Wikipedia:Teahouse

John from Idegon, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
A friendly place where you can ask questions
and get help with using and editing Wikipedia

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 3 days.
Please remember to sign your posts by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.

Help

Wikipedia

hi

hello, how are you? LieLower (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@LieLower: Hello. This is a help forum for questions regarding how to edit Wikipedia. Do you have a specific question you would like to ask? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, do you have a saloon? LieLower (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Template for disambiguation page which should be rewritten to be an article

I can not for the life of me find the template one puts on a page which is currently a disambig page but which should be an article.★Trekker (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC) ★Trekker (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is there to disambiguate. Why would it ever be sensible to replace it by an article? Maproom (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Because sometimes a page is used as a disambiguation page when it shouldn't be. Not every page used as a disambiguation page has "(disambiguation)" in its title.

Maproom If the DAB page is currently at the plain name of the topic (as is done when there is no primary topic) but an editor thinks that one of the topics is in fact primary, it might make sense to move the DAB page from "Topic" to "Topic (disambiguation)" and move one of the articles about some meaning of the topic to just "Topic". DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

★Trekker to the best of my understanding there is no special template for this rather unusual situation -- it is just a requested move like any other. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

*Treker — Do you mean {{R with possibilities}}? Umimmak (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

No sadly that's not it. I know I have seen an article with a notice at the top saying that it should be changed from a disambiguation to an article as recently as the day before yesterday, its a rare notice but I've seen it. Sadly I forgot what page I saw it on.★Trekker (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@*Treker: Was it {{Broad-concept article}}? Or maybe it was custom text with a standard template like {{Ambox}} or {{Dmbox}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes that seems to be the one! Thank you so much @PrimeHunter:.★Trekker (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

How to contact

How can I contact particular editor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Regulov) to discuss some topics?

Thank you,

Vit713828 Vit713828 (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

By writing on User talk:Regulov. -- Hoary (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Vit713828. There are a couple of things you could do. If you just want to discuss something general things about Wikipedia editing, you can post a message for them at User talk:Regulov. If, on the other hand, you want to discuss specific edits this editor made to a particular article, you could post a message on their user talk page as well, but it might be better to start a discussion about things on the relevant article's talk page because that will make it easier for others to participate and also keep a proper record of the discussion. After you start the discussion, you can then add a Template:Please see to their user talk page to let know about the discussion. Regardless of which approach you try, please try to keep things friendly and understand that the other person isn't really obligated to respond anything you post. All you can do is try. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Company page Sadas

Hello, I would like to create a company page for Sadas, Italian multinational computer technology company. I created a trial page in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giuseppe_Ardolino/sandbox and I kindly ask some feedback before the publications in order to respect Wikipedia best practices. Thank you for collaboration -- 109.115.149.72 (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I started skimreading this from its start. I skimread nine paragraphs without noticing a single reference. This means that you give the reader no reason to believe anything that the article says in its first nine paragraphs. Everything must come with a reliable, published source; and for anything that could be interpreted as an achievement of Sadas, the source must not be Sadas itself.

Another matter. You, Giuseppe_Ardolino, are a new editor. It is, of course, commendable that you are starting out ambitiously; but experience tells me that when somebody starts out by creating a draft about a present-day company, it's because they are in one way or another working for that company. If you are related to Sadas, please read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary (talk) for your advice and answer. I read the guidelines for conflicts of interest and I declare, as suggested, in my profile my collaboration and role with the company but also my willingness to follow all Wikipedia guidelines. Regards your advice on references, I wrote some references starting with the "industrial sectors" section, Do you suggest to insert other references before? In history's paragraph? Thank you for collaboration and support, really appreciated -- Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Giuseppe_Ardolino, every paragraph needs at least one reference. -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary (talk), I am collecting/adding new references for each paragraph as you suggested and, at the same time, I am updating the page on my Sandbox.Thanks a lot Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

contributions no news

Hi, several months ago I submitted a contribution to an article as suggested here. However have no news about it since then. Maybe it is under review but is there any way to follow up the review process? where can I see the status of my contribution?

Thank you very much DrDelaTorre (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

DrDelaTorre Hello. From looking at your edit history it's not clear to me what proposed contribution you are referencing; please link to the article or talk page in question. Thanks 331dot (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is the link for the contribution I have no news yet. I would like to know how can I follow up the status of the contribution. Thank you

The cosmic Gorilla effect added to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Inattentional_blindness DrDelaTorre (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

DrDelaTorre For follow up comments, please edit this existing section instead of creating a new section(click "edit" in the section header or at the top of this page). I see your post on that page, but as it is not marked as a formal edit request, the odds are lower of another editor seeing it to review it. I will do so in this case, though you may wish to review how to make an edit request. Once an editor reviews your request, they will respond to you. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Announcement

This editor has the following to say.--Brain7days (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Other than connecting people to your Talk page, do you have a question for Teahouse volunteers? David notMD (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Why 2nd time review ?

Hi! I just saw the review waiting when the draft was submitted as AfC and was constantly working on the draft since june/2020 .

My draft was ready to be reviewed still I got this Publish Changes, where I had nothing to change.

I mean i just could not get it. Why the 2nd time submission with all the rules i knew before creating the AfC (Biography)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:K._C._Pandey

this is the link or Draft:K. C. Pandey

being my 1st AfC i dont know if its a normal procedure , but it wold certainly help me. Also to know that again it would get cherrypicked randomly & now i'm not supposed to make any changes? I guess I'm clear with my words Thanks in advance Shekhar in (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the miss, I did take help from several reviewers from the Tea House to improve my subject & can be seen on my talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekhar in (talk • contribs) 09:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Shekhar in: I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but the draft was just accepted and moved into the mainspace at K. C. Pandey, right after you posted your question. Is your problem solved? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thx @ Ganbaruby ◢  Ganbaruby!   It was confusing for me as well, but with the AfC final approval problem is solved. Just 1 last query, When AfC is accepted are we supposed to finally press the Publish button? As I had to do it, On which my question was based, but I got the reply from you & notif that the draft is reviewed & Published. Thanks a lot to all. Shekhar in (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Shekhar in. The "Publish changes" button is the only way to save an edit. It was changed from "Save changes" to emphasise that everything on every page in Wikipedia is public, whether it is in article space, user space, draft space, or anywhere else. Separately there is the informal use of the word "publish" to mean "accept a draft as an article" or "move a draft into article space". Does that help your confusion? --ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Yes its totally clear to me now. No Confusion now Shekhar in (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Paid editor

I received a request from Wikipedia to declare if I'm being paid to edit Jim Chu's Wikipedia page. I've done so on my user page. What happens next? Fiona Njaggi (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You had enclosed the declaration in nowiki tags, but I have removed them for you. It would be clearer if you referred to the relevant article by including the additional parameter |article=[[Jim Chu (entrepreneur)]]. As you have a conflict of interest and are being paid, you should not make any further edits directly to the article. Any changes should be proposed using the article's talk page, supporting the proposals by reference to published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

In explanation of that procedure, you propose changes on the Talk page, then a non-involved editor decides to accept or reject your request. David notMD (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

How to know someone is using more than 1 account?

Hi! Since i wish to get more involved with wiki, how do we know if someone is using more than 1 account?

If as an editor I'm not supposed to know, No problems. I will get to know with time.

Thanks in advance Shekhar in (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm asking this as I just saw that someone is blocked for this violation

Hello again Shekhar in. Using multiple accounts is not always forbidden: there are some circumstances in which it is allowed - see WP:SOCKLEGIT. What people get blocked for is using multiple accounts in inappropriate ways (see the rest of the page I linked to) and these are usually detected by a suspicious pattern of editing. In general nobody knows who an editor is (unless they choose to edit under their own name, as I do, or reveal their name on their user pages) and no way for an ordinary editor to detect if they are using multiple accounts. --ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks a lot Shekhar in (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Do bots scan user talk-pages?

I was wondering if some of the robot users on wikipedia can spike the amount of hits on a users talk page. Govvy (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting spike is all! Govvy (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Govvy. Page views often show large fluctuations for unknown reasons. Bots may scan user talk pages but according to [1] versus [2], the views are from users and not spiders. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, well, still thought it was an unusual spike! heh. Govvy (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, well users, or spiders not yet identified as non-humans. That is simply hard to tell and no one will ever be able to tell 100% without looking at the individual page requests, which also would be a privacy violation, if everyone can do that. But the analytics team regularly goes through requests logs to identify more spiders. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I must admit I have no idea what you guys mean when you say spiders! :/ Govvy (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: A spider is a web crawler. Wikipedia:Bots are mainly for making edits but some them may also visit Wikipedia pages to gather information. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've heard of web crawling before, didn't know about the nickname of spiders for it, interesting read, cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: I think you might have short-term memory problems, like I often do! If you're going to post this curiously-worded open invitation to WP:ANI, asking admins to "sort out this weirdness" on your talk page, then you're gonna expect a bit of a spike in traffic. (ANI took 4,500 page views that day.) The thread will have piqued quite a few people's interest, and seems the pretty obvious cause. It only took a few moments to look through your edit contributions for 9 July to see where you'd posted to and what had attracted people to look at your talk page. If Donald the Trump is going to drop by unexpectedly, people are bound to be curious. You can expect another spike now you've posted here, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:, I am also colour blind and dyslexic! :/ Govvy (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding map of locations

I want to add a map to depict all the locations a company is present in. What is the best way to do it? Should I add it on Wikimedia or just upload it on the page? Is there a template that needs to be used? Foxtrot02 (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen such maps for other companies, and suspect that it's because they wouldn't be so helpful. For one thing, how likely is it that the locations will be the same a couple of years from now?

I notice that all your edits have been about a single company, Nagarro. Experience tells me that when an editor's contributions are limited to one company, it's because they are in one way or another working for that company. If you are related to Nagarro, please read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. -- Hoary (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Foxtrot02: Please do not try to add a map of company locations - it's quite necessary. The great thing about Wikipedia is that people can follow citations to external sites if they need further information on something. There is already a link to the company's website page showing their locations. Anything else is just overkill, and would indeed be hard to maintain, and probably swiftly removed. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Nick likely meant "unnecessary". David notMD (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Repeated reverting

Another editor is repeatedly reverting to his own article.14:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Violadude63 (talk) Violadude63 (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

If you mean Templers (religious believers), the article you have done edits to, you added and removed content, then an editor reverted to the version before you made any changes. I don't see any 'repeatedly', nor any evidence that this is that person's 'own article'. The proper next step is to open a discussion on the article's Talk page, with an invitation to the other editor. If you mean a different article, specify. David notMD (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

From Sandbox to Mainspace

Hello. I've created an article in my personal sanbox and I would like to move it to the mainspace but I'm not yet a "credited user". Can I ask another user to move the article for me to the mainspace? Have I to submit my draft for review to get it published ? THANK YOU Donà Anna (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Donà Anna Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unless/until you are very experienced at creating articles, you should avoid directly moving them to mainspace. Instead, you should use Articles for Creation to create and submit drafts for review. I will add the appropriate information to allow you to submit your sandbox for review. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick feedback and all the information. I'll follow the best and right procedure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donà Anna (talk • contribs) 14:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Editing Help Needed

Good Afternoon,

Please could someone help me with updating a wiki page for me. I've sent a couple of requests on the community page but no changes have been made as yet.

Many thanks LottieEllaMurphy (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

LottieEllaMurphy Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has articles, not "wiki pages". I have tagged your existing proposed edit as a formal edit request so other editors will see it. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

my wikipedia page turned out to be crap honestly i have no experience editing and i need some help

so ive tried creating references for people that stem from gaming and well my original article was deleted and i need help improving my new one now i dont have much information on the topic of mineral farming and it may be crap for an encyclopedia but i was just trying to dpo the best i can how can i get help from editors please if anyone has references and citations or knoledge on my topics please let me know what to do view my experimental sandbox page and my dramaticcally failed article user wulfenitegaming Wulfenitegaming (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Wulfenitegaming Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You've found out the hard way that successfully writing a new Wikipedia article is the absolute hardest thing one can attempt to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. New users greatly increase their chances of success by first spending much time(months if not years) editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial is also a good idea.

Your draft was declined because you have almost no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to support what you wrote. The one source you do have seems to be another wiki, which is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia as it is user-editable. As you sate that you don't have much information on the topic, it likely is too soon for an article about it. It would not merit an article if no sources discuss this topic in depth. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Your draft is at Draft:No Man's Sky mineral farming. David notMD (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Wrong description The Labour party

The Labour party is, quote "A democratic socialist party". This is clearly stated in Clause 1V of the Party's aims and values. It does not state it is a social-democratic Party so your Wikipedia description is inaccurate. 82.23.136.99 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

We follow what reliable, independent sources say, even if that doesn't match what parties say above themselves. Also, which Labour Party? Many countries have Labour Parties. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The best place to discuss changes to an article is usually the article's talk page, where editors who care about and are familiar with the subject are likely to see and participate in the discussion. For example, if your concern is about Labour Party (UK), discuss it at Talk:Labour Party (UK). Editors there are more likely to know if there's a difference between "democratic socialist" and "social-democratic", and how it should be addressed. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Need help resolving issue with article submission

Greetings!

I have submitted a page for Draft:Caroline_Rose_(writer). A warning was attached to the draft, suggesting that a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject and may need cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. On the Talk page I asked for clarification so I could fix any issues, but have not received a response.

Is there someone here who is willing take a look at the page and provide suggestions for cleaning up the content?

As far as know, I followed the guidelines in the same way that I did for the biography of Ed King (activist).

Much thanks! 107.3.171.152 (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have a comment. In my opinion, trying to follow the same pattern in one article as in a previous article is often not useful, especially if the articles are significantly different or about people whose claims to notability are different. I am not commenting at this time on whether the draft should be accepted, but using an unrelated draft as a model is often not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Interested in doing major overhaul of a Wikipedia Page

If I want to do major overhaul in editing a Wikipedia page, do I need special permissions? I'm looking to completely redo Visit Philly's Wikipedia page. I'd like to add a sidebar with some general information and a table of contents with more specific, broken down information throughout. Can I simply make an account for this and then start the overhaul? Is special permission needed? The page isn't locked and is available for immediate editing. 2601:98A:4000:56D0:8834:A853:29EF:8064 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You technically wouldn't need any special permissions, however, you would probably want to discuss it on the talk page of the article to get the opinion of some of those who are pretty active in editing that page. I would encourage you to create an account, but it's not mandatory. Ghinga7 (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. That "wall of text" could certainly be broken down into paragraphs; and if there are more than four section headers (I think) a table of contents will be generated automatically. But I wonder whether there is much more information that could go into the article? Bear in mind that it is Wikipedia's article about Visit Philadelphia, not "Visit Philadelphia's page": very little of the article should come from VP or its publications: almost everything should be sourced to independent published sources about VP. --ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Guidance before submitting a page for review

This is Soumyajit Bhar, a Ph.D. scholar at ATREE, Bangalore, under the supervision of Dr. Sharachchandra Lele. I, along with a few of his other Ph.D. scholars, Ms. Roshni Kutty and Mr. Amit John Kurien have decided independently to create a Wikipedia page for Dr. Lele (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bharsoumyajit88/sandbox). We are aware that there is a mild conflict of interest, but we have put together a page based on the materials available on him in various publicly-verifiable sources. Dr. Lele is a globally renowned scholar in the field of environmental studies and he meets the first criterion of notability for academics, because their papers have been cited more than 6000 times and his World Development paper is in the top 10 most cited papers in the journal.

I have the following questions/guidance:

1. Being new to Wikipedia, I have mistakenly created a duplicate page (Draft:Sharachchandra_Lele). I want guidance on how to delete this. I want to keep the sandbox one.

2. Please help me resolve the error in the #26 reference.

3. I have addressed all the comments given after the last submission to the best of my abilities. Please let me know if there is any further scope for me improve it.

4. I want some guidance on where to mention the declaration of this mild conflict of interest while I am submitting an article for review. May I include this at the beginning of the article itself?

Awaiting your response. Thanks in advance.

with regards, Soumyajit Bharsoumyajit88 (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bharsoumyajit88. I have deleted the duplicate draft for you as a 'user request' (see here for further information, should you ever wish to delete another page you created). I will leave others to reply to your other questions. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Tried to fix ref 26 - failed. David notMD (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Now fixed by using automatic ref lookup in the 'Cite' tool. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bharsoumyajit88: Please don't declare your 'conflict of interest' in the article itself. See WP:COI for the options available to you. I suggest adding a COI template on your userpage in due course. You can do so on the talk page, too, if you wish. But whilst it's in your sandbox, this isn't an urgent issue. Once ready to resubmit for review, then you will need the COI declaration. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Family Caregiver Alliance

I have edited this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Caregiver_Alliance and believe I have addressed the issues that led to the placement of the template and would like to remove it. I added inline sources, an info box and some secondary sources and divided into sections. Can the template notice be removed? I have no COI with this page. Thank you. Ihaveadreamagain 19:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

History section needs refs. The notability problem remains. David notMD (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ihaveadreamagain: I removed {{no footnotes}} and added {{unreferenced section}} to the History section. GoingBatty (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

When to request closure of an RfC

About 3 days ago, I opened an RfC (Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks#rfc_B9F8F85) to hopefully resolve some disputes we are having at Talk:Killing of Rayshard Brooks. This is the first RfC I have opened. What I would like to know is: when would be an appropriate point to request an independent editor write a closing summary? Is there a recommended minimum number of responses, or a recommended length of time? I cannot find any definitive guidelines on WP:RFC. The guidance is to "last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be" but I am finding it hard to envisage what this looks like in practice. I want all editors to be able to express their views and concerns; however, I also want a timely resolution to the discussion because it is currently obstructing the development of the article. If I leave it open for another 4 days, is this reasonable? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@FirstPrimeOfApophis: a couple of points about RfC's:

1. Once you open an RfC, it's best to let it run. That is, RfC's don't "belong" to the RfC starter and attempts to curate or control or otherwise shape them usually fail and often cause difficulty.
2. Although there's no required length, RfC's usually run for 30 days. There are exceptions when an RfC is ended after a shorter time (usually when the outcome has quickly become obvious) but that circumstance does not apply here.
3. If you open an RfC, you should not be the one to close it. I'm saying this just to remove ambiguity because this is sometimes not realized by editors new to the format.
4. If you want an unconnected editor to evaluate the discussion for a close, the best place to request one is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Make sure you follow the instructions at that page and put a new close request at the bottom of the relevant section.

I hope these points help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

FirstPrimeOfApophis, Hello! Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Duration, it's a judgement call. Say when you've had no replies for 3-4 days or so. These things can take time. You can ask for closure at WP:RFCL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Eggishorn and Gråbergs Gråa Sång. So, to be clear, I should wait for the RfC to expire (30 days after opening), then request an independent editor write a closing summary. However, during this time if nobody posts a new reply for 3-4 days, I should ask that the RfC be evaluated for closure at WP:RFCL. Is this correct? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

FirstPrimeOfApophis, "request an independent editor closing"/"asking for closure at WP:RFCL" is meant to accomplish the same thing, so either is ok. The WP:RFCL method can possibly add a little Caesar's wife must be above suspicion, as in nobody can say you asked someone because you thought they would agree with you. WP can get adverserial, not least in the area of American politics (or religion, popular tv-dramas, Sea of Japan, alt-med... the list goes on). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit Warring

 2601:248:681:25A0:CDE1:8567:693E:B7EA (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Do you have a question about edit warring? 331dot (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit Warring

User:FlightTime, who seems to have admin privileges, deleted important improvements to Bob Crane, en masse without with giving any good reason, barraging me with false accusations via canned templates, abusing the trust bestowed by this community. User:FlightTime somehow considers correcting errors as trivia. Help me.0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@0mtwb9gd5wx:, the usual practice when a situation like this arises is to stop edit-warring and discuss the changes on the talk page. You are expected to cooperate with other editors instead of attempting to force your preferred version through. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@0mtwb9gd5wx: FlightTime is not an admin, but has over 100,000 edits to their credit, and is an experienced editor. Providing you can engage with another person in a friendly, non-accusative manner, you'll probably find them willing to explain any edits they made. If you get reverted en masse, then try making just one change at a time and leaving for a while. A quick glance tells me that they clearly feel your edits only added WP:TRIVIA to the article, rather than encyclopaedic content. You might wish to take the lead by expanding on why you think each edit is justified, rather than demanding an explanation from them as to why they feel none of them are. Finding ways to avoid conflict and not going for one-upmanship or edit-warring is a neat trick to collaborative working. Unless you're adding utter garbage, you'll probably find the other editor is just as keen to see a good, encyclopaedic article as you are. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Help with archiving my talk page.

How can I add a second archive to my talk page? I have a 1st archive, but a second I couldn't make. I tried but after two consecutive failed attempts while trying to follow the help:archive talk page, I feel sort of helpless. Please. Thank you. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: This should help Help:Archiving a talk page#Cut and paste procedure. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I did this already. More help is needed. I found sort of a solution, by adding more content to the first archive, but archive number 2 just won't pop up.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Achieved a second Archive!!! I hope for the third one I do not also have to come here.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

My Talk Entry Was "Refactored"

Hello!! I'm a relatively inexperienced editor. I know basically that we're not supposed to personally attack other editors and that we are not supposed to engage in an "edit war." A few of my "talk page" entries have been both "refactored" and "reverted." Here is a link to the latest one, which was "refactored." The comment below it says to "see archives." I went to the archives and I really learned a lot, but it didn't seem to have anything to do with my talk entry. There might be a specific archive that the other editor meant, but perhaps that other editor didn't realize that I am neither an experienced editor, a mind reader, nor am I a genius. Here is the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Floyd#Should_there_be_a_separate_section_for_George_Floyd's_legal_troubles?

Is there anyone here that can help me get through this conundrum? Also, if I'm breaking any rules, or if I need to apologize for something, that might be a good thing to let me know about, since I am a little worried that might have happened. Since I'm not a mind reader, or a genius, nor am I an experienced editor, if I'm breaking a rule, I won't know it, if another editor refuses to tell me, or assumes that I have some wonderful mysterious way of knowing what rule I'm breaking, or what I need to apologize for, also in that case, I have no way of knowing it, without a bit more verbosity than the words; "see archives, there's been a discussion."

Thanks in advance, to anyone who can give this situation a bit of time and attention. Keep up the good work!! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

If you look on the talk page, you'll see an archives section with a number 1, clicking on which takes you to Talk:George_Floyd/Archive_1. You can read the previous discussions there. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

THANK YOU! TimTempleton
I found it here!!!: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Floyd/Archive_1#Adding_Criminal_History_Section_to_Article
Now you don't need to click on it, but it appears that the consensus was to "add a new section." The discussion was initiated by Octoberwoodland and it went on to refer to a new section being created, the date of the discussion was 14th of June, and in the current talk page, there is a new discussion - asking to "add a new section." Why you may ask? There is NO new section! So, apparently, this poses some new questions; 1) most likely, I've not done the proper research in the archive, and that is why there is no new section; 2) the new section was created, and a new editor came along and unwittingly overwrote it; 3) I'm confused as to what this is all about and I do not understand what is going on, and don't understand the result of the discussion. 4) no new section was ever put into the article.
In the case that either - no new section was put into the article or that another editor unwittingly overwrote the new section, what would be prudent? In the case that either I do not understand what I'm reading or didn't find the correct archive - what should I do then? Thanks in advance, and thank you again for helping with such alacrity. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

His criminal history looks to be covered in Later life. Is it that you think this is not enough? David notMD (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks David notMD! - "... this is not enough? ..." It would seem so. It's not just that I and more than just a few editors have independently been wondering about an entire section of the article with its own heading. The current talk page has a new section on it started by an entirely new editor asking for this (Should there be a separate section for George Floyd's legal troubles?); I first came to that talk page to begin a topic asking for it; and the archive discussion from 14th of June has a huge consensus poll taken twice over it. All three independently inspired. Also, there seem to be a smaller number of editors trying to suppress the criminality of the man (Mr. Floyd), for example - you just referred me to the criminal history covered in "Later life." That mentions theft - but Mr. Floyd was convicted of armed robbery - that is not the same as theft. Robbery entails harm to the victim, while theft only entails simple thievery. It is a little suspicious. One of the editors that directed me to that 'archive' mentioned above in this thread, obviously knew about the discussion on adding a section on Mr. Floyd's extensive rap sheet, but in the current 'talk' page you can, as of right now, see that same editor, ask another editor this:

willydrach, by "significant amount of information regarding his legal troubles (which is out there)"
what do you mean? We haven't seen that. —valereee.

Wouldn't that editor have seen this already? This is the very editor that later pointed me to that archived discussion? And why did that very same editor not point user:willydrach to the same archive which had finished discussing that very topic, which this editor found it so necessary to direct me to, and prompt me to come here and open this thread? Is this grounds for suspicion as to some sort of skewed position? I'm not ready to say one way or the other at this point. Of course there are so many possible explanations. I do not see clear evidence that there is a definite drive to keep this article sanitized. I will say that now I'm interested more than I was before, just out of curiosity. Why would this editor take my entry, refactor it, and direct me to this archive; why would this editor not direct the other editor user:willydrach to the same archive; why would this editor reply to the other editor user:willydrach that "we haven't seen" information on "his legal troubles?" I think it's possible that it's intentional, but I do not see any justification for such intentions, and I don't think that there is any reason to assume that this is intentional. I DO see, though, that this looks a bit strange on the part of the other editor, user:Valereee. As it is, I am not yet truly suspicious, I am CURIOUS though. What is going on with this article? Thanks again, very, very much for your feedback and your input. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've advised this user, twice now, that contentious articles under DS + new users are a bad mix. They seem to gravitate toward exactly those articles, unfortunately. —valereee (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi —valereee! What is "DS" and also please "in writing" list which articles are in "contention" so I can understand more about what is going on here? You almost seem like you are lording over me and this is making me feel kind of uncomfortable? Can you be a little more understanding, if you please? This is Wikipedia! Thanks in advance - Keep up the good work! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

DS stands for Discretionary sanctions. Articles covered under discretionary sanctions (or General sanctions) will have an article talk page notice that indicates that this is so. El_C 15:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

User:El C!!!! I am so glad to find you finally!! I tried to enter something in your "talk" page a while ago - IT'S LOCKED!! That is so funny. I am so glad, because I have been racking my brain on trying to find a way to communicate with you!! Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU, so much for coming into this discussion thread. If you possibly can find the time, please click on this topic in my "talk" page where I have a thread focused on what I needed to communicate to you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:172.250.237.36#help_request.
Keep up the good work!! Thanks so very much for participating in Wikipedia! I will click on your links (above here) soon and read them through. Please if you have a bit of time, click on MY link in my "talk" page so I can communicate to you about this other topic. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Responded at your talk, but almost every article you've edited in the past two weeks is under DS. Please try to avoid asking identical questions in more than one place, it causes duplicated effort by other editors. —valereee (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw I have been told that an article I created was denied, which I never Created.

Hi, I was made aware that something called Arild Hansen had been created by "me". I did not create this page, and I do not know what it is. Can you tell me what this page was about? Thanks. 37.191.174.39 (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello! As it says at the bottom of your talkpage: "Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.". You can try to ask the editor who left the message. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Stemata Watch - Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.

Hello, I'm Mihalache Ionut-Catalin, and recently my article was declined to be posted on Wikipedia because I didn't post enough references on my article.

The reason is that I the brand that I founded is still a couple of months old, so I didn't got featured in many articles and magazines, and the ones I got featured are too small, local newspapers, and local websites. But I still want to wear awareness and brand credibility and write a start article on Wikipedia. How can I make this work, I already started mailing some big magazines if I can make some advertisement on their websites and newspapers, but this is costly and I want to know if I do that and have some references links and photos my article will be admitted on Wikipedia or not and its a waste of money.

Sorry for my bad English, but it's my third language.

Thank you for your time and I wait for an answer. Catakhn (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Catakhn, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that the answer is that you cannot. Promotion of any kind is not permitted on Wikipedia, and if you continue you are going to waste both your own time and effort and that of the editors who have to deal with it. Once your brand has received enough notice from reliable independent sources| to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then it will be possible to have an article about your brand. The article should ideally not be written by you, and in any case you will not have control over its contents, and its contents will not be based on what you say or want to say, but on what independent commentators have published about your brand. Please use another channel to publicise your brand. --ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Page Isn't Merged/Deleted Yet - Can I "MERGE" It Then??

Hello, while editing a talk page, I viewed the top "header" of the page.
I noticed an announcement that the page was nominated for deletion, and the result was to "redirect" the page to another page. Here's a screen shot:
https://i.postimg.cc/jd2Dh8PS/2020-07-21-1452-56-Screenshot.png

Here's a link to the talk page, you can see the appropriate verbiage near the bottom of the header:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Floyd

Can I "merge" the contents of this page to the other page, or simply delete the page and "redirect" the name of the page to the other page, or do I need to be a more advanced editor to do that? I'm a very inexperienced editor, and I do not use a user account. Thanks in advance, for any feedback. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you ask on Talk:George Floyd. (Thank you for the screenshot, but a link to the page is sufficient.) GoingBatty (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, GoingBatty!!! I've done it, and it's gone into the mill. Keep up the good work! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi GoingBatty!!! So I went to the talk page, I was told that the deletion/redirect tag no longer applied. So I deleted the deletion/redirect tag, and left a message on another editor's talk page (I tried to find the editor that arbitrated the deletion/redirect discussion). I asked what I did that I should have or shouldn't have done, I'm still waiting for feedback. Keep up the good work!! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging IPs

Can IPs be pinged? Thanks. Geekpotato24 (talk to me!) 22:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC) 

Welcome to the Teahouse, Geekpotato24. 'fraid not. See Help:Notifications which states: "Registered users can be notified by other users and by IPs, however, an IP cannot be notified by any templates or links." Nick Moyes (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: So I have to reply on their talk page? Geekpotato24 (talk to me!) 22:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Geekpotato24: Not necessarily. If an IP has posted a question on, say, your talk page, or on an article talk page, it is reasonable to assume they they will take the trouble to check that page for an answer. So replying on that page is the best you can do; you just can't ping them. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

why im i blocked before making a account and after too (made a account using the other way)

 NuggetAreFood (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC) im just a wikipedia user. what have i done wrong?

Welcome to the Teahouse, NuggetAreFood. Which account name were you editing under that was blocked? Your current account is not yet blocked (which is why you are allowed to post here). But User:NuggetAreFood/sandbox has been put up for deletion. You are not allowed to create Wikipedia pages that promote yourself, or which serve as a free webplatform for yourself. That is wrong. We are solely here to help build an encyclopaedia, so you could find yourself blocked if you were to continue to try to promote yourself or your off-wiki websites or interests. It is also not permitted for a blocked user to create a second account and to restart editing. Instead, you need to appeal a block using the original account, or face all accounts being permanently blocked for what we call 'sockpuppetry'. Hope that helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Article Renaming

Hi Teahouse, I would like to change the name of Krunker.io to Krunker.io (video game). How would I do that? xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, XRENEGADEx. Although we think about it as a 'renaming' what we actually do is 'Move' and article from one page to another, leaving behind a WP:REDIRECT from the old page to the new one. See WP:MOVE for how to do this. But are you sure this is really a sensible action? I notice that Slither.io doesn't have (video game) in its name, and the bracketed element is only really necessary to distinguish two similarly-sounding page titles. (e.g. Dom (surname), Dom (film) and Dom (mountain)). I suggest if you really feel this is warranted, that you post your proposal and rationale on the talk page of the article. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

If during AfD, an article gets relisted, am I supposed to repost my argument again?

An article I created has been nominated for deletion - Sanjeev Aggarwal. The discussion got relisted. I have given a rationale for why it should be kept. My edit was the last one and there aren't any replies to it. Now, the discussion has been relisted (I posted my reasoning before it got relisted). I want to add more references also and update my reasoning.

I also intend to improve the article and add more references.

Should I repost that rationale below the relisting tag? Hmanburg (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hmanburg: No, you should not, as this will needlessly duplicate content on the AfD and make it harder to follow. Don't worry, all comments before relisting will be considered by editors after relisting, and by the closer as well. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 23:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Thanks for the informative reply! Hmanburg (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmanburg, a tip for you. I notice that the last thing you said in that AfD was: "The promotional content seems to have been inserted after I had published the article. Those changes should be reverted/cleaned up." It's often easy to remove promotional additions. Removing them is likely to be more persuasive than merely saying that they should be removed. Having removed them, you'd be welcome to announce this in the AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: Thanks for your advice. Definitely makes a lot of sense. I do plan on improving the article.

school source question

Hi all - I'm working on trying to improve a school page that is currently a "stub-class" on the WikiProject Schools quality scale. I have found about 25 source documents that are reliable, independent, and published (mostly newspaper articles.) The school itself has 2 self published books that detail 40 years of the history. While I know these are not independent, and can not be used for anything controversial or promotional, my question is - can I cite these publications (on a limited basis) when just referring to facts (years buildings were built, fundraising, etc.)? I know that "just because it's been done elsewhere" doesn't mean it is correct, but I note for example that the entry on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avery_Coonley_School, which is a featured article, makes use of just such a publication for 10 citations (out of a total of 123), so there does seem to be a precedent amongst well edited and reviewed entries.

The page i am working on is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Latin_School.

THanks in advance for guidance. Jiffy.morton (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jiffy.morton and welcome to the Teahosue. As per WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SELFPUB, such self-published sources can be cited for non-controversial facts, such as dates, provided that the article is not primarily based on such sources. 25 sources is quite a few, and there can be a problem with over-sourcing, depending on the amount of info you can appropriately put in the draft. Start with the best or most useful sources, i would advise. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A bit of perspective for you, Jiffy.morton. A 40 year old school, especially in an Atlantic coast state, is not old at all. There are schools in Britain that date to the time of the Magna Carta, and on the eastern seaboard of the US, there are numerous schools that predate the beginning of public education with the Northwest Ordinance. Those self published books you mention may be usable for totally non controversial and non promotional facts. However, all achievements and statistics must have reliable secondary sources. John from Idegon (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it’s a fairly young school in the grand scheme. Wasn’t suggesting otherwise. My reference to “40 years” is to say the last book was published in 2010, so only 40 of the 50 year history are covered! Great to know I can use these books for facts/dates (i.e. dates building were built). Certainly I understand they difference between a fact (the middle school building was erected in 1978) and a promotional sentence.Thanks for your help and clarification. Jiffy.morton (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What's the best way to find Wikipedia guidelines/essays?

How do I find guidelines/essays? I have tried searching using the Wikipedia search bar, but it rarely shows me anything relevant. I usually resort to googling which I think is ineffective. Hmanburg (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Hmanburg. We have essays covering everything, from profound to pointless, and from helpful to humourous. Try browsing through

Category:Wikipedia essays and its many subdivisions for whatever your heart desires. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Moyes for your helpful reply! Hmanburg (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmanburg, my favorite strategy is to type WP: + whatever I'm looking for (e.g. WP:Copyright), or a likely abbreviation, Even when I don't find what I'm looking for, I'll often find a hatnote pointing me to the right place. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, I'm pretty giddy that an actual Wikipedia administrator replied to me! Thanks for your response!Hmanburg (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmanburg, just for the record, administrators are no different from other editors; all editors are just volunteers trying work together on this project. Admins just have a few extra tools they can use, it literally means no more than that the rest of the community thinks they won't abuse those tools. :) —valereee (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I would argue that the fact they've demonstrated a level of dedication to the project which compels other users to trust them with the extra tools is very admirable. :) Hmanburg (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Indexing Talk Pages

Hello all.

I was under the impression that only the articles in the mainspace were indexed by search engines. And, that too after the review is completed.

But, then I came across this query (link here) that had the knowledge panel fetching results from a talk page. Does someone know what might be triggering this action?

The talk page under question is Talk:Boeing Dreamlifter

Just curious now. Thanks in advance.

Kaisertalk (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Kaisertalk (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Kaisertalk and welcome to the Teahouse. Your impression was incorrect. User and User talk: pages are not indexed by compliant search engines (those which respect the robots.txt protocol, which includes all major search engines at the moment). Neither are draft: and draft talk: pages. But both article and article talk pages may be indexed. I am not sure about all the other namespaces. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Got it, Thanks. Filing this under 'Today I learned' :) Take care. Kaisertalk (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Google indexing of new article

At what point does a new article get indexed by Google? Ambarnsg (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ambrnsg: When the page is reviewed by a reviewer as a part of the new page patrol process WP:PATROL or 90 days post the creation of a page, whichever is earlier. Kaisertalk (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ambrnsg after that it is up to Google, and we have no control over how soon Google will act. But it is usually rather prompt. The same rules apply to other search engines, by the way, not just Google, and we don't control any of them, either. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both. I am not even sure how to insert a note of thanks here. How can I draw the attention of a new page patrol person to the page I created? The other day one reviewer (?) said they would keep an eye on the draft page I had created, which I have now moved to main. Ambarnsg

This was a fine way to express thanks Ambrnsg.

Please understand that AfC reviewers and New page patrollers are separate groups, although some editors do both.

There is no good way to speed up the NPP review. There should normally be no rush to have an article indexed, and an attempt to get one indexed quickly tends to create suspicions of improper promotion, as promotional editors, and particularly paid editors, are often very anxious to have this stage go rapidly. NPP members choose pages to receive in what order they please, some preferring only articles on certain topics. Some concentrate on recent creations, some on the oldest unreviewed within the 90 day window. An article will be indexed when it is, and I would advise just assuming it will be the full 90 days. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. It isn't so much the indexing that I am interested in; just knowing that the article is going to be there, not removed, and I guess that is just up to the patrol process. The specific article I am referring to is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Gross — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambarnsg (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually it is not only members of the NPP that may initiate an article deletion, Ambarnsg. Patrol members can and do tag articles for any of a number of problems, including notability, use proposed deletion or nominate for an deletion discussion. They may also do some cleanup. However, any editor may also do any of those at any time, during or after the 90 day window. A major purpose of the NPP is to weed out new articles that are well below standards, and suggest their deletion or cleanup. But I see articles that are years old nominated for deletion every day. That said, I think that Leonard Gross is reasonably safe. It seems well supported by a variety of reliable sources, and to be about a rather clearly notable person. It does not seem promotional. If it were at AfD I would expect to suggest that it be kept.

I did edit the article just now to use the reFill tool to add metadata to many of the references. I would suggest manually adding bibliographic metadata to references that the tool was not able to process. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

reliable sources for my article

Would photos and links Spike the drummer playing with these bands be enough for reliable source for my article? If not what other evidence would you require please Matthewzilch (talk) 08:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you're asking about User:Matthewzilch/sandbox/Spike T. Smith (Drummer). You need authoritative, independent, published sources for everything you say. (Right now, you offer no source for anything you say.) Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Matthewzilch. When it comes to musicians, the best sources are usually newspapers and music magazines. For particularly famous musicians or bands, there might also be book sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi,

I have been updating my userpage with userboxes, but I think I did something wrong and, since I wanted to have separate userboxes for separate topics, but they are stacking into a ziggurat-like shape. Is anything wrong? Sorry for the poorly-worded post, my computer suddenly decided to choose this moment to make me go through such lag. --Cartophilic (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cartophilic. Your problem was that you used multiple 'userboxtop' commands. You only need one userboxtop template, matched with a userboxbottom template at the end. I've inserted {{userboxbreak}} templates to split them up for you. Is that what you wanted? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is what I wanted. Thanks, Nick!

--Cartophilic (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

i need help

pls can someone help me draft a nice piece of Biography Danielokang5050 (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, who is the biography's 'person'? --Cartophilic (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This is presumably about Draft:Klala, which has been declined, and appears to be an autobiography. Please don't try to use Wikipedia to promote yourself, Template:U:Danielokang5050. --ColinFine (talk)

repinging Danielokang5050, as I got it wrong --ColinFine (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Where can I find a list of deprecated sources

I tried to put a reference, but I got a filter hit. I soon found an appropriate source, and I don't want to make the same mistake. Can anyone link me to the list of sites that cannot be used for references? TechnocraticCat 12:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello TechnocraticCat! See WP:DEPSOURCES and perhaps WP:BLACKLIST. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Gråbergs Gråa Sång! I still have to familiarize myself with a lot of the "WP" links. I appreciate your help! TechnocraticCat 11:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding picture to wikipedia ?

Hello everyone! my name is koupip and I have been using Wikipedia since I learned how to read as a kid. it has been the one place I always went too to learn new interesting stuff about life even when all the teachers I knew told me it was a bad source of information. so I have finally decided to start helping out around and edit a few articles mainly doing some cleanup work fixing typos expending articles and making wikilinks so they are easier to read. I have started to look into expending articles more and decided to use my photographer skills and add images that I personally owned to the website wherever they fitted but I have a hard time finding articles that need an image added to them. is there a list of articles that might need images or should I just keep going from article to article and add an image whenever I can?

note I did find a list in the community portal but it only linked me to the TALK page of the articles and it confused me a little.

Thank you for your time! Kou~ (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Koupip! Have you seen Commons:Picture requests? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Gråbergs Gråa Sång! i did not know about this! thank you for your help, I will be sure to check it out and see where I can help out!Kou~ (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Revision of the translation of the Piero Formica page from it.Wikipedia to en.Wikipedia

Help

Hi everyone! I need your help in order to publish on en.Wiki this page about Prof. Piero Formica. The page is a translation from it.Wiki and here you can find the draft of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Piero_Formica Is it correct? Do I have to modify anything? Moreover, what about the standards in order to be published? Any help is greatly appreciated, thank you very much Sandro La Gaccia (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Obtaining Advice

Hi, My article Draft: Direction Finding by Amplitude Comparison needs improving. Both DESiegel (from Teahouse) and AngusWOOF (the reviewer) have made helpful suggestions.
In addition it has been suggested I may wish to contact the editor of the existing article on Direction Finding and members at Wikiprojects (Aviation, Radio) for additional advice. How do I do that? D1ofBerks (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC) D1ofBerks (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@D1ofBerks: Editors who are interested in the article Direction finding can be found at its talk page Talk:Direction finding. Just leave a message there as you did here. Similarly WT:AVIATION and WT:RADIO are the talk pages for those projects. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Quiggin's Kendal Mint Cake

Hi,

Can someone approve the new url for Quiggin's Kendal Mint Cake please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendal_Mint_Cake#Quiggin's

The old url is no longer correct, the new one is: https://www.originalkendalmintcake.co.uk/about/ I did update it but got a message and it was not changed.

Thanks in advance, Slater1234567890 (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Slater1234567890: The reason the first edit was reverted by CLCStudent is that we generally don't include external links in the body of an article. I'm not clear on why the second edit was reverted by Viewmont Viking, as it simply replaced the old URL with the new one, which appears to be legitimate, as it is the same address to which the old one currently redirects anyway. Your edit at Quiggins was reverted because it added a group parameter to the references tag, which is incorrect. I've updated the URL there as well. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

How do I learn more in simple terms about the rules of wikipedia?

Hey, I recently put up an article The Florida International Rally & Motorsport Park, however, it is tagged orphan. How do I fix that and learn further about editing on Wikipedia? OkayRussell (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

OkayRussell, there's a welcome box on your user talk with a lot of links you can follow. To find wikipedia policy on something, try in the search box typing (in this case) wp:orphan -- often you'll find what you're looking for! —valereee (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!!!OkayRussell (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

De nada. —valereee (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Article Publishing Timeline

Hello,

I've recently created a page for a professor Cassie Mogilner-Holmes. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia.

It's been a few weeks now since I first published the page, but I noticed that it's still not showing up in regular search results.

Could you advise on how to check if I published it correctly and how to check when it may be reviewed and available to be viewed by the general public?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pkarundel/sandbox/Cassie_Mogilner_Holmes&oldid=965117311

Thanks!

User:Pkarundel/sandbox/Cassie Mogilner Holmes P.K.A. (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You haven't yet submitted it for review. To do so, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, David. I submitted it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkarundel (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pkarundel: It appears possible that you might have a close professional connection with Cassie Mogilner Holmes, perhaps even being paid to create this article? If so, do please follow this link to read how to declare any Conflict of Interest if you do know this person. In addition, should you be employed by her, whether directly or indirectly, you would also have to follow our obligatory requirement of declaring any WP:PAID editing. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The review time for drafts is days to months (it is not a queue). In the future, do not ask the same question at Teahouse and Help, as that waste editors' time. David notMD (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Reviewed and accepted per WP:NACADEMIC, the subject is a professor appointed to a named (endowed) chair at a major university. Issues have been tagged for attention. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Providing a Wikipedia page in another language

Back in January, I re-wrote most of a Wikipedia page that covers a village in Italy from which my ancestors came. The name of the page is "Isola delle Femmine" written in English. The previous description of the origin of the village's name was completely wrong based upon ancient legends. I have been asked by some in Italy as well as in the U.S. to provide a copy of the page in Italian. I don't know how to do that. I have translated most of my work into Italian but I believe there is a Wikipedia-Italia into which this new page should be placed. I don't know anything about the logistics of all this. Where can I find help? JiminiVecchio (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, JiminiVecchio. You can find general information about this at WP:Translate us; but for detailed information about how to do this, you'll need to ask at the Italian Wikipedia. Try it:Aiuto:Sportello informazioni. --ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@JiminiVecchio: It's worth pointing out that the English article on Isola delle Femmine has about 45 different language versions, including Italian (see here). If you look at the lower part of the left hand column of any article on Wikipedia in 'desktop view' you will see links to all the other languages that currently exist. However, these are not direct translations of one another - each language Wikipedia has its own set of editors who work on a page from scratch. What I have done in the past when I have improved a page about a topic that relates to another country is to post on that article's talk page (in English) and link to the en-wiki article for other editors there to visit and decide if they can use). Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

JiminiVecchio I just posted to Talk:Isola delle Femmine about some problems I see in the English-languish article that you might want to address before doing more translation work. Others are of course welcome to add their views. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

In fact, I would welcome additional eyes on the article and at Talk:Isola delle Femmine#Original research. To be clear, I think JiminiVecchio has mde significant improvements, but there are also some issues to be addressed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Can/Should submitted Draft be moved to mainspace without review?

Hello, I submitted a draft but the reviewing process is taking too long. I know the article is acceptable because I know much of the Wikipedia's guidelines and have edited many articles. Can I now ― after submitting the draft for review ― move that draft directly in the namespace without waiting for the review? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lightbluerain: You are permitted to do that. To be honest, I think your article actually may not be acceptable -- I think there is a reasonable chance it will be redirected to Father's Day. But if you want to put the article in mainspace and deal with the issue in the normal course of editing (outside AFC) that is fine as well. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, To be honest, I think your article actually may not be acceptable. Then, can you give me suggestions on how to improve it? The subject is quite notable. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lightbluerain: Actually, that's the problem. I don't think that the subject is notable, at least based on the references in the article. The sources show her mentioned quite briefly in the context of the history of Father's Day but no sources about her as such. I guess the main thing would be to find and add reliable sources that cover her in greater depth (assuming they exist in the first place). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, Alright. So, working on that first. Thanks a lot. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lightbluerain: I have to agree with Calliopejen1; there is not much of a story here beyond a) it was her idea (in the USA at least) and b) her idea resulted in the first father's day service in the USA. The full Father's Day article has examples back to 1508, and already includes a short mention of Clayton. I added a couple of sources to your draft, so these are not an issue. However, the proper place for this seems to be in the Father's day in the US article, as a few sentences.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually disagree: I do not believe Clayton did invent the first Father's day; and I do not believe the sources provided back the claims in the article. Dodd does seem to receive proper credit in the article Father's Day (United States) due to this claim from one of the OP's sources: "JULY 5, 1908 One of those children, Grace Golden Clayton, suggests to her pastor – Robert T. Webb of Williams Memorial Methodist Episcopal Church South in Fairmont, West Virginia – that they hold a special memorial service for those fathers. A memorial is held – but it’s local and it’s a one-time event."[3] This does not back the claim of the lede: "... is said to be the first one to suggest celebrating Father's Day." Also: "Her father's demise inspired her to suggest celebrating father's day." This is not true. A one-time memorial service does not give claim to inventing Father's Day. The sources provided may give proper mention for Clayton in the history of Father's Day; but it is not as the article flat-out claims. This needs very strong reliable sources with a definitive quote to back the claim that the OP is stating for its subject. I do not see that. Even this statement: "However, her idea was not widely accepted" suggests that it was made known on a wide scale (widely) and was then purposefully rejected (not accepted). Which again, is not true by any source. It was simply a one-time memorial service for the fathers who were killed in a mining accident. Maineartists (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The page I am trying to create continues to get rejected for reasons I do not understand.

Hello - Looking for some guidance/insight on a page I am trying to create. I have had to page reject 2x now for similar reasons but I do not understand why. The page in question - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Greg_Yuna#In_Popular_Culture - I have noted the different things pointed out and have tried to change them to reflect but have had no luck. The sources I have cited and included are more adequate than most from very notable publications etc. but I still have the same problem. Would appreciate any opinions, thoughts or advice as I am trying to understand how to properly fix these noted issues by editors. Editor94101245 (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello,, Editor94101245, and welcome to the Teahouse. Phrases such AS Yuna has extended his brand through merchandise, apparel collaborations and the development of his social media platform. sound very promotional to me. I haven't checked all your sources, but Entrepreneur is known for publishing what are basically puff pieces essential;y written by the subject, and so is not given much weight in notability decisions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel Thank you for your response. I appreciate the feedback and will make a note to correct the senate you pointed out. That is just one of many sources I have - so is it the one source that is the issue or the entire list of sources for article as a whole? I mean there is a lengthly amount of information on teh subject from a wide variety of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor94101245 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Editor94101245 that is one I happened to recognize as having had problems in the past. As I said I haven't reviewed your sources in detail at this time. But remember that the draft should not include any opinions or judgements unless they are specifically attributed to a named person or organization and backed by a cite that shows that person saying t]exactly that. Otherwise all text should be strictly factual, and not read as trying to promote or praise anyone, particularly the subject. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Editor94101245: I edited out promotional content, condensed, and approved the article. I think it has about a 50% chance of surviving a deletion nomination (and don't be surprised if it's nominated for deletion!). But I figured it was a good enough article to be in the main encyclopedia for now, for consideration by the entire community, rather than for consideration by a single reviewer. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Editor94101245: I also put some time into cleaning up the article, but Calliopejen1 and ThatMontrealIP beat me to it with the bulk of the improvements. Nonetheless, since this is your first article and you have a brand new account, please review WP:COI, and make any necessary disclosures on the article talk page. I'll offer the same advice to Tenn9760, Slyguy1255 and 6Lizardthewizard9, along with IP editor 66.128.253.146, all of whom have very similar narrow editing histories. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

{{lang}} inside a Wiktionary link?

At Taro#Names and etymology, I used {{lang}} inside of an interwiki link to Wiktionary; the confusing part is that it renders different in different places...

It shows up alright on the 'Show preview' (before submitting an edit), in my sandbox, and on the mobile app. But it doesn't make an interwiki link and displays that string as plaintext on both the desktop (outside of the previw page) and mobile websites:

[[wikt:talo#Samoan|talo]]

The code I used is:

[[wikt:talo#Samoan|{{lang|sm|talo}}]]

— I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'llbeyourbeach. I haven't tried it, but it looks as if {{wikt-lang}} will do what you want. --ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Page deletion

I wanted to create a page that has been referenced but i don't know how to add referenc. Alan J walker (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Alan J walker (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Alan J walker, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking; but I'm guessing that it is something to do with Draft:HOSMIIN. I don't know if this will be helpful, but it looks to me as if you have made the same mistake as almost every beginner does who tried the extremely difficult task of creating a new article before they have learnt how Wikipedia works: you have written what you know, and then thought about looking for sources. This is exactly backwards, because Wikipedia basically isn't interested in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the Internet knows). Wikipedia is only interested in material that has been reliably published, and preferably by somebody unconnected with the subject. So creating a new article begins with finding the reliably published independent sources without which the subject will not meet Wikipedia's criteria for Notability. If you can't find such sources, then any other work you put into the article will be wasted, as the article will not be accepted however it is written. If you can find the sources, then you need to write the article entirely from the sources: anything you know about the subject which is not corroborated by a reliably-published source cannot go into the article. If you haven't already done so, please read your first article, --ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Guidance before submitting a page for review

I want help to submit this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bharsoumyajit88/sandbox for review. Thanks in advance. Bharsoumyajit88 (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hellom Bharsoumyajit88. I have added a header that will let you submit it for review. --ColinFine (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

How can write a good artical for Indivusual.

 Vindhya08 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Hou can write a good artical for indivisual.

Vindhya08 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest thing to attempt on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. New users are much more successful when they first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. It's also a good idea to use the new user tutorial to learn more about how Wikipedia works.

If you still want to attempt to write a new article, you should read Your First Article, then visit Articles for Creation where you can write and submit a draft for review by another editor, before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way, you find out any problems first, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically.

In order to merit a Wikipedia article, the person you want to write about must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. Those sources must indicate how the person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. There are also definitions of notability for specific fields, like athletes, politicians, actors, etc. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

how to assist my user page

In my talk page, there is a step to teach me how to write a page for the company I work for. The step one is "1. Go to your user page (User:Stephanie.ecms) and fill out the following template there: {{paid|user=Stephanie.ecms|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}". I try to click on "user:Stephanie.ecms" But I cannot find the template. Could you please advise how to do it? Stephanie.ecms (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Stephanie.ecms (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Stephanie.ecms. The information you need is in the third section of your talk page at User talk:Stephanie.ecms. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I saw the ten steps there. I am thinking about how to complete the first step "complete the template in my user page". I can't find where the template is. Stephanie.ecms (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello again Stephanie.ecms. The template is in the first of ten steps. It is the wikicode that begins and ends with the double curly brackets. Copy and paste that into your currently blank user page, and edit the part that is in italics. Then publish it. That will add the required paid editing disclosure to your user page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

How do I make a new page?

 Fortnite-Fan-222 (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Not by wasting other editors' time, as you have previously done. What subject do you propose to write about? Do you have ample sources for this? -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Please review my draft

Please review my draft - Draft:Atif Afzal (music composer). I need help in expanding/editing it as per Wikipedia rules. I have created it in AFC as was suggested by members on Teahouse. I have also provided details on the talk page. Thanks. AAComposer (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

AAcomposer I see that you are attempting to write about yourself- this is strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy- although submitting a draft is the correct way to go about doing so, if you truly feel that you can write about yourself with a neutral point of view. The vast majority of people cannot. In order for you to be successful, you essentially need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent sources. I would observe that most of the sources you have offered seem to be comments by you/interviews with you, or brief mentions; these do not establish notability. Wikipedia is primarily interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you.

You have already submitted the draft for review; you will need to be patient, as the submission notice on the page notes that there are over 2800 drafts awaiting review. Volunteers review them in no particular order. 331dot (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Also note that if a reviewer approves your draft and formally places it in the encyclopedia, you won't be able to edit it directly after that; you will be limited to edit requests. An article about yourself is not necessarily desirable; there are good reasons to not want one. You cannot lock it to the text that you might prefer, or prevent others from editing it. Any information about you, good or bad, can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent source and is not defamatory. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

. . . and when you write "discography", do you perhaps mean "filmography"? (There's no mention of CDs, MP3s, etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging AAComposer. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Being targeted by an editor

Ok, I asked a general question earlier because another editor was being particularly aggressive towards me and then, a couple weeks later, asked me a strange question about how many accounts I have. I only have one, said so, and then asked why they asked? They are now insinuating that I control more than one account. I do not and I feel like the user is doing it because we had a legitimate content disagreement. This user even made a false claim to embellish their insinuation. Who can I ask to take a look at this? I don't want this person to be following me or making false accusations. SeminarianJohn (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Which editor is this?PNSMurthy (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it this user; Snooganssnoogans?PNSMurthy (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You may ask an administrator, or go to the help desk if you wish to have something done about Snooganssnoogans.PNSMurthy (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact. For months now, I've been accused of multiple different, and sometimes contradictory, conspiracies. This one is just too far. I have edited in English, Spanish, and Romanian and that uniqueness, plus my writing style, is more than enough to show that this is my only account. Any help with how to report this would be appreciated. It's just besmirching to go to my Talk Page ask a question and then start implying I'm doing something I am not.SeminarianJohn (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I've never actually gone to the help desk, you should ask someone more enlightened then me. I'm actually much newer than you too WP, so...PNSMurthy (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

In your place I'd ask Snooganssnoogans to stop asking questions here and there and invite them instead to initiate a proper "sockpuppet" investigation. This way it would be Snoogansnoogans wasting (investing?) their time, not both him and me wasting (investing?) ours. This investigation would never be started, or it would fail, or it would find you innocent. (I mean, assuming that you are innocent. I haven't even started to consider the matter, and don't intend to.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I think that is a solid approach. I think will pursue that avenue.SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@SeminarianJohn: You might wish to use the Editor Interaction tool to assess which pages you have both edited, and how far apart those edits were (see here). It shows nothing of who edited first, or why. But it does allow you to focus in on individual pages where you have both edited. My very brief look at your latest interaction appeared to be quite polite and reasonable. But too many polite challenges can easily become, or be perceived as harassment - or they could be justified. We have so many editors here who care deeply about improving the encyclopaedia, and that can spill over into wondering about or questioning the motives of the other well-meaning editor. Like Hoary, I offer no judgement, but WP:ANI is certainly a place to raise concerns about another editor's behaviour, where both people's edits do get looked at. (Note: our Help Desk is not the right place to raise those concerns.) Should you ever choose to go down the ANI route, it helps to provide diffs for others to see what interactions, or their frequency have taken place. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Is their a way of nominating an article for semi-protection. There is an article (the Andromeda Galaxy) that is undergoing constant vandalism unceasingly. I would like to know is I could nominate it for semi-protection.PNSMurthy (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@PNSMurthy: You may manually add a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Alternatively, Twinkle will do it for you under TW -> RPP. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, will do when have time.PNSMurthy (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This should put an end to the Horrible and Nonsesical Vandalism happening there. --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101: You may have seen that I semi-protected the page for a couple of weeks, but with hindsight reduced it to three days as the disruption actually appeared to be from just one individual using multiple IPv6 addresses. I left some advice as to what to do if this happens again at Talk:Andromeda Galaxy. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

My created article about a Football Club is not showing up in Google search

I have created article about a Football Club name Shirsh Bihar United Football Club 2 days ago When I search in Wikipedia about it it shows up but when I search in google Wikipedia article about it doesn't show up in the search. Can anyone help me with this ? Also a similar article about a Football page FC Bengaluru United was created 3-4 days ago is showing up in Google search. Shivsa008 (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC) shivsa008

Shivsa008, Shirsh Bihar United Football Club has not been reviewed; therefore Google cannot see it. Once it is reviewed, it will be able to appear on Google shortly thereafter. If 90 days pass without review, it will be visible to Google in any case. Just be patient.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Article

Is there anyway you can write your article without wizard article Bdetfehigj (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bdetfehigj, you can also create an article in a user subspace, which will help avoid the possibility that someone tried to delete it you are done, but I'm curious about your concern with the article wizard. I think it's a great option for new editors. Did you run into problems that we should address? S Philbrick(Talk) 15:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

BBBB

Bdetfehigj There is, but unless you are very experienced in successfully creating new articles, doing so would not be advisable and would only cause you grief. If you directly create an article and it has problems, it may be proposed for deletion. If you want to avoid that, using the wizard or Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor will help you see any problems first. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Federal Constitutional Court

Unfortunately, as I did not manage to find my way through enwiki's plethora of noticeboards and associated rules and guidelines, I remain clueless as to what I should do regarding the following issue, and, therefore, write here in the hope that someone might be able to help. In the article Federal Constitutional Court, user Doubledareyou added a section yesterday that clearly violated several Wikipedia policies (article history). I reverted, they reinstated their revision, which I reverted again after messaging them on their talk page (special:diff/969013803), explaining in detail what is wrong with the edit. Today, the user performed another edit, which significantly differs from their earlier contributions. However, I would submit it is still, without any doubt, not helpful. The additions are incoherent and, to be frank, I have no clue what the editor's point is. The parts that I do understand continue to be riddled with errors. Eg the user claims that s 630e BGB "does not demand witnesses" in a court proceeding, even though in reality s 630e BGB is a provision in the German Civil Code that concerns the duties of a treating physician in obtaining their patient's consent ...

Since I do not wish to get/remain involved in an "edit war", lack the time and willingness to engage in further conversation with the user, but still feel that the article is in a substantially worse state now as a result of these additions, I would appreciate if someone more experienced could do something about it. Taking this to the talk page seems inappropriate in light of the obvious deficiencies of the additions. Best, — Pajz (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I know absolute nothing about the Federal court in Germany. However, I reverted the most recent addition to the article made by Doubledareyou on grounds that it tried to use hyperlinks and examples as evidence. I left comments on DDY's Talk page, noting that in addition to this article, DDY (who registered as an editor yesterday), was reverted on a different article for adding content without a reference. My hope is that good intentions exist, and experience will help. David notMD (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the revert. I am less concerned by the failure to adhere to Wikipedia content guidelines (such as no external links in articles, no POV language etc.) than by the use of a "Nazi times" hashtag in this talk page rant. However, said rant might have been a genuine (if wrong-headed) attempt at initiating a discussion.

I will also ping them (Doubledareyou) so that they are aware of this discussion. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community project. If you delete valuable information e.g. Broken Subsid. or allow the english title of a book (source) and forbid the german title of the same book (unsourced) you spit on the spirit of Wikipedia and Nazizeit (word used by Prof. Dr. Andreas Voßkuhle) has begun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubledareyou (talk • contribs) 11:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

DDY has reverted my revert to the article with the Edit summary "Illegal revision and nonsense." That and the comment immediately above make clear that we have an extremely argumentative new-to-Wikipedia editor. David notMD (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Doubledareyou, you have not given any coherent explanation what "broken subsidiarity" even is (I shall note that I am familiar with German constitutional law), let alone provided any source for that criticism. If there is a source--no matter the language--and if you can explain it in a way that people can understand it, it can be included in the article. What is "broken"? And who says it is "broken"? But, please: Make your case on the talk page first. In their current form, your additions are not valuable contributions to the article, I'm afraid, and you reverting everyone else who restores the previous state of the article is not helpful in any way. — Pajz (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC) (David notMD and Tigraan, thanks for taking the time to look into this.)

Similar obdurate stubbornness going on at Sabine Hossenfelder. David notMD (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted their edits once again and given them a warning for disruptive editing. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Blunt opinion required.........

I'm new-ish and currently trying to write my first article. I'm not asking for someone to review it - I know the Teahouse doesn't work like that - but I wondered if someone would be prepared to give it a really quick glance and tell me if I'm heading in the right direction, or not? It's nowhere near finished, but I'm now pondering whether I'm including too much detail and rambling on too much. Would it be best to cut it right down before I spend time adding all the sources?

The Pottery Cottage murders Thank you. DSQ (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi DSQ, and welcome to Wikipedia! You can move the page onto the WP:DRAFT namespace, where it can be reviewed by other editors about whether it is ready to go live (to the article namespace). Let me know if you need help with any of that. Happy editing! El_C 12:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I would be happy to accept your draft should you submit. Theroadislong (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

DSQ, yes, I would trim it, singificantly. Especially the biographical sections. The part about the victims can probably be redacted entirely. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so an encyclopedia entry is what we are aiming at. See for example the Moors murders as an example of a high quality crime article. El_C 13:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C & Theroadislong I had a feeling I was getting carried away, it was turning into a novel! I'll cut it right down before I try and move it to draft. Thank you both for your help. DSQ (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

curt landry

Have you researched this evangelical pastor? 2600:6C55:7880:49:61A0:8683:E672:25C4 (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. This is really a forum for helping people who encounter difficulties in editing, rather than picking up suggestions of pages to create. But if someone does think this person genuinely meets our Notability criteria, and is more than just a publicity seeking self-promoter and nutty Trump supporter (which at first sight their Google results seem to suggest to me that they might be), then they might well choose to start a page about him via our article creation wizard. But it would require sound, independent reliable sources that speak about him in great depth. It would attract both the positive and the negative reports about him, of course. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"...more than just a publicity seeking self-promoter and nutty Trump supporter" ... Really? This is Teahouse appropriate? Maineartists (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologise - that might have been too POV a comment from me. But having briefly found a source showing he was advocating people to ignore medical advice and listen to Trump's nonsense instead, and having lost acquaintances to Covid-19 myself, and seen too many idiots deny the severity of this virus, I probably jumped to stating an unfair opinion here. I have struck my observation, and will let any sources speak for themselves, as indeed they should. Sorry all. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC).

new and confused

Hi everyone, I'm brand new to Wikipedia and I have no idea what the community or etiquette is like quite yet, so apologize if I'm breaking any unspoken rules. I know this question might seem obvious, but what is a "user sandbox" and how does one use it? Does it create a new Wikipedia page about your specific username? Or is it just a place to store drafts? Sorry if this question is dumb, this is all a little over my head. Atomic.madness (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Atomic.madness: welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a huge beast with lots of parts, and lots of policies, and lots of acronyms, so don't worry if you feel a bit lost. I recommend starting with The Wikipedia Adventure. Your user sandbox is a page inside user space, on which you may experiment, and (in particular) start building an article, if you wish. It's special only in that there is a link at the top of the page (if you are using a browser): you can have as many user sandboxes as you like, called things like User:Atomic.madness/Sandbox1 or User:Atomic.madness/My title here. You can't put absolutely anything on them - it must be somehow connected with the work you are doing or intending to do as a Wikpedia editor, and you mustn't copy copyright material there, or write personal attacks - but you're fairly free in what you can use them for.

As for writing "about your specific username": there is a certain amount of leeway, as I say, on your user page or any user subpage (such as those sandbox titles I suggested above) but from your username I wonder if you might be here to stand on a soapbox or to right great wrongs: if you are, then I must suggest that you find somewhere other than Wikipedia to do that. On the other hand, if your user name is just something that you like the sound of, that's fine. If you mean "Write an article about your username", then I would advise that autobiography is strongly discouraged. Please come back and ask if you have further questions. --ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I think I may have worded my question wrong. I'm not here to be grandiose or anything. I love Wikipedia, and I'm just interested in learning about the site, how it works, whatever I can do to help, and the community in general. What I meant by "an article about my username" is my user page. I originally thought that the sandbox and the user page were one and the same. I've seen people display things called ″barnstars″ on their user pages and post introductions about themselves. I think I've figured it out though and figured out how to edit mine. I'm trying to get the hang of manipulating my own page before I try anything else. I don't want to accidentally mess someone's article up. Thanks so much for the help and introduction to the community!--Atomic.madness (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleting a sample page

Hello again, Does anyone know how to delete a sample page? I accidentally created one trying to learn the ropes of wikipedia ( User:Atomic.madness/Sample page ) and now can't figure out how to get rid of it. Any help is much appreciated --Atomic.madness (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Atomic.madness (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Atomic.madness: Only administrators can delete pages, for specific reasons. Your request is one of the valid reasons, so I put the db-author deletion tag on it, so an administrator should delete it in the next day or so. You can see the list of speedy deletion tags here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help!--Atomic.madness (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)