you should consider writing about a different topic for the time being, and allow some time for better sources to become available for Hilsenteger. GMGtalk 16:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I did not write that QuantumPen annoying, I wrote that repeatedly submitting the draft (with only cosmetic changes, none of which addressed the fatal weaknesses of the citations), was annoying. Draft:Lewis Hilsenteger now shows that it was submitted SIX times on 13 November, submission declined each time. David notMD (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Draft deleted, title salted in mainspace. Only thing left to do is figure out what's in the top dresser drawer. John from Idegon (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

BY mistake[edit]

First this is my first time on wikipedia and I am new so I don't know what to post. I didn't like this site thing and i want to delete my account.No useful thing in here i mean i always do my assignments using this site but I am so annoyed what you have said about the question I asked although the answer was not correct and blocked my page! what! Have a nice time without me. Thank you--MeKLT (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, MeKLT. Welcome to the Teahouse, which we always hope is a friendly place for new editors to come and seek help. I have already left a note on your talk page to say that I would be saddened if you left us. You didn't actually have your page blocked, and I told you that I had removed an incorrect warning message that another editor left for you. These can seem scary, and I am sorry about that. Do stick around, please. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

BE fast[edit]

I asked question so be fast!--MeKLT (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Please be patient there are many editors who are asking questions here and all the hosts also have other works like editing articles answering questions is not only their work. To be a Wikipedian you need to be patient.Denim11 (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Good things come to those who wait, MeKLT. :)
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 04:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the difference between vandalism and disruptive edits?[edit]

Hey, I have been reverting vandalism by monitoring recent changes but while leaving talk page warnings I am not sure whether it is vandalism or disruptive? So please tell me.Denim11 (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Denim11: Vandalism is a subtype of disruptive editing–all vandalism is disruptive, not all disruptive editing is vandalism. Vandalism is not only disruptive, but malicious, intentional disruption. Merely-disruptive editing can be accidental, or the result of disagreements between editors without intent to sabotage Wikipedia itself (for instance, edit-warring is disruptive, but if both editors truly believe that they are improving wikipedia, it is not vandalism). As such, vandalism is a much more serious accusation than disruptive editing. As far as warnings are concerned, WP:WARNVAND describes several levels of default warning messages you can put on someone's talk page; the first two give the target the benefit of the doubt, while level-3 and beyond explicitly accuse them of vandalism and should be used only for repeat-offenders that have ignored previous warnings. For more information, see WP:VANDALISM and WP:DE. signed, Rosguill talk 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Denim11: It's quite possible for an editor to be so keen to deal with what they see as vandalism that their own actions in reverting or warning other editors can, itself, become disruptive. I think you know what I'm alluding to. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes:Thanks for the clafification. I completely agree. Regards, Kmw2700 (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ANI notification requierments[edit]

A user who I will call X has a long pattern of assuming bad faith and occasionally making bogus accusations during content disputes, if this continues it may become disruptive enough to report at ANI(but I am afraid that an ANI involving X will become rather dramatic). If I have to report X at ANI, I will of course notify them as is required, but if I mention examples of X's behavior toward other users, should I notify those users as well? Also, if X accuses me of POV pushing(as a hypothetical let's say X thinks i'm a pro-trump POV pusher), and I defend by showing diffs of times I reverted pro-trump edits, should I notify the pro-trump editors I reverted? I expect that if reported, X will immediately seek boomerang sanctions against me, and the bogus accusations I refer to above include threatening to report me for pinging an editor who X tends to disagree with, so I don't want to be accused of canvassing editors that X disagrees with to the ANI, but I want to still comply with the notification requirements for ANI.

Unless X becomes disruptive enough that I actually report them at ANI, I will not confirm or deny any guesses as to X's identity, My questions at the teahouse are just so I understand ANI notification requirements. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Tornado chaser. It's not required that you notify anyone other than the editor you are reporting. You may notify others if their input is required, but as you point out, doing to excessively or carelessly can be construed as canvassing. And anyway, much of the point of a noticeboard thread is to attract outside input from uninvolved editors. So it's often not necessary to widely notify, and the only thing you're going to get grief over is not notifying the subject of the report. GMGtalk 22:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I have a question ![edit]

Dear Teahouse,

Hello I am new to Wikipedia but would love to become an administrator.How can I join to become an administrator ?

I have only been on Wikipedia for only a few days.

RegardsResen01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resen01 (talkcontribs) 17:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Resen01: You have to gain a reputation for good editing to be made an admin, only experienced editors are made admins, I think most admins are active editors for at least 2 years before being made admins, but if you become a productive editor maybe you could be an admin someday. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Resen01: Could I add to what Tornado chaser helpfully says? There is no 'joining' process on Wikipedia, not even for becoming an administrator. However, each person willing to be nominated to help out with administrative duties certainly needs considerable experience over some years, and has to gain the confidence of their fellow editors, who will look very closely at their past experience and skills in dealing with other editors, often under challenging circumstances. You can find out more at WP:ADMIN, but this honestly won't be something new editors need think about for quite some time. That page states: Before requesting or accepting a nomination, candidates should generally be active, regular, and long-term Wikipedia contributors, be familiar with the procedures and practices of Wikipedia, respect and understand its policies, and have gained the general trust of the community. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of nicknames in an article[edit]

In the article I included, in parenthesis, the nicknames of a number of the people mentioned because they are the names they use(d) exclusively, but are uncommon nicknames for their given names. I know the general rule is to avoid using both given and nicknames, but wondered if, in this case, it might be acceptable, or if I need to omit one or the other. Thank you! Srannamartina (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Srannamartina. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for taking the trouble to ask your question. It's a good one, and my advice is to suggest that including nicknames in that article not only adds nothing significant to the content of the page, but also disrupts the flow of reading. Had one or more of the children gone on to become notable in their own right, it might then seem justifiable (assuming you could demonstrate that the nickname was in general use at that time in their lives). But it's almost as irrelevant as telling me what colour the guy ropes were in their camp. So I'd leave them all out. I really appreciate you asking, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Thank you! So you would suggest using only their full (given) names? Srannamartina (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Srannamartina: Yes. Sorry I wasn't clear on that. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Srannamartina: As a general rule, nicknames should only be included if the nickname was used primarily to refer to the subject in question. See MOS:NICKNAME for some guidance and examples. Regards SoWhy 19:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: OK, thank you!
@SoWhy: OK, thank you. That's actually why I was unsure about what to use - the nicknames I included are the names that these people use (or used) exclusively. But I agree with @Nick Moyes: that including their given names as well as their nicknames in parenthesis interrupts the flow of reading. Srannamartina (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

problem with DYK template[edit]

I've bolluxed up the template for a DYK nomination. It's at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Roz_Young. I thought I followed the directions to not try to link to the article within the nomination because the template would do it for me, but it didn't produce a bold link. Would someone be willing to take a look and tell me what I've done wrong? Sorry, I know I've been in here a lot. valereee (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Valereee: The template does not link the article title in the hooks because there is no way to know how it will be included there. Just edit Template:Did you know nominations/Roz Young and use the normal makeup ('''[[Roz Young]]''') to link to and bold the article in the hooks. Regards SoWhy 19:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I must just have misunderstood the directions! valereee (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Srannamartina: I've just fixed that for you, though I'd suggest your hooks really needed to state she was a newspaper columnist, and possibly link to the relevant newspaper article, albeit not in bold. Probably not too late to add another ALT hook? Would do it myself, but am editing from a tiny mobile this evening. If this is your first DYK - well done. Following the DYK instructions for the first time seems harder than writing your first article! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Thank you...but this wasn't my question... *wink* Srannamartina (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Valereee: Oops - just pinged the wrong person. Doh! Can I suggest a tweak to the 'Reception and impact' section? I fear you've twice mixed up the subject and object in two sentences. It rather reads like Krisher helped Krisher, and PD James had a column with her after she'd died! These are minor tweaks I wouldn't normally worry about, but the folks at WP:DYK are pretty fussy. I also think you described somebody as "legendary" without adding a citation to that quote. You might like to look at that too. Good luck with getting your article on the main Wikipedia page. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Nick Moyes Yeah, I wasn't happy with either of those sentences! Will try to find a tweak. And thanks for fixing the wikilinks, I wasn't sure whether it was that simple or whether I'd make things worse. I dithered over whether to include that she was a newspaper columnist for brevity's sake, but it wouldn't actually make any of them too long. Thanks! valereee (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Valereee: Do put that in. The DYK hook really has to be 'sexy'. It must attract and make sense to people who've never ever heard of her, whereas you've probably spent the last few weeks deep inside that article and are assuming folk know what her job was, and where she worked. Which they won't. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Nick Moyes oh, believe me, I have no illusions about anyone knowing who she was, lol. She wasn't even a redlink Sunday morning. valereee (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Links to editor page[edit]

Hello !

I am editing the page of a NYC pluridisciplinary artist. Can I link her publications to her editors' websites so people can find the entire references of the book?

Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldsofunnamedflowers (talkcontribs) 20:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Fieldsofunnamedflowers. Welcome to the Teahouse, and may I say what lovely username you have? (I'm a botanist, so am allowed to say that without sounding creepy!) I have a few questions for you:
  • what does pluridisciplinary actually mean, and what's wrong with using the less pretentious 'multi-disciplinary' in the article on Nicole Peyrafitte?
  • Can you supply a link or example of what you'd actually like to add so we can better understand your question?
Yes, references like the one I've put for Carnet 2, RedfoxPress, Ireland for example. Can I do more of these for the rest of the publications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldsofunnamedflowers (talkcontribs) 21:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Why don't you focus first on adding citations to support the statements about all her awards and exhibitions? There are none there at present.
Yes, I will do that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldsofunnamedflowers (talkcontribs) 21:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you replace all the capitalisation in the Awards section, please? This is not an appropriate style to use.
That's fixed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldsofunnamedflowers (talkcontribs) 21:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you find some citations to support her 'early life' section? I know you didn't add this, but some unreferenced bits really need deleting if they can't be supported with citations.
Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldsofunnamedflowers (talkcontribs) 21:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry not to have answered your question - but I feel these are far more important issues to address first. Should you know the artist you're writing about, do please read this page on Conflict of Interests. Regards, -Nick Moyes (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldsofunnamedflowers (talkcontribs) 21:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

For those as curious as I was, it's about Nicole Peyrafitte David notMD (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I did include a link to the article in my reply, but thanks for highlighting it, David. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello - newbie here[edit]

Hello, and happy to be here. I had a question of qualifiable third party sources. Depending of course on the subject matter, are fashion blogs & fashion websites valid to use as third party reference? And I'm speaking of in particular the well known mainstream fashion blogs. The reason I ask is because "fashion" and the culture of which it is associated with tends to be more of "feel good rhetoric" - not that I have a problem with this kind of thing, but if one is doing a piece on an artist or designer, etc does the journalism of fashion blogs and sites qualify as sufficently responsible for Wikipedia reference? Please advise, and many thanks in advance. MAureliusAugustus (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Ave, M. Aurilie Auguste. It's usually hard to answer questions like this in the general case. I can point you at WP:BLOGS, which says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"; but to get a better answer, you should tell us what blog you are considering using, for what purpose. Better still would be to ask at the Reliable sources noticeboard. --ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
ColinFine. Colin thanks. I'm going to take a look at the information resources you've pointed me to. This way I think my questions will be much better qualified. We'll speak soon, have a great day! MAureliusAugustus (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Jerusalem Mural depicting the Cardo in Byzantine era[edit]

Has anyone noticed that the picture for "Jerusalem Mural depicting the Cardo in Byzantine era" in the Jerusalem page has a child with a backpack and baseball cap in the bottom right corner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Er, yes, hence the fact that it has "Note the one modern kid … TIME TRAVELLERS?! (read 'There Will Be Time' by Poul Anderson sometime… ;)" as its file description. ‑ Iridescent 22:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I've gently requested deletion of the image on Commons here but I don't know how they handle these things. It needs deleting from its uses here (and on Italian wikipedia). Nicely spotted! Thincat (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC) ... which I've done for two enwp articles but haven't fathomed Portal:Jerusalem yet. Thincat (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thincat, this is not a hoax. The boy is really there. The mural contains people from the modern era. According to this site, The wall mural in this Cardo depicts how the Cardo might have looked in the Byzantine period. The three people pictured in the left-hand corner are the former mayor Teddy Kollek and the two archaeologists who excavated the area. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I had realised it might be the mural itself that was the spoof but I didn't think that it was likely. Thincat (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
not sure why you are deleting the image. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thincat, it is not a spoof. It is a perfectly serious mural in a major historic site in Israel. To quote this source, You will notice a boy from the modern era with a green knapsack, a red baseball cap and a bottle of water, standing next to a young Roman girl who is extending her hand with a pomegranate to the boy. The artist is depicting the continuity and fluidity of history. . Please put the images back. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, both. I was aware that it might be the mural itself that was being playful but I had not supposed the articles were intending to display an image like this. I'll explain at commons and withdraw the deletion request. Thincat (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Jacob Maniti[edit]

How do I place an upcoming football player in Wikipedia. He just turned 16 years old My son Jacob Maniti. He plays for Melbounre Victory FC in the youth squad. And has represented, the national teamOf Philippines Football team and also boys Australian Futsal team as a 12 years old — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdinand Maniti (talkcontribs) 23:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ferdinand Maniti: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your son would need to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for football players(written at WP:NFOOTBALL); looking at them, I see that they state "Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG". Unless your son is extensively written about with in depth coverage in independent reliable sources, he probably would not merit an article as a football player based on the criteria there. I'm sorry that it may be disappointing to hear that. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


I am trying to help my wife make her wiki page for her. I have no idea where to start I was trying to do a template but no success. Can anyone help me make the page !!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCfitness (talkcontribs) 23:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@CCfitness: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your account has no edits recorded in its history(aside from your post above) so if you have written about your wife somewhere please link to it. That said, any article would be an article about your wife, not for your wife. You and your wife would have no special rights over it to control what appears there. In fact, there are many good reasons why an article might not be desirable for your wife; please read this page for more information on that point.
Your wife will need to meet the appropriate notability criteria(in general, at WP:BIO, though there are fields with more specific criteria) in order to merit an article. Not every person merits an article here, even within the same field. You will need independent reliable sources, sources not associated with your wife, to support its content. You will also need to review conflict of interest; it is strongly advised that you not directly edit in the area of your conflict of interest, instead making edit requests and submitting drafts of new articles to Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I am going to have to pay someone to do this. I do not have enough help or knowledge in the matter MEH — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCfitness (talkcontribs) 18:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, CCfitness. I urge you not to do this. It is permitted, but nearly always a bad idea. The person you pay will be required to make a declaration that they are doing paid editing, and can expect their work to be particularly carefully reviewed. Neither they nor you will have any control over the content of the article: if they tell you that they can make the article how you want it, they are either unfamiliar with Wikipedia, or lying to you. I'm not sure why you think Wikipedia has to have an article about your wife, but I can tell you that Wikipedia's purpose (to have an encyclopaedia of neutrally-written articles about notable subjects, based entirely on reliably published material) trumps your purposes, whatever they are. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Policy on personal info of minor children[edit]

Hello Editors! I just picked this page's namesake off of a list (Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from November 2018 — which I can't seem to link here), and edited the content of one section, previously "FAMILY MAN", that includes the names and DOBs of his minor children. I've searched but can't find the policy about that aspect, so am not sure if I am allowed to remove their names and DOBs, but it seems a potential danger to the kids to publish that. Is this the place to ask for help finding the policy? Thank you for your attention. -RFT42 (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe that WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME both apply here. I would suggest removing both the children's names and date of births.MarkZusab (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup for the advice, and for deleting that info. (I didn't even think to look for Privacy, and had searched for policy concerning children.) Back to the drawing board! -RFT42 (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Copying vs Creating new Page[edit]

I am needing to develop a player profile page like the one at - - Can I somehow copy this page, edit the profile with a different player and then post? Or do I need to develop a new page from scratch?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBUtigerfan (talkcontribs) 01:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

More explanation is I am developing a page for Johnathan Powell who is a TE for the same team Trent Richardson is on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBUtigerfan (talkcontribs) 01:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello OBUtigerfan. First, I recommend that you read Wikipedia: Notability before beginning work on the article. Surprisingly, I once asked this exact type of question as well a few months back here at the Teahouse. Unfortunately, you'll have to start from scratch--A Wikipedia internal policy is that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source.
Good luck!
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 04:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@OBUtigerfan: I'm not sure Rebestalic's reply, helpful though it is, fully answers your query. Personally, I would have no worries about copying the wikitext of one page into my sandbox, deleting all the content of each section entirely, and any entries in the infobox or tables. In tables (which have a complex structure) I'd probably replace all numbers with XXX or YYYs simply so I don't lose that markup structure, nor confuse data from one person with new data I plan to add later, whilst keeping a very visible 'placeholder' as a prompt for future editing. I'd then save that skeleton, with an edit summary stating it was copied from a named article. Because I wasn't saving any actual content, I probably wouldn't need to state "see that page's history for all author contributions" which I might do were I to be copying and saving the full text into my sandbox. I'd then start work filling in each section with brand new, referenced content. I would just add a plea for you not to follow the florid, verbose and over-trivial writing style of so many sports personality pages here. Many of these enthusiastic editors fail to recognise that they're writing an encyclopedia entry, not practising for a career in sports journalism, where every minor detail of someone's sporting life, or every minute of some match has to be expounded upon in huge detail to satiate some need for trivial information in the readership. You should simply provide links to external website for those kinds of minutiae. (Please remember in future to sign every talk page post. To do that, simply type four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~) at the end of your final sentence.) Regards,  Nick Moyes (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this page really necessary?[edit]

I was looking at this article yesterday and made a proposed deletion for it. DECA Ontario is a small organization that is part of DECA, which has its own Wikipedia page. There is nothing that sets DECA Ontario apart from the rest of DECA. A few minutes later someone objected and removed the tag. Looking at the article now, I think that a lot of the information is useful to a very, very small group of people. Under "Provincial Executive Officer Program (High School Division)" is a list of every single high school student who has been on the executive team since 2010. I can't find links to these people anywhere except social media. The entire page has zero sources.But I am not an expert at Wikipedia, I was hoping someone else could have a look at this page and provide their thoughts. Thanks.Anthonyliu (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Anthonyliu. The person who reverted your edit looks like an IP user. They have two contributions, and both are contributions for DECA Ontario. IP users should not be trusted when dealing with an operation of this importance. Feel free to nominate the page for deletion again. Before doing so, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Notability as well, just to make sure that deleting the article won't cause a massive tantrum by some users. That probably won't happen here at Wikipedia.
Thank you,
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 04:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Rebestalic: I strongly encourage you to read WP:HUMAN. The problem is not that this edit was made by an IP editor (or a new editor for that matter), but that it does not give any reason to contest the PROD, which is usually a poor idea. If the most respected member of the community had done so, we should criticize them just as much. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
My (limited) understanding is that once a PROD has been contested, the proper path is Articles for Deletion (which has now been taken) rather than resubmitting PROD. And, that with AfD, it is a courtesy to bring the process to the attention of editors who have been recent contributors to the article, so that they may participate in the discussion. David notMD (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
While Tigraan has pointed Rebestalic to the right place to check this, I am concerned enough to have struck through what Rebestalic posted above. (I know that altering another editor's comments is not normally acceptable.) I'm sure Rebestalic was in good faith, but it is never true that an IP user is "not to be trusted" simply because they have not created and logged into an account. Some IP editors are disruptive, but many are perfectly competent and reliable editors who choose not to create an account. --ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello ColinFine. I apologise for the inconvenience.
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 19:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Menu bar too full?[edit]

Is there a limit for the menu bar? It's half the size of the page now, and It won't let me add to it.--Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thegooduser. Which menu bar are you referring to and how do you try to add to it? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter:This one: Thegooduser (Bell) (Notices), etc --Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: And how do you try to add to it? Please be specific if you refer to a preference or JavaScript which does not make an addition you expect. Does half the size of the page mean one line half the width of the window? I can make two lines. I can also make more than two but then the links overlap with other things. What is your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? What is your browser? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


Dear Sir,Please let me know what i have to do for accepting the draft Abanindra Maitra to enlist it in Wikipedia.Thanking you.Nilima Sen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilima sen (talkcontribs) 04:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nilima sen: If you read the notes left on the draft, you'd see that it says you need to properly cite some independent reliable sources to establish notability.
I recommend just starting over, using the following steps:
1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.
2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.
5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


Greetings I am looking for editor to help me add article on Wikipedia.

please contact meEditor 7070 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, assuming that you are Editor7070 based on your signature here, you should first log in and read the messages on your user talk page, as well as the responses you received at the Help desk. If anything there is unclear, you can come back here and ask about it, or continue the discussion at the Help desk. If you are not that editor, I'm afraid we can't help you unless you tell us about the article you would like to create. --bonadea contributions talk 08:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I am future editor. I am lookin someone will publish article on my favour. Just someone that is authorized to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
To indent, add ":" to beginning of your content. Using the space bar makes it look like a quotation. It is very unlikely that editors who visit TeaHouse will be willing to write an article for you. There are guidelines available on how to create an article. A key question before you attempt this difficult task is whether the topic of your proposed article has been written about in independent publications, as that is essential to meeting Wikipedia's notions of notability. Which gets us to - what is it you want to create an article about? It looks like you might mean Draft:Agata Nowa. This submission was declined on 9 November as not having adequate citations. David notMD (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What do I do with the template after cleaning up a translation?[edit]

I just cleaned up an article that was marked as needing cleanup after translation from Hungarian ( How do I remove the "Template:Rough translation" template at the top of the page?Lingo nerd (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, Lingo nerd. Just open the page via the 'edit source' tab and delete the very first line that says {{rough translation}}. Or, in Visual Editor, go to the line beneath the template and delete leftwards until it disappears. I prefer the former method. Save by clicking 'Publish changes. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Bio creation[edit]

Hello, I began creating a Biography. and need to employ the article wizard can this content be transferred or do i need to start over. any info provided is appreciated.thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanna Coakley (talkcontribs) 14:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Deanna Coakley. You were trying to write a biography of Roberto McCausland Dieppa. The best thing to do would be to start over. You will have to show that he is well-enough known for a Wikipedia article, that he has been written about in reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, etc) that are independent of the artist. Once you have those references, begin the article by including just the information provided by those references. Then add other information, which can be from interviews or his website. Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Harvard step test[edit]

what does the word barew mean?

what mathematical action is designated by the asterisk (*)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The word "barew" was added in this unexplained edit in April, and I have reverted it. The asterisk is a standard mathematical symbol for multiplication. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The word "barew" does not appear in any dictionary that I can find, so if it is a word then it is either extremely rare or very localised. * means multiply of course. Are these genuine questions? Dbfirs 15:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

How to add a picture to the top of an existing article[edit]

I would like to add a picture of the Capital Plaza which is in Abu Dhabi in its corresponding information box at the top of the article. How do I go about doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorMayhem (talkcontribs) 17:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @MajorMayhem: - a few questions first - do you have a specific photo you are looking to add or are you asking where to find such a photo (and then add it)? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey @Nosebagbear: I found a photo on Google that I think should work so I have a specific photo that I am looking to add. MajorMayhem (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi @MajorMayhem: - so your biggest initial issue here is copyright. It's not your picture, so that means that unless the creator has declare it in the public domain (or given a wiki-friendly license) you would need to demonstrate it was Fair Use. This could be difficult as it is a picture of a still-existing location, which means that because it is possible to get a freer picture in the future (you can still take photos of it etc) it usually isn't covered.
If you let me know the photo I can give it a look or ask a better qualified soul to consider it Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Question on writing an Article[edit]

Hi I wanted to write an article on a music artist who is living today. I know Wikipedia has strict standards on this. I noticed also there are many living artists today that someone has written about. Some famous and some not so famous. How would I go about doing this so it is excepted by Wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mja Records (talkcontribs) 18:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

One of our standards is that companies are not supposed to register accounts. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
After you have created an account just for yourself, you can read WP:YFA on how to create an article and also make sure you follow the guidelines and requirements at WP:COI and WP:PAID. RudolfRed (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Text editor board missing[edit]

HelloTHe board, where I could change lettering, create reference, link etc. has dissapeared from english text editor, but it is still present in czech one. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talkcontribs) 20:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vojtaruzek, welcome to the Teahouse. An old toolbar has been removed. "Enable the editing toolbar" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing makes another toolbar which has been default for years. This code in your common JavaScript creates a toolbar more like the old one:
Without the second command it omits the cite button and may load faster. See more at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Support ends for the 2006 wikitext editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It is enabled, but it is still missing, not in firefox, though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talkcontribs) 12:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

not comming up in serch[edit]

when i serch his name it isnt comming up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Hantos (talkcontribs) 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Liam Hantos: When you search whose name? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Liam Hantos and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have a misunderstanding about Wikipedia. It is not a tool to publicise yourself. Please don't keep adding your name to articles. Your user page is for you to tell other editors about yourself and your interests relating to editing here. It should not look like an article about yourself. Your name will not come up in Google searches relating to Wikipedia until there is an article about you, and that will not happen unless you are notable in the special Wikipedia sense. Google doesn't find any WP:Reliable sources about you when I search, so you probably haven't been written about in WP:Reliable sources yet. Until that happens, there will not be a Wikipedia article about you. Please see WP:Autobiography. Sorry to disappoint you, but most of us don't have Wikipedia articles, we just edit articles here about notable subjects. Dbfirs 21:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

posting English wiki page as new German wiki page[edit]

I've been asked to revise an existing English-language wiki page, and then have it posted as a new German page. I am unable to log into with my account, and wondering what is the best way to accomplish this?Tlvernon (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tlvernon: You may need to create a unified account. See WP:SUL and [3]. Once this is done, your account will be usable at all the Wikipedias. RudolfRed (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tlvernon: All accounts are already unified today. Special:CentralAuth/Tlvernon shows yours. What happens when you try to log in to the German Wikipedia at de:Special:UserLogin? Either you should already be logged in when you click the link, or your username and password should work. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Second part of the question, can I take the existing english wiki page I'm revising, translate it into German and post it, or does it need to be reviewed and approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlvernon (talkcontribs) 19:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Tlvernon: You will need to ask de-wp about it, since I am not sure about the procedures for new articles there. An existing article on en-wp is no guarantee that its translation would fly on de-wp (nor the other way around) because the notability policies are different.
When translating, please make sure not to use unchecked machine translations, and to attribute the original page to satisfy the copyright. On en-wp, there are templates such as {{translated page}}; there is probably something similar in de-wp. (Again, ask at the German help desk equivalent). TigraanClick here to contact me 10:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Redirected to wrong page[edit]

I was trying to ask a question on an experienced admin's page, but was redirected to here. Is there any way I could stop the redirecting? The question,by the way, is directly before this post.@Nomnom121 (talk) 15:49 14 November 2018 (MST)

@Nomnom121: - am I right in thinking the below was your question
"After making edits that I considered helpful, a user removed them without any explanation. I only learned of this when David notMD informed me on the Teahouse. Is there any way to set up notifications for removed edits?"
You can Watchlist pages (including articles, talk pages etc) by pressing the little star at the top (when you've done it, it will fill in the empty star). If you click watchlist (right at the top right) it will list any edits made to your various watchlisted pages.
I'm a little confused by your redirect issue. Do you mean you posted on an admin's page and they suggested you come here, or that you tried to post and you were automatically sent here? If you could let me know that would help me (or another editor) answer your question Nosebagbear (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Linda Cable jazz singer[edit]

Hi, please, where should I publish my request for a review, checking of the page I have finished tonight, it is in Sandbox/Heralune, can you reach it ? Should I publish to check it ? It's about an australian singer, Linda Cable. Thanks Heralune (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

To submit your sandbox draft for review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Question about Wiki Projects[edit]

Since there are the amount of different types of Wikipedia projects on this site, is there any way at all that you would be able to provide a way that would be easier for users in general to be able to look through all those different types of web links without it feeling like it's too time consuming? Even if it might mean having to insert video tutorials in as many different languages as possible so that it will make it easier for users in general to understand a lot better how to navigate through all those links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyAlbornoz (talkcontribs) 02:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@BillyAlbornoz: Welcome to Wikipedia. The tutorial at WP:TUTORIAL has several videos on different topics. Can you be more specific about what you are suggesting? RudolfRed (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

New User Here![edit]

Hi!I would like to move an article rom my sandbox... I am already over 10 edits in, but I think I am just about 4 days in... Or maybe 3... But I wanna publish my article! Lol! Scarlet Quinn (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Scarlet Quinn: welcome to Wikipedia, and to the Teahouse! To write a new article in Wikipedia is the hardest thing to do for a new editor, and unfortunately, User:Scarlet Quinn/sandbox does not actually meet the requirements that Wikipedia has on notability for actors. The person you write about must meet these requirements and/or these requirements in order for a Wikipedia article to exist, and if you were to move your sandbox into the main encyclopedia, I'm afraid it would almost certainly be deleted. Another editor has already left a message on your sandbox draft; please read that, and see if you can find several reliable and independent sources that talk about this person in some depth. Without such sources, there can't (yet) be an article. Another thing: if you have a personal or professional connection with the people you are writing about, you will need to read and comply with this and (for a professional relationship) this. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

COI tag removal[edit]

Hi, I recently wrote an article on musician Noah K. I had originally written about one of his bands, Dollshot, that was challenged and ultimately deleted based on notability. I rewrote it recently (6 months later) since there were new sources that I believe overcome the notability issue, but it was ultimately deleted again. So, I wrote an article about the bandleader, K, who clearly passes WP:MUS and included a section on Dollshot within the article. As soon as it was posted RoySmith tagged it with a COI. At RoySmith's request, I have responded on my userpage User talk:Artaria195 and clarified my relationship to Noah, and to my understanding there is not a COI. I have done my best to write a neutral, unbiased, non-promotional article and carefully researched and cited sources for every statement contained within. Does anyone know how the COI tag can be removed? Thank you. Artaria195 (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 Removed. Not sure why Roy placed it there since Template:COI editnotice says it should be placed on talk pages, not articles. Regards SoWhy 14:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for the incorrect placement. I've put it on the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Artaria195:, just FYI -- a conflict of interest declaration, like this one, should be posted on your user page and not on your user talk page. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, thanks Aoi (青い). Just added it here: User:Artaria195. Thanks for letting me know, Artaria195 (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Article with misleading or bias quotes or references[edit]

If I find and article which states false information and uses misleadings references in order to try to make it believable but when you look into the quotes either do no exist or simply do not mention the information they are referring to.

How can I correct this information?

Also, what should I do if I find an article which was created to difamate or harm someones reputation. Is Wikkipedia supporting any false information and it its impossible to correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumaca70 (talkcontribs) 05:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The way to correct the information about yourself in this article is to find WP:Reliable sources that put forward the correct information. Since you have a WP:Conflict of interest, please put forward the corrections, with appropriate references, on the talk page of the article. Wikipedia articles are based on what independent sources have written. Dbfirs 06:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Tumaca70. Wikpedia has very strict standards about any content related to living people, since falsehoods or unreferenced negative commentary about living people can be terribly damaging to them, and to the reputation of this encyclopedia. Please report any ongoing incidents to the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The New York Times describes Rory Carroll's account as "an impressively well-researched and readable portrait", but does anyone have access to the book: Comandante : myth and reality in Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela to check what is actually written about Tulio Capriles Mendoza? Dbfirs 08:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia[edit]

I know that citing wikipedia itself isn't allowed, but is linking to the more specific wikipedia page okay?

Example:I was trying to help cleanup List of Muslim scientists, and I didn't know if I needed to cite the birth and death dates directly, or since the page is linked and that has the same dates if that is good enough.

Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallium314 (talkcontribs) 05:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC) .

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gallium314. It is entirely proper to link to other Wikipedia articles as informative resources. However, one Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference for another Wikipedia article. Since our articles are freely edited, they cannot be fully reliable sources. However, any well-written Wikipedia article will summarize references to reliable sources. Read those sources, and many of them may be relevant to the article you are working on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gallium314: Adding to what Cullen328 says, and clarifying somewhat, I would not expect you to add a reference to support inclusion of birth and death year to "List of..." entry such as List of Muslim scientists, providing the article being wikilinked to includes those dates in its lead. In a similar way, we would't expect a disambiguation page (e.g.: Tom Jones, John Smith) to include references either when birth/death dates are shown. I certainly think what you're proposing to do to that List page will be very helpful. That said, I have since found other lists that do use references for each entry, such as List of British Jews, but I'd be OK with seeing your list without them. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

What type of licence/copyright for using protein structures from Protein Data Bank (open access)[edit]

Example image: 1shg SH3 domain

Hello! I'd like to upload a protein structure that is published. All protein structures that are published are available in Protein Data Bank: researchers take a structure from PDB (it's free and open access) and then they change the colors, orientation, etc of the structure depending on what they want to represent. In these modification the structure itself is intact but the orientation or color may change. The identifier of that protein structure is that four letters, in this case 4CAH. Then the original work and the identifier are cited. My question is when I do this, should I choose "this is my own work" or someone else's? Both the publication itself with the authors and the PDB URL will be cited of course.Here is an example: far as I understand since I generate the final image and the original source is open access, I can cite the protein identifier, authors, and PDB link, and choose my own work. Is that correct? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyVeg14 (talkcontribs) 07:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, DannyVeg14, and welcome to the Teahouse. You ask a very interesting and sensible question. I am assuming you're wanting to upload the protein image to Wikimedia Commons, rather than just to English Wikipedia, as that would seem most logical? Because Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are two separate entities, we tend to be extremely reluctant to advise on how they apply their own rules (there's are applied a lot more strictly than our own, too). Now, you indicate that you would be modifying a freely available image and validly licenced image, but only to the extent of changing colour or orientation. By reading this guidance page at Commons it's clear that you would not be adding sufficient new content as to be able to regard it is a 'derivative work', created by you. So, I think you should upload it as "not my own work", and do what you propose by clearly linking to the original usage policy, which took some finding (see here) and, of course, crediting the original image creators. You would simply be the uploader, and the authors would be credited in the Commons entry as the creators. You would be able to add detailed description to explain how you have subsequently modified the image. One thing you could do is to upload the unmodified image first, and then upload a new version with your own colour and orientation changes (each Commons image page has a link on the lower left side to "Upload a new version of this file" . That way, the page on Commons would contain two versions of the same image, giving users a choice over which one they wanted to utilise. Does this make sense? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
We need images uploaded to Commons be free as in free beer, not just open access. So the questions are whether the original work is under a license compatible with Commons', and if not whether there is a real claim of copyright.
I am not sure about the former. says Data files contained in the PDB archive ( are free of all copyright restrictions and made fully and freely available for both non-commercial and commercial use. (...) which is clearly CC-BY-SA compatible, but are you taking all your original material from that URL?
As to the latter, I am not sure either. Changing colors and rotating a 3D image would fairly clearly constitute a derivative work of the original, but does the original have a claim of copyright? Molecular structures are probably not subject to copyright (maybe they could be subject to patenting, which is a different kind of intellectual property that we do not really care about here). The software rendering the structure into a 3D image might or might not create copyright in the resulting image: considerations of threshold of originality applies, especially if there are strict conventions to represent different kinds of molecular relations (so that different researchers representing the same molecule would end up with very similar drawings). (I have zero familiarity with the topic of protein structure representations.)
@Nick Moyes: While it is true you can download multiple versions of the same file from Commons, only the latest one is available for inclusion in en-wp articles and the like. Furthermore, one should not upload a copyvio to Commons even with the intention of immediately "updating" it by a non-copyvio. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

recovering from a speedy deletion[edit]

I would like to submit an article about a notable family in the hospitality industry - specifically on two brothers. I noticed that one brother already has a wiki page. When i submitted an article for the other brother, it was submitted for speedy deletion. I've contacted the user but he did not reply to my enquiries. Can i find out if i can still submit a revised version of the article? Would really like to see this through.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roslah9022 (talkcontribs) 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Roslah9022: Is the Brother in Question Notable? Geartooth Friendship is Magic! 13:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Very weird that the deleting admin did not reply. Hey, @Dlohcierekim, would you mind us restoring this article as a draft? Regards SoWhy 14:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Changing user/log-in name[edit]

For brevity: I need to change my user name for entries over the last year. Email address can stay the same. Is this doable? Or just got to my IP address, or? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6683:7E00:9DF3:8571:AEEB:A527 (talk) 08:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Equally for brevity: Welcome. Yes, see Wikipedia:Changing username. It's only worth doing if you've made lots of past edits. Otherwise best advice is to abandon old account, never ever use it again, and simply create a new one. Please sign all talk posts with four keyboard tildes (~~~~). Nick Moyes (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Changing the title of an article[edit]

I have created an article named William Farrar (settler), the name needs to be Councillor William Farrar. Primarily as it will be used as an external link, and William Farrar (settler) is not handy for an external link. At present the Article Cicely Jordan Farrar mentions him as her third husband, it would sound strange to say that she married William Farrar (settler)```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvanhholmes (talkcontribs) 10:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alvanhholmes. William Farrar (settler) seems to follow Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation and we don't make titles for linking purposes. A link from another Wikipedia page is called a wikilink or internal link. You can write [[William Farrar (settler)|William Farrar]] to produce William Farrar which links to the right article but only displays "William Farrar". This is called a piped link. See more at Help:Link#Wikilinks (internal links). PrimeHunter (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Alvanhholmes and welcome back to the Teahouse. PrimeHunter has just said what I was going to say, but his reply was far more succinct than my verbose one. So I've just scrubbed most of it, but will leave in just two points. Firstly, that it is possible to create a redirect which would take someone from a search starting 'Councillor.....', but I'd only ever do that if I perceived a genuine need for that search, eg Dr ruth, Senator John F. Kennedy etc. I think people's common sense tells them to search by name first, not honorific. Secondly, why have you called Cicely, Cecily in a section heading on Farrar's page? This looks like a typo, and I'd just point out that we don't use wikilinks in section headings. If I remember your name correctly from previous postings, I believe you may be one of our newer and more mature 'silver surfers' here? If so, you do seem to be managing very well with what can be quite a daunting suite of detailed guidelines. So, keep up the really great work, and don't let us pedantic types grind you down! We do intend all our feedback to be helpful - honest. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

How do I move an article out of draft:.... to being reviewed for publication?[edit]

I have two articles in Draft: I assume that they will sit there forever until someone approves them for publication review, am I correct?

One of them I submitted for publishing, but it winds up in Draft and I was not notified.

What do I have to do to get the following articles into being reviewed for publication?'s_Island (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alvanhholmes - First, you created the Beggars Bush article, so it should appear on your watchlist, if you have that option selection in your preferences. If not, click the star on that page and it will be added to your watchlist, and will appear there anytime anyone makes changes to it. You've already left a message on Ariconte regarding the changes they made to the article, so I'll let them address that. The draft on Farrar's Island is queued up in the Articles for Creation project, and is awaiting review. Just took a look at it, and while it still needs a little bit of work, I've moved it to the mainspace. And as corrections are made, take a look at what was done, so you can understand where mistakes were made. Keep on editing. Onel5969 TT me 11:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Nick Moyes. You have no idea how much I appreciate all of the help I have been given.

The reason that I spelled Cecily and not Cicely is because Cecily is the proper current spelling of the name. I have never seen the version Cicely before and would like to change her article to Cecily Bailey Jordan Farrar her maiden name is unknown, her 1st husband was a Mr Bayley (apparently moderns spell it Bailey) her second husband was Jordan and her third and last was William Farrar.

Williams mother was Cecily Kelke, but it was spelled Sissley in the Allegations of Marriage by the Bishop of London, 1574. And I've seen another variation of Sicily. I've never seen Cicely though, for anyone historical or current.

As a side note. In the era in which spellings of even common words were not standardized, the spelling of a name or a word was left to the discretion of the scribe, and he would spell it phonetically as a consequence the Name Farrar (has current varations of Farrer or Farrow) can be found in wills, marriage bans, deeds, baptisms, Visitations by the King's Herald as Ferrar, Farror, Farrer, Farrow, Fairer,Fareher, Farher, Fawrher but the origin of the name is Ferror, and a ferror was a man who forged iron or steel, as opposed to a smith who reworked iron or steel.

It would be terribly confusing to spell the names as they were spelled then, for convenience and linkage sake they are all spelled using, best we can, modern spelling. Although in some current situations persons surnamed Farrer. Farra, Pharo, Farrow share the same ancestry as persons surnamed Farrar, but not all Farrars and Farrows share that ancestry as some belong to different haplogroups as expected since the name is occupational and the occupation (thus surname) appears where ironore deposits are found in England.

I was considering writing an article on John Farrar the Elder, Essquire gent of London as he was the father of William Farrar (the settler), and was a shareholder in the Virginia Company, an officer of the company, and a member of the first Charter of the Virginia Company, a Join Stock Company. But after the current exercise I am exhausted

It seems not to be known or mentioned but the 1607 adventure was a commercial Venture, operating under the Charter of the King, it wasn't until the Third Charter that Virginia became a colony. The enterprise almost came to a halt because Virginia was not producing any gold or silver or any product of value, so the King repealed the charter, but the officers of the company, Nicholas and John Farrar prevailed upon him and he issued a 2nd Charter, this about the timethat John Rolfe, who married Pochontas, was able to use his seeds of Turkish tobacco to make a commercially value crop. Which incidentally King James, considered abhorable and sought to ban, save that the officers of the company used it's commercial viability as a reason to save the venture.

I don't have enough time left in my life to fully research and reference all of this information. But it is worthwhile, as it sets the record straight about some of the mythologized history of the U.S.A. and don't even get me started on the real causes of the revolution, or the real reason a bunch of rigid, superstitious, fundamentalistic Calvinistic puritans migrated to America and landed at a place they called Plymouth Rock.

All of that to explain why Cicely should be spelled Cecily and why her name should be Cecily Bailey Jordan FarrarAlvanhholmes (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alvanhholmes: Firstly, may I just pay tribute to your efforts, and say that I think the story of your contributions (and the support you have garnered from users like Pretended_leer, Ariconte, Shashi Sushila Murray, amongst others here) is a moving and wonderful demonstration of the very best that Wikipedia's ability to bring people together to produce lasting encyclopaedic content has to offer?
Taking you other points in turn:
  • I see your Draft:Farrar's_Island has now been moved into the main part of Wikipedia (i.e. 'mainspace') - and that's great
  • I've added a few improvements of my own, but it still needs more inline citations, and a few elements have been repeated, so excising these could be helpful
  • Regarding Draft:Beggars Bush (Colony of Virginia), I am rather sceptical for it. I say that because, having read it, I can't see much distinction from the existing article on Jordan Point, Virginia. Why don't you simply improve the historical section within that article, and create one of those WP:REDIRECTs to it that we mentioned earlier? I think that would be more sensible. What do you think?
  • I understand about the vagaries of early names. I'd be happy to move the article on Cicely Jordan Farrar to Cecily Bailey Jordan Farrar for you. But does including 'Bailey' in the name help, or hinder users from finding her page when searching for her? I would welcome your thoughts.
  • I'm sure many of us think our work here will never be done, but then most of us don't live under the shadow off illness as you have done. Once you're rested, let us know if we can help you further, especially if you feel up to working on John Farrar the Elder. I'm sure all of us here at the Teahouse would like to wish you well. With kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much Nick. I might give John Farrar the elder a go after I finish up this task. It's nice to keep the mind busy.I spent hours trying to figure out how to fold Beggars Bush into Jordan Point, VA and am having a deuce of a time, although letting the reader of Jordan Point know that it had previously been called Beggars Bush would be nice, but that could be done by inserting a link to Beggars Bush (if it is published) in Jordan Point, Virginia.

Have you looked at Beggars Bush since I've done some work on it? There is information in there that is inappropriate for Jordan Point. Jordan Point is an article about a specific place, and much of it is current date.

Beggars Bush has relevant information, for the curious and inquiring mind, as to the origin of the very phrase Beggars Bush. Information that doesn't belong in and will detract from Jordan Point, Virginia.

As I mentioned elsewheres when I first started working on Family History and saw the word Beggars Bush, my mind translated it as Burning Bush and I would have sworn on a stack of pound notes, that it was Burning Bush. It took another 40+ uears for me to learn different.

There isn't much to say about Beggars Bush, but I did include information as to why it is notable and should be published. It's existence was only a microcosm in time, from the time that the Jamestown settlers finally moved out of the stockade and the Massacre of 1622, but it did serve a purpose and prevented even more people from getting killed (especially my ancestor, William Farrar (settler) without whom this story and maybe even America as we know it) would not have been written. Alvanhholmes (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Wax interview[edit]

Hello, this is a very good and recent interview about Wax (UK). It disproves some of the inaccuracies on the Wikipedia page. There is one editor who keeps editing it out, not realising the impact it has. Can the 10cc/Wax pages please use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZanetaStepanova (talkcontribs)

@ZanetaStepanova: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If a user reverts one of your edits, the proper procedure is to go to the article talk page and discuss the matter, with you explaining the reasons you feel your edit is needed. Please read Bold, Revert, Discuss for more information. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this vandalism? What's the least time-consuming way to deal with it?[edit]

I stumbled across this today: an IP-user took what looked like a well-sourced article and removed most of its content with comment "Wrong information, ... added bands real history,..." in March 2018. It was caught by a bot, but somehow overcome by the user in question. There was one attempt in August to bring back what seems to be the correct discography, reverted from the same IP. No discussion on the article's talk page, nothing. I'm not familiar with the band, but this seems like a weird case of vandalism?

I started reading through WP:VANDAL, but as usual with WP policies, it's very long-winded. I tried to find a place where volunteers who specialize on dealing with it hang out - only to find more and more long pages with no clear way to report such a thing. I tried to be bold and revert the edit, but the WP software didn't seem to let me. I was on the brink of walking away from it, but this place lured me in with the "friendly place" tagline ;) so I thought I'd give it a try. Any way to deal with it without entering into an edit war, issuing five levels of warnings to the user, finding the correct committee, participating in a discussion and so on?

Thanks --asqueella (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Asqueella: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Vandalism can be reported to WP:AIV. You do not have to issue five levels of warnings to a user before reporting them, if you see no point in doing so(though the last warning should be the strongest). Users are not entitled to five warnings. I'm not sure why you would have been unable to revert the edit as the page is not protected. What message came up when you attempted to do so? 331dot (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: Hey, thanks for calming me down:) I was a bit overexposed to internals of wikipedia recently. Thing is, WP:AIV tries to dissuade me from posting there - I'm not sure this is a case of "obvious vandalism" (do you?), and the least controversial way to handle it would probably be to Assume good faith, enter a discussion with the user, find a way of reverting the page, check the sources on the older version of the page, then monitor reverts, add a warning, eventually report it to WP:AIV - not something I'm currently able to do. While I understand that I can't expect other Wikipedians to do it for me, I hoped there was a way to contact those willing to - is there?
(The message was "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits", linking to another long article which starts by threatening blocks for reverting. See, I just need to take a break -- sorry for venting in here.) --asqueella (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Asqueella:"Conflicting intermediate edits" only means that someone else edited and saved their edit while you were in the process of doing so. When that message comes up, two edit windows appear; the edit you attempted to make is in the lower one, and the one that the other user made is in the upper. You can usually copy your edit from the lower into the upper window and then click "publish". If you are unsure as to if something is vandalism, you could try asking at the Help Desk or maybe even WP:ANI if you would like the opinion of an administrator(though that requires notifying whomever you think is vandalizing). 331dot (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: Thanks again for your help! You encouraged me to go through with the reversion (two edit windows did not appear for me, but I found another way). Also tried to contact the user in question. I'll keep in mind your HD/ANI suggestions for later on. Have a nice day! --asqueella (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

How can i create the perfect article[edit]

I need help for a new article i want to know what to do to create a article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigjoey (talkcontribs) 15:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ludwigjoey: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that successfully creating an article(don't worry about "perfect") is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, effort, and practice. New users who dive right in to article creation often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work is mercilessly edited and even deleted by others. I don't want that to happen to you, so I would strongly suggest that instead of starting out creating articles, you take some time to edit existing articles to get a feel for what is being looked for and how Wikipedia operates. You should also use this tutorial for new users which also will help you learn about Wikipedia. If you do these things before attempting to create an article, the odds are you will be much more successful.
However, if you still want to attempt to create an article right away, Your First Article is a must read; you can then use Articles for Creation to submit a draft for feedback before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way, it will be treated less harshly. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Downloading PDF files[edit]

Could the download link be in a header position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are asking. Could you expand your question a bit? If you are asking whether you could place an external link to a PDF inside a header in an article, the answer is No. MOS:HEAD says that secton headings should not contain links or citations. --ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I created the autobiography of myself it was deleted; I am well known already[edit]


I hope you are well.

I am aged about 31 years now.. I am an IT professional with Master of science from University of Greenwich London United Kingdom. . Worked in both London United Kingdom and India. . Even in London Olympics & Paralysis 2012.. I have lot of achievements and I am well known already... sources: google sources , I have personal website.. and I have recently published book.. For which Link is available from the international publisher..Then what's else do you need for me to make my autobiography up and running ? Someone from admin deleted it already.. why ?

Kind Regards- Dileep Keshava Narayana

See WP:AUTO. On Wikipedia you are not allowed to create autobiographies of yourself, or someone you know. That is a conflict of interest. If someone else does create a page about you or someone you know, it must be notable and with reliable sources. If not, even if it is not an autobiography, it will also be deleted. Regards, -- (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
That's not exactly true. It is strongly discouraged, though not totally forbidden, for someone to write an autobiography. It is in theory possible for someone to be able to do so, but the vast majority of people cannot, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. In this case, though, it seems that the person just wants to post their resume or a list of accomplishments, which is definitely not allowed. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Personal achievements, although worthy, do not reach Wikipedia's definition of notability. To even begin to be considered, more than one person has to have written about you. Those would be valid citations. What you write about yourself has no weight. David notMD (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I was wondering if I could create an account on this school IP address, even though my friend created one. If I created an account, would it be considered as a sockpuppet? Thank you. -- (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding creating an account: Sure, go ahead.
Regarding being seen as a sockpuppet: Yes and no. If both you and that other user stay out of trouble, you should be fine (it might help if you put a note on your user page explaining you registered the account at your school). Logging in to your account at home will also help associate your account with that IP address. If, however, both of you behave disruptively and you only ever edit at school, then we could only be able to conclude that the accounts are sockpuppets, even if it's different people operating them.
Remember to log out of your account whenever you're not using it. Someone else using your account is a reason to block it, we don't excuse it under any circumstances. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: I changed your link to WP:MEAT above to WP:SHARE, as presumably that is where you wanted it to go. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
If you are aware that someone else is using your IP address, you can declare this on your user page after registering. You are unlikely to be considered a sockpuppet in such cases unless other reasons exist to assume that you are indeed using multiple accounts. See WP:SHARE for more details. Regards SoWhy 17:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this band Notable?[edit]

Hi Everyone,

I have requested an article to be created about a band and I am wondering if you all think it is worthy of an article.

I believe they are worthy but am looking for an attestation so I can have some validity to me request.

The band is The Mixus Brothers ...

Can someone with experience in the Wiki world give me an honest answer?

Thanks!JacobslimpikenzIII — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimpikenzIII (talkcontribs) 16:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@SlimpikenzIII: Can you find at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are neither affiliated with nor dependent upon the band or its associates, but feature the band as its primary subject?
Adverts or listings for their concerts would not count (no matter where published), press releases from their record company would not count, interviews on someone's blog would (almost certainly) not count.
Articles in professionally-published music magazines (e.g. Pitchfork) about the band might count, articles in newspapers might count, documentaries about them might count -- as long as the band is the primary subject and not just mentioned in passing or sharing the spotlight with anything else.
If you can find at least three such sources, they're probably notable. 16:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I truly appreciate you getting back to me... The band has multiple articles in the local paper like this and this this was on local TV There is also this out of the UK

So there are plenty of other mentions but those are the ones I would consider outstanding...what would you think?

Thank you again!!Jacob — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Bonjour! Hi![edit]

Hello how do you do. Can you have copy someone else's fuselage onto yours? Va te faire foutre dedans (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Va te faire foutre dedans: Welcome to the English Wikipedia. I can't tell what you are trying to ask. If your primary language is French, you might want to ask at the French Wikipedia instead: [4]. RudolfRed (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I speak French and English. Va te faire foutre dedans (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So Sorry I was in a rush, I meant Can you put someone else's userpage on your userpage. Are you allowed to copy it word by word or do this {{}} and put there name in the middle. Va te faire foutre dedans (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Va te faire foutre dedans. You're certainly allowed to copy elements of the design of other's user pages. However, if you if you copy someone else's page in a way that makes it look like you are attempting to impersonate them, that will likely be seen as disruptive and confusing to other editors. GMGtalk 20:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information User:GMG Va te faire foutre dedans (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Supporting references for Individuals of Note[edit]

Does a biography qualify as a non-related reference for an individual of note?

The following article Draft:Adédokun_Abiọdun_James_Haastrup has been declined twice: the first time because the person was not deemed to be of sufficient note despite reference to the biography by Familusi which is available in the British Library. The second time because the additional references from magazines and other books were deemed to be passing references.

Your advice is much appreciated.'DesoHaa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Google finds only unreliable sources for me, but perhaps you can find more WP:Reliable sources in addition to the Nigerian biography by M. M. Familusi. Dbfirs 20:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

uploading an image that I found on Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Hi! I have a question! I found an image on wikimedia commons but when I try to upload it to my page it is too big! I want to upload that image but I actually don't know how to change the dimension of this picture. Can you help me? Thank you so much in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colussisi (talkcontribs) 22:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Colussisi. Assuming you mean using a picture in an article (which is not what I understand by 'uploading'), you should find everything you need in Help:Pictures. --ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
You want the "thumb" parameter, like so: [[File:Posey County Courthouse composite.jpg|thumb|Description of image]] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Help us urgently[edit]

Hello. It is interesting for me, why the "Justlettersandnumbersyou" deleted the page "Eldaniz Elman oglu Mammadov"? He is one of the young and famous Library and information science specialist and scientist in Azerbaijan, and well known in Iran, Turkey and Russian with his scientific articles. Whith this page we are going to show scientific articles of Eldaniz Mammadov's, of course with the consent of doctor E.Mammadov's. We have listed a list of his scientific works. This page is also available in Azerbaijani. Now we are preparing this page in English. So please help me recover this page and do not delete this page. Eldaniz Mammadov's students need this page. How can help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulnar Ibrahimova-Mammadova (talkcontribs) 00:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Who is "us", please? Guy (Help!) 00:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Please read the note on your talk page. Apparently the article was deleted due to copyright infringement. I suggest you start at WP:YFA to learn how to create an article here on the English Wikipedia. There is a wizard there you can use to create a draft article for review. RudolfRed (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
We are group of students who want to founded this wiki page.
We know what copyrights are. But apparently in foreign countries this right means something else. What kind of rights speech if the teacher himself gave us permission to create her page?

And all that we wrote was taken from the site of our university, which we ourselves created. We - are group of students who want to founded this wiki page.And we did it in the Azerbaijani language. No one has not deleted our page! why in the English version is it blocked? And you are talking about some kind of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulnar Ibrahimova-Mammadova (talkcontribs) 01:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gulnar Ibrahimova-Mammadova: Because you are one of his students, you have a conflict of interest.
Paraphrase sources, do not copy directly from them.
Wikipedia is not a website for hosting resumes/CVs.
Ian.thomson (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Gulnar Ibrahimova-Mammadova. I just want to add a couple to things to what has been posted above.
  1. Wikipedia articles are only intended to be written about subjects deemed to be Wikipedia notable. There are various Wikipedia notability guidelines, but the was relevant ones in this particular case are probably Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (academics); so, in order for an article to be written about your professor and not be deleted, it's going to have to be demonstrated that he satisfies either one of those two guidelines.
  2. Wikipedia article are written about a subject, not for a subject. Article content is only intended to relfect coverage the subject has received in reliable sources (preferably sources which are secondary and independent of the subject). In other words, Wikipedia is not really interested in your professor might have to say about herself or what you as his students have to say about her, but rather is only interested in what reliable sources unconnected to your professor have to say about her.
  3. Wikipedia doesn't need your professor's permission for someone to write about her and any article about her will not be accepted just because she or someone connected to her wants one to be written. If she's someone deemed to be Wikipedia notable for an article to be written, then someone somewhere in the world may someday decide to write an article about her; however, the article will only be accepted as long as it's in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Moreover, the subjects of articles have no final editorial over any article which is written about them as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content, and an article cannot be used to either promote the subject or their activities, etc. Article content both positive and negative can be included if it complies with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and any disagreements over content are to be resolved per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution by establishing a consensus on the article's talk page.
If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing for some of the reasons why creating a Wikipedia article about someone you know can turn out to be a bad idea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
One further thing: Wikipeda usernames are for the sole use of a single individual. Everyone in your group may work on the article, but each one of you must have your own username. John from Idegon (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


can you answer me so I can ask you some questions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E5CE:5B00:BD00:46BA:31B1:F9A0 (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You'd get more answers if you actually asked your questions. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up to DJ Slick stuart and DJ Roja[edit]


Been working on since June 2018, since then, I have made all necessary changes but still get the same feedback "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia......" I sent to this forum by invite to work with an experienced editor to add more to the article. I really need you help, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techcherio (talkcontribs) 08:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit more. Good luck with the Submission. David notMD (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

New page approval[edit]

Hello,I've just submitted my first article and wondered how and when I will hear if it requires editing or if it is approved?Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicola Forshaw (talkcontribs) 11:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)