Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1018

Archive 1015

Archive 1016

Archive 1017

Archive 1018

Archive 1019

Archive 1020

→

Archive 1025

How can i get this done ?

Dear Members, I have been checking out since months about some pages which are blocked due to recreation again and again since the people who created those pages were either blocked or banned or in some cases just the SUBJECT is protected from creation, although the SUBJECT passes wp:gng and notability criteria and have enough coverage to get a Stand alone article, My question is how can these pages be created which are blocked and have been salted earlier, but now they have significant coverage, cuz if someone creates a page by a previously banned user they might can get blocked as well. Amit Bhadana is one of the example of such page, he is a digital star in India having one of the largest subscribers group on his YouTube channel after Bhuvan Bam, yet he was previously recreated and now requires admin access.

some of his significant coverages are below

Thanks Worldnpeace (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Worldnpeace Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you wish to create an article that is protected from creation due to repeated recreation by a blocked user, you should create it as a draft using Articles for Creation; if the draft is approved, the reviewer will arrange to move it to the proper title. You could also ask the blocking administrator about it(whose name should be given in the notice of protection). 331dot (talk) 07:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Worldnpeace forgot to mention that the article was in fact deleted less than a year ago after a community discussion where the overwhelming consensus was that the subject was not notable. The title was subsequently create protected due to repeated recreations, and the draft title has also been create protected recently. But contacting one of the protecting admins is of course still possible. --bonadea contributions talk 07:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I would further add that large numbers of YouTube followers does not by itself meet the notability criteria; what matters is if the person gets significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This could be the case for someone with 50 followers or 50 million followers; conversely, someone could have millions of followers and not be notable, because no one has written about them. If the article you want to create was deleted due to a discussion, you must address the reasons for deletion given in the discussion to recreate the article. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Article blocked

Hello,

Can you help me to unblock my article? I can't put it back in my sandbox or publish it. There seem to be a conflict and the error message is "This sandbox is in the article namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template." — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatmanSA1 (talk • contribs)

Many thanks for your help regards Patrick

Could you clarify what page this problem is on. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this relates to Draft:Richard Phelps Gough. If I read the tortuous history aright, PatmanSA1 tried to move it from their sandbox to main space, but didn't get the move right; but Theroadislong has now moved it to a sensible place. --ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Accounts

Is anyone able to delete accounts, please. If so, could you delete mine, please? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsarina Alexandra Hesse (talk • contribs) 12:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

No, accounts cannot be deleted. More information here. --bonadea contributions talk 12:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You can put a RETIRED banner across the top of your User page using the information at Wikipedia:Retiring. David notMD (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

computer

If you want to know computer where do you learn

Hi Ayanda katlego and welcome to the teahouse. If you want to learn how to use a computer, then look for introductory computer courses near where you live. If you want to learn how to edit Wikipedia, then you might like to try WP:The Wikipedia Adventure. By the way, your last edit has been reverted because it deleted other content, probably accidentally. Please don't try to add long strings of Emojis to Wikipedia. Dbfirs 15:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Userspace drafting question

Hello all! Quick question for those more experienced than I in Userspace drafting. I want to begin working on an article which doesn't exist. I've read the drafting articles in detail but I was curious if editing in a Mainspace draft is better convention or preferred than editing in my Userspace/article? (E.g., draft:mainspace versus draft:userspace/article or draft:userspace)

Also: if I edit within my Userspace are non-logged in users able to edit it? Are logged-in users able to? Perhaps I can grant access to specific logged-in users which allows them to also edit in my Userspace?

Hopefully these questions make sense. Thanks for your time. --Abermuffin (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Abermuffin: It is better to create it in Draft space, following the guidelines at WP:YFA and using the wizard there to create the draft. Anyone will be able to see it and edit it, wherever you create the draft. You cannot limit it to specific other editors. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. RudolfRed (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

In case that's not clear, your User page is NOT for drafting an article. David notMD (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I like professor. Layton

Who like professor Layton aka real name Hershel— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.36.78.154 (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

See below. Dbfirs 16:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism in an article with Portuguese references; I do not speak Portuguese.

I was doing some simple editing in the article Gustavo Franco. I noticed that the language seemed very scholarly and then I came across a section that appeared to be cut off and did not make sense. There are a number of reasons for this excluding plagiarism and if the references were in English I would start there. What would you advise? I am very willing to believe that I am worrying about nothing except some sentences that got forgotten in an edit. Thank you bobdog54 (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, bobdog54. The best place to express your concerns is on the Talk page of the article in question.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply. I will do that. bobdog54 (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I speak Portuguese if you need someone. deisenbe (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not certain but maybe the page (or parts of it) was a direct translation of its Portuguese article. If this is the case (particularly if a translation software is used), it is bound to have some parts that would not make sense. Aside from discussing it in the article's Talk page, I suggest that you rephrase the plagiarized contents especially if you have access to the text it was copied from. Darwin Naz (talk) 11:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Bobdog54, I also speak Portuguese --Bageense^(disc.) 20:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone likes cats

...cats. E— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.36.78.154 (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi 5.36.78.154, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits so far seem to indicate that you have a misunderstanding about Wikipedia. It is not social media for posting rubbish, it is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. If you would like to learn more, then you can try WP:The Wikipedia Adventure to get some practice in editing. Dbfirs 16:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: User now blocked for vandalism. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Improve my translation from Portuguese?

I know this isn't exactly a question, but could anyone do grammar fixes in my translation in the Ele Não movement article? Thanks. --Bageense^(disc.) 15:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bageense: Here are some editors who have stated they are willing to help in cases like this: Wikipedia:Translators_available#Portuguese-to-English RudolfRed (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks but it is not needed to know Portuguese... anyone could do it. I just need some grammar fixes there. --Bageense^(disc.) 16:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

It was already an excellent translation. I've made a couple of very minor tweaks. Dbfirs 16:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Dbfirs, Wow thanks! And I thought my English really sucked. :) :) That made my day a bit better. --Bageense^(disc.) 17:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Userboxes

How do I make a userbox on my userpage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonboy8 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dragonboy8, welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Userboxes. If there is no existing suitable userbox then you can use Template:Userbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible to add images on a mobile device?

G’day! I was wondering whether you can upload an image on an article on a mobile device (iPad, to be precise). If so, how do I access the menu to upload images in the Visual Editor? Thanks in advance.

From Baba pajero pvp, 15:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, you can use the file upload wizard to upload images. It doesn't work on mobile, though. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 15:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your timely response!

Baba pajero pvp (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Baba pajero pvp. I regularly upload photos to Wikimedia Commons that I have taken on my Google Pixel smartphone, using an Android app. It works very well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I need a redirect be deleted

Feminism in Brazil. I tagged it for speedy deletion but in Wikipedia things are slow. Please, delete it so I can publish my translation? Thanks :) --Bageense^(disc.) 19:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bageense. I have deleted it. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought I had replied. Well the article's been published now, thanks! --Bageense^(disc.) 20:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Iran—Saudi Arabia war

Hello everybody!, I just watched on CNN an interview with Adel al-Jubeir and he said the attack by Iran is an "act of war" if proven. Then my question is, shouldn't we start such article? Thanks for your patience! --CoryGlee (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

CoryGlee Hello and welcome. If you are a referring to an article about a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, countries can commit acts of war without declaring a formal state of war between them. The Saudi Foreign Minister can articulate his government's view on the incident without a formal declaration of war by that government. Unless there is a formal declaration of war, or some other form of sustained conflict, I'm not sure another article is needed. There is an article about the recent attack itself, 2019 Abqaiq–Khurais attack, and an article about the Saudi Arabian–Yemeni border conflict (2015–present). 331dot (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Artha Venture Fund

Hi,

I have created an article about Artha Venture Fund. This article has received a rejection.

I need your help to improve the article as well as why my article got rejected?

Thanks Maverick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverickwroks (talk • contribs) 2019-09-21T18:38:18 (UTC)

Actualy, "Declined," which is not as severe as Rejected. The editor who declined provided an explanation. Teahouse is for asking for advice, not for help writing articles. Good luck with your revision if you intend to improve and resubmit. 19:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Maverickwroks: You can ask for help about the decline at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk RudolfRed (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Maverickwroks: some obvious problems with Draft:Artha Venture Fund are

• It doesn't start by saying what AVF is. Is it a quoted company?
• It says to much about Anirudh Damani, rather than about the company (or whatever it is) itself.
• It is unduly promotional.   Maproom (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

KT talk page

I previous inquired about this in the 'Help with an Article' above but then decided to move it to a new conversation.....

I wanted to ask about archiving conversations related to an article talk page that I have a COI with, which is the KT article talk page. I would like to make some additional requests for edits but... am somewhat reluctant since I think it looks bad and it is getting fairly cluttered up with these types of requests and rejections. Any suggestions for this article's talk page history? LorriBrown (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: More details about archiving can be found in WP:ARCHIVE and it's OK, for the most part, to be WP:BOLD. Like most things on Wikipedia, however, if the archiving turns out to be contentious, it can be undone and discussion about it should then take place on the relevant talk page. For reference, archiving a talk page is not mandatory, but it can make talk pages which have been posted on so many times that much easier to read and navigate. At the same time, archiving shouldn't really be used to hide comments just for the sake of hiding them per WP:OWN. Those old edit requests might be an eyesore to you, but their being declined isn't perhaps as important perhaps as the reasons why they were declined and it may actually be helpful to others hoping to make a similar request to leave them as is. Talk:Kent Tate has only seven threads and doesn't (at least in my opinion) seem nearly long enough to merit any archiving simply based upon page size. It's only a little over 19,000 bytes which is still quite a way from the size of 75,000 bytes generally suggested for archiving. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: Since you have a COI with the article in question, a decision to archive the talk page might invite scrutiny. I second Marchjuly's advice. However, if the talk page does end up getting closer to 75,000 bytes in the future and you would like help with archiving, feel free to let me know. Clovermoss (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

talk pages

When I'm on an article and click the Talk button it goes to https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Redriv

From there I have to manually delete "User_" and then delete "Redriv" and type in the article name.

How can I fix it to go to the article talk page automatically?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redriv (talk • contribs) 00:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Redriv: The article talk tab you want is on the top left, next to the tab marked "article". It seems like you are clicking on your own user talk page link. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I found it now. RedrivRedriv (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Are ness and Lucas from smash the same?

Argue in the comments— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bb3gamr (talk • contribs) 01:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your posts, like this one. Also, the Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question? --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 01:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bb3gamr. Welcome to the Teahouse. As pointed out above by Littlest Pet Shop, the Teahouse is really intended only to be a place for asking questions about Wikipedia; it's not a general online forum for discussing things unrelated to Wikipedia. So, if you have a question about editing, feel free to ask below. If you have a question about a specific Wikipedia article (perhaps you think there's a way it can be improved), then you can discuss that on the article's talk page, but be aware that Wikipedia is not really a forum for a general discussion about the subjects of Wikipedia articles.

In addition, please do not edit posts made by other editors like you did here as explained on this page. The word you changed wasn't a "typo", but there was no real need to "fix" it even if it was. I'm sure you were only trying to help out, but it's best to leave another editor's posts as is unless there's a really good Wikipedia policy or guideline based reason (like some of the ones listed in the page I linked to above) to change them. If you find something about the post confusing or odd, you can always ask for clarification.

Finally, please try to remember to sign your posts as explained here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hordaland, Norway

The Wikipedia article at List of municipalities in Hordaland, Norway does not have Odda listed and therefore only has 32 municipalities instead of 33. Could someone add it with the appropriate flags and maps?

Thanks,Redriv (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Redriv. Welcome to the Teahouse. Whilst someone here might be willing to make that addition, often the best place to seek a clear change to an article is to post the request directly on the relevant article(s) talk page(s). I note that the matter was raised there in 2009 and again in 2016, but that the editor who I suspect was going to change it died shortly thereafter. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Redriv: That would be Talk:List of municipalities in Hordaland, Norway. Because that page has "fewer than 30 watchers", you might need to post a notice about your request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway with a link to it (e.g. Talk:List of municipalities in Hordaland, Norway#Odda if you named the new section on the talk page "Odda". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Oldest living man

In Costa Rica there is a man named José Uriel de los Ángeles Delgado Corrales, who was born on march 10, 1900, this means that as today he must be the oldest man alive and one of the longest living person of all times. Here is the official reference from our civil authority:

https://www.tse.go.cr/consulta_persona/resultado_persona.aspx

Número de Cédula: 100339724 Nombre Padre: JESUS DELGADO Nombre: JOSE URIEL DE LOS ANGELES Identificación Padre: 0 Primer Apellido: DELGADO Nombre Madre: GABRILA CORRALES Segundo Apellido: CORRALES Identificación Madre: 0 Conocido Como: Empadronado: SI Fecha de Nacimiento: 10/03/1900 Fallecido: NO Lugar de Nacimiento: SAN ANTONIO ESCAZU SAN JOSE Marginal: NO Nacionalidad: COSTARRICENSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgarciah (talk • contribs) 04:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this is probably at Talk: List of the oldest living people. The source you linked probably isn't sufficient proof -- it is a voter registration record (I believe). As a side note, I discovered my mother's name on the voter register long after she died (and had to request having it removed). 2606:A000:1126:28D:304D:E8A1:FEED:60B5 (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mgarciah: ... where it has been discussed four times before (archive search). He is also discussed at Talk:Oldest people/Archive 17#José Uriel Delgado Corrales and listed at Longevity claims#Recent, along with several supposedly older people. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

How to lock the page that one created

Sir, It would be a great favour, if you teach how to lock the page that I creat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksgdkl14 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ksgdkl14, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and no-one owns any page, so it is impossible for you to lock any page to your preferred version. If there is persistent vandalism, then some protection may be offered by an administrator. I cannot see any page created by your current user name. Dbfirs 06:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A page would be protected only if it had been subjected to repeated vandalism, see WP:RFPP. The whole principle of Wikipedia is that it is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you wish to publish a page that other people can't edit, you'll need to publish it somewhere other than Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec)Welcome to the Teahouse, Ksgdkl14. You cannot lock any page that you created because Wikipedia is the encylopedia that anyone can edit, as long they comply with our policies and guidelines. If a page that you created has been the subject of vandalism or other disruption, please file a report at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. An administrator can lock the page if it is being disrupted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Why change back to the original bad grammatical errors and misspellings?

It seems that my little corrections keep getting changed back to the original text that contained errors. Is it because so many other outlets use Wikipedia articles that to change the source would diminish their veracity, no matter how incorrect the source was, grammatically or otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainsmetbrawn (talk • contribs) 2019-09-22T00:27:45 (UTC)

Hello, Brainsmetbrawn. I don't see examples of your little corrections getting changed back to the original text, apart from the inappropriate reformatting of dates in Saaho. But in answer to your suggestion: no. Wikipedia is constantly being edited, hopefully to improve it. Anybody is welcome to reuse material from it as long as they comply with the licence, but it is up to the reusers to decide what they want to do about Wikipedia changing. --ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Brainsmetbrawn: Looking at the history page, I notice that there were something like 30 edits within the 24 hours after you made your change (about 10 of which were reverts). I don't know just what's the reason for there suddenly being so much activity on this page, but it certainly makes it more tedious to dig through and find out exactly what happened when. Anyway, the current version does have your changes in it, but it's easy to imagine that you looked at it at some point in time when your change had been reverted, and which was subsequently restored. Fabrickator (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

HI Brainsmetbrawn. One possible reason that you're changes were reverted might've been because you didn't leave an edit summary explaining why the change was needed. Other editors obviously cannot to read your mind; so, even something you feel is a simple change might not be so simple. Leaving an edit summary, even a brief one, explaining the reasons behind the edit at least gives some clarification as to why the edit was made. Ideally, you should, whenever possible, either link to or refer to the relevant policy or guideline which the change is based upon, but any explanation is almost always better than no explanation. In addition, Wikipedia doesn't have a particular house style when it comes to which English is use in an article; so, something is written in British English is not any better or worse than something written in American English. The same applies to date formats as well: 22 September 2019 is just as acceptable as September 22, 2019. Which national variety of English or which date format to use depends on various things, but the important points are to be consistent and not just completely change things for the sake of changing them or personal preference.

Another thing I notice, is that you're marking all of your edits as "minor edits", even ones which probably shouldn't have be marked as such. Please read WP:MINOR for more on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Brainsmetbrawn and all other editors ... I'm going to use one of the changes made to Halloween by Brainsmetbrawn to make a point:

Other Jaycees followed suit with their own versions ...

was changed to

Other Jaycees followed suit with their versions ...

I presume that the basis for this change was a belief that "own" is superfluous in this context. But omitting "own" leaves the reader wondering whether or not the different versions are intended to be distinct. The point I want to make is that editors should give a degree of deference to the existing text. Every once in a while, this would save us from a change that never should have been made, and all the subsequent activity that's likely to occur when one dares to revert such a change. Fabrickator (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

breif info

is there an outsource re longer more in depth articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.225.134 (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, I do not entirely understand your question. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The references and whatever else has not been included. There is no know deep state WP.2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The question (if there is one) is still totally incomprehensible. if you are not fluent in English you may find it easier to stick to editing a Wikipedia in your own language. You'll find them listed at meta:List of Wikipedias. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Help with an Article

I wanted to ask if there is a way to archive older conversations that have occurred on articles that are not currently relevant, for example. the NPOV discussion on the BLP article SAT talk page? Thank you, LorriBrown (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, LorriBrown. Yes, there are a few ways to archive old discussions. I will archive the discussion on the talk page you have specified. Once done, look at the edit summary and follow the link to OneClickArchiver. You can also see how it works when I use it. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Also see Help:Archiving a talk page. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Willbb234: I'm not fully convinced that archiving the only other discussion thread on that page (which took place just two months ago) was really the best thing to do. You could either have simply left it there, closed it with a box and a summary of any consensus, or collapsed it with {{cot}} / {{cob}} templates. In my view, rushing to archive a recent thread hides from view the fact that there has been editor interaction, and that's not a good thing to do, and forces an editor to wade through archives they needn't have to. Either way, I hope you will ensure there will be a clearly visible link to the archived subpage? Nick Moyes (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Willbb234: Thank you for archiving that conversation. Can the talk page include a list of the archived content... or is this not needed for article talk pages? Perhaps other editors are very familiar with this process and would know how to locate the conversation if they needed to. Sorry if that is an odd question.LorriBrown (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I stated my view on the user's talk page, but I will take your advice and do as said, probably reverting myself. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC) @LorriBrown: thats not an odd question at all. Yes, an archive box should be left whenever discussions are archived, so that users can easily navigate there. I have reverted the archive (see reason by Nick Moyes) so an archive box doesn't need to be included. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Willbb234: + @Nick Moyes: FYI, I moved this question to a new section... KT talk page. LorriBrown (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, both, and also to Usedtobecool. I think that's a perfect solution, leaving all recent discussion available, but not overpoweringly visible. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Bitossi Rimini pottery

Hi, can anyone tell me if each piece of pottery is marked/stamped with an individual mark or number, or could for eg 2 candle holders be marked exactly the same. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaselbobs (talk • contribs) 07:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. This is actually a place where we help editors with problems they encounter whilst editing Wikipedia. I'm afraid we're not here to help people search for stuff they ought to be able to find for themselves, either by reading Wikipedia articles or simply by searching online. I think this would be your best course of action. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Weaselbobs Fixing ping, so you get a direct notification of my reply. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

You can try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Banned From Editing

If you are banned from editing, can you edit your own Wikipedia User Page? I would really like to know. So, can you? Thank you. Tsarina Alexandra Hesse (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You'll find the answer at WP:Banning policy. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. David Biddulph. Tsarina Alexandra Hesse (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tsarina Alexandra Hesse: Why do you ask? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Do you plan on being blocked or banned?(which are different things) 331dot (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Article

Jonathan has played pro ball he went undrafted with N.O saints also spent time with redskins/colts played college at Alabama a&m. I’m not sure why the article is going to draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarneal52 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft (Draft:Jonathan Dorsey) is where it belongs because it has almost no content and no references. Another key question is whether he has been in a NFL game, or just practice squad. As a draft, other editors can see it, but it does not show up on a Google search. When drafts are ready they are submitted, and a reviewer either accepts or declines. The declined can be worked on and submitted again. David notMD (talk) 04:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Omarneal52. You received some answers to your question the last time you asked at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Article and some editors have also posted comments on your user talk page. If Johnathan doesn't meet the guidelines of WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:GNG or WP:BIO, then maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON to write an article about him. If you want further clarification about Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a person like Johnathan, try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League. Maybe one of the members of either of those WikiProjects can help clarify things a bit better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

your article barely has anyone information. it's only single paragraph and the rest is lot of empty space. no offence, but you really need to work on your writing. Bill cage (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

New User

Hi, I am new here and tried to edit some protected pages. I want to ask that I already, edited more than 10 pages in 4 days, when I could be able to edit protected pages?

My second question is: How can I underline and cut the written text.Shadowsparks786 (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Shadowsparks786 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are different levels of page protection, which might require more edits, or have complete protection from editing by anyone. If you want to share which article you are attempting to edit, I could give a better answer(though you don't need to). 331dot (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Shadowsparks786 In answer to your second question, we don't generally underline text in articles, but there are circumstances when it can be bolded or italicised; these are outlined at MOS:BOLD and MOS:ITALIC. You can cut text using normal methods (right click and cut, or Ctrl+x) when editing pages. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Shadowsparks786. Although you created your account on 18th September, you're first edit was on 19 September at 14:11 UTC. Although it's not explicitly stated (at this explanatory page) I would assume that your 'autoconfirmed' status of having an account over four days old would be timed from an editor's first edit, not the moment their acccount was created. So, you should therefore be able to edit semi-protected pages this time tomorrow, 23rd September. As for underlining words, you would be unlikely to need very much that whilst editing articles, though if you respond to this post you'll see that I used opening and closing underline commands like this: <u>underlining words</u>. Cutting of text is the same as in any normal word-processing document. Just highlight the text and hit delete. Of course, do explain what changes you make to any article with an edit summary, and always ensure that whatever factual statement you do add to any article is directly supported the reference already there, or that you add a further one to allow it to be verified. See Wikipedia:Tutorial for further guidance on editing. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I believe that autoconfirmed is granted four days after registration (assuming also 10+ edits within that interval). I'm pretty sure that's what WP:AUTOCONFIRM says, and I recall that after making 40+ edits, I became autoconfirmed exactly four days after registration, not four days after my first edit. And Shadowsparks786, it looks like you are autoconfirmed, so you should be able to edit semi-protected pages. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! you can strike-out the written text (like this) by surrounding it with <s></s>. See WP:PRUNE. I meant to say, see WP:RTP for details. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 14:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou User:Usedtobecool I was actually meant text this type of cutting not (Ctrl+x) and Thankyou also to User:331dot and User:Nick Moyes. and all others I didn't mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowsparks786 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Gorakhpur City Details.

What all Informations I gave about the city were correct but still some editors are just removing It. What should I do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivansh Hindustani (talk • contribs) 16:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Shivansh Hindustani. Please read the message David Biddulph left on your user talk page. It is not enough that information be correct: Wikipedia requires that information be cited to a reliable source. Otherwise a reader next week or next month or next year has no way of verifying it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

(since I already composed a response)Shivansh Hindustani, Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth (please click it and read). This means that the wikipedia article on the town I'm from which has 200,000 people, is in worse shape than a village of 12 people in Europe (slight exaggeration). What can I do? Just learn to live with it, and hope that people find topics I care about worth writing and publishing about, as well. As for you, you could become a writer yourself and get info about your city published on reliable sources, which could then be used by other wikipedia editors to make it better. Although, Gorakhpur is a damn important city, there must be plenty of sources that cover it (specially its history) in detail. You just need to look harder. I know David Biddulph was tough on you, but what they say is true. Read the page, they linked for you multiple times (WP:V), carefully, and if still you don't get it, then I'm afraid you're better off contributing to other language Wikipedias, we got em in Hindi and Sanskrit, as well as a number of other regional languages. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Correcting typo in article title

Need help correcting a typo in the title of this article.

Transactionalism: An Historical and Interpretative Study should be Transactionalism: An Historical and Interpretive Study.

Interpretive is mispelled.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Transactionalism:_An_Historical_and_Interpretative_Study?wprov=sfti1

2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:BB (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

sheridanford (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I've moved it; you could have done so yourself as nothing was preventing the move. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Rasmus Jensen — anything more I need to do?

I submitted a draft once before. I have more recently written Draft:Rasmus Jensen. Is it already submitted, or is there something else I still need to do? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

To submit it, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do that. Also, one other question I have is that I copied the infobox from Alfie Bowtell, but only to adjust it. There's no issue with that, right? (I gave credit, of course.) I used other articles' speedway rider infoboxes to work out how to do this one. My reason for bringing this up is that I believe WP:DRAFT says you cannot copy content from elsewhere. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: - copying infoboxes to amend the data in a new draft/article is probably the usual method of doing it. You said which article you grabbed it from so all's fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Good. Thank you! --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Sidebar

How do I create a sidebar with basic personal information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Careystevens (talk • contribs) 2019-09-21T17:43:37 (UTC)

@Careystevens: What do you mean exactly? I think you should check Template:Infobox user. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 19:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Careystevens: If you're referring to your own user page (User:Careystevens), please consider Wikipedia:Personal security practices and WP:UP. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

OP was a notable person editing his own article. Cluebot reverted all the WP:AB edits. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

How

How can I add my blog articles on Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.29.231.213 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You cannot. See WP:NOT. RudolfRed (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Well you could use the sandbox to do as you please, although there would be those at WP that would find that disruptive. But it would not necessarily be uploaded to the general content area of WP. And if it was uploaded to the general content of WP then it probably would not there for long as those at WP would say that is not what they intend for WP. Blogging and WP are not a match.2605:E000:9149:8300:48BF:1B93:B5D4:3F0D (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Is a field goal an attempt if it results in points or only when it is missed or blocked?

MOVED

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football#Meaning of "field goal attempt" since it seems unlikely to be resolved through further discussion here at the Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could I find out why is it that WP allowed a confusing use of terms when it concerns field goals in the sport of America style football. Many times it can be found expressed as grammatically correct that "X" made "field goal attempts" yet in the same sentence or article it can be said that they had "X" average which includes the comparison of competed versus their total output. What is going on?2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Situation: in the sport of American style football there is a scoring move called field goals which has a team member kicking the ball over the field goal to make points in lie of a touchdown or in addition to a touch down. Every time that ball is kocjed in a foeld goal action it is kicked but it may not always go over the field goal therefore it is incomplete. A field goal kick that goes over the goal is not an attempt because it has been completed yet there seems to be an adherence to the term "field goal attempts" as an accurate description of "field goal kicks made". Thid appears in both textual references and statistical charts. Are field goal attempts an accurate description of field goal kicks completed, i.e. resulting in the rewarding points in either text or charts?2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• To clarify the issue under discussion, this is one of multiple, similar examples [1]. It's not ungrammatical or inaccurate to refer to field goal attempts, and this is the traditionally accepted terminology. It seems the impetus to change this in multiple articles revolves on a sort of grammatical original research. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

If it is traditional then it should be used in all examples? Or only those that are approve on an as of yet disclosed policy. And before anyone jumps to the issue of disruptive editing, just when has it been WP policy to accept what is grammatically inaccurate when something is not in all instances expressed as such? Are we to take a number count of use to decide? There are many article on sport in WP that if confusing terminology and expressionare use does not benefit the purpose of WP or the readers that consult it.2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. I don't think Wikipedia determines whether a "missed kick" is counted as an "attempted field goal"; Wikipedia really only refers to it as such or should only refer to it as such if reliable sources are referring to it as such. If someone tries to do something but is unsuccessful, then I think it wouldn't be too out of the ordinary to refer to it as an "attempt" or more specifically a "failed attempt". If missed attempts weren't counted in field goal statistics, then pretty much every kicker would have a success rate of 100%, wouldn't they? So, this seems to be more of a question as to how best to present this type of information, which might be something worth discussing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football. That's where you're likely going to find people who edit articles about American football who might be able to help sort out whether a change is needed and to best ensure consistency among this type of article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to and a missing word and correct spelling (both changes are underlined). — 11:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)]

Hi, Marchjuly. As far as I know, the statistic has always been 'attempted field goals' or 'field goal attempts', just as we refer to 'attempted passes.' The unilateral decision to change this in multiple articles, in favor of the repetitive 'field goal kicks' (not a terminology I've encountered in 59 years) to refer to attempts, is a new one. While reverting many of the new user's edits, I've also posted several warnings. An editor may not disrupt standard usage and claim to be making grammatical corrections. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this is a competence issue. The user has three times accused me of 'cheap shots'. Really close to going to ANI. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Normally, when you're in a dispute over content with another editor, the best way to try and resolve things is to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and discuss things with this person on the relevant article's talk page. However, when the dispute has the potential to affect lots of article, even if it's something like changing a word like "attempt" to "kick", then it's probably better to get more editors involved. So, my suggestion to you would be to first try the article's talk page and seek assistance from a WikiProject like WP:AMF (since this would cover all genre of articles about American football) by adding a Template:Please see to WT:AMF to let others know about the discussion. (Make sure to avoid any problems with WP:CANVASS) If an inappropriate change is being made to lots of articles, then getting more people involved increases the chances of things being sorted out in a way that's best for Wikipedia. Trying to "correct" things on your own is only likely going to lead to edit warring which you won't win no matter how right you believe you are. If the other editor continues to motor on as before even after multiple editors are advising them to stop, they will be eventually dealt with by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

If you're thinking about going to ANI, you should be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. Most administrators will look at your edits as well and look for attempts made by you to try and resolve this disagreement. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, only that ANI can turn out to be a bit unpleasant for everyone involved, not just the person being accused of violating policy/guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

See PFR, a reasonably popular source, which is consistent with other sites and my experience.

• FGA = Field Goals Attempted
• FGM = Field Goals Made
• FG% = Percentage of Field Goals Made = 100 * FGM / FGA

E.g. Titans have attempted four field goals, of which they made three (and missed one), for a FG% of 75. I.e., field goal attempts include both successful and unsuccessful events. Note that kicked points-after-touchdown (XPA, XPM, XP%) and punts (Pnt, Blk) are separate types of plays – they are not "field goals". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I guess someone has already reverted the about 5 articles that the statistical charts have been edited? And who ever said not including both missed and completed field goals in the textual statistics structured grammatically as "attempted" even if they were successfully completed. I have always had the understanding that in common understanding, especially in polite society and cocktail conversation an "attempt" was something that did not quite get there. I take a word at its entendre especially if double or colloquial. But it still remains to be discussed if "attempt" will be accepted as both missed and scored field goals. Instead it seems to be shimming in about what should have been done and what penalties should be applied. And this is not an ANI environment, normally. So what i see if the example provided shows what is important with this discussion is about a statistical chart then is than difference with text which may not have all included that would be found in one area what that information pertains so there is less ability to strain just what is being said.

The analogy of batting scores in American style baseball may best show a cross comparison. Someone's hitting average is determined from a variety of aspects but we do not call home runs the same as strikes or stealing a base. The whole point of WP is for those to consult. That is far more significant to those who do not know rather than those that have to confirm. It serves both groups but it does not help to confuse, unless that is the unintended result. What gets interesting in figuring out for the uninitiated is just what is a field goal action when it contains a divide, better known in the US as a fraction say of .5 field goal attempts? Yes, I know that averages can be any result but it has to be a common measurable thing. The only common thing of missed and completed field goals is that they all start with a kick because once a field goal has reached it intended target of getting its reward it is no longer an attempt. If "attempt" was so applicable to the textual expression of the activity in WP then every mention of field goals, missed or counted for point, would include the expression. It does not in WP. I can hear it already. This lack of uniformity is saying that WP is wrong. I did not say that. I pointed out that WP is inconsistent. Inconsistency does not help establish credibility unless the point is to impose something on others. I can hear it already. He is saying that WP intends on imposing on people. Most of the people in the world do not have a consistent and readily available power source to access WP. Grammar has a consistency about it or an explanation for its exception. The rule for field goals is that they have to be achieved by a kick. They cannot be tossed into the field goal zone. They cannot be bounced into the field goal zone. They cannot even fall short of the field goal zone. If they do, they are a missed field goal. We can forego a consideration of blocked field goals except to know that if it does not go into the field goal zone then it is a miss. A missed and a completed field goal are two different animals. One gets you a point and the other one does not.2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Both a home run and a strike out are counted as an at bat; one may be considered to be a quite successful at bat and the other a failed at bat, but they are still counted as an at bat. Now, in baseball there are certain things which aren’t counted as an at bat (e.g. a walk or a sacrifice), but these are well agreed upon and specifically designated as such in the rules of the game.

If you were WP:BOLD in making a change, then that’s perfectly OK to do; however, when someone reverts your change, then you’re going to be expected (unless the revert was clearly a case of vandalism or some other clear policy/guideline violation) to follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (aka WP:BRD). You don’t revert back to your preferred version and then expect the other person to discuss because that’s WP:BRRD (i.e. bold, revert, revert back, discuss) and that’s how small things often become unnecessary problems. So, my advice to you is the same as I gave above to the other IP: discuss on the talk page and if necessary seek assistance from one of the relevant WikiProjects which cover American football articles. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

What is this idea of expectation? If you decide to overrile someone without talk page discussion or an explanation of why you think is it one way and not sanother even in situastions where there is a statsticasl chart uwage and a textual usuage then if someone expected to ber followed then maybe they should understand that someone does not alwaysd know that the right person has yet to complain about somethuing. This did go on for several days and other editors edited the articles as if all was well? Again, a missed field goal is not the same as an attempt becaisde an attempt is not a completion of the ultimate action--a point(s) from the field goal being completed. If a completed field goal and an attempt were the same then both would get point(s). They don't. Nothing is going to change that. The only thing they have in common is they result from a kick. "Attempt" is being used to express the only thing that an attempt and a completed field goal share in common. You cannot have a field goal without a kick. You cannot have a missed field goal without a kick. But an attempt to make a field goal stops being an attempt when it is a completed field goal. An egg stops being called an egg when you cook it into a soufle. You do not continue calling it an egg even if the shell is included."2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football § Meaning of "field goal attempt"

 – Marchjuly (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How i can provide reliable sources to admin for editing article

How admin can edit article how i can provide reliable sources to admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punjabier (talk • contribs) 05:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This user has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. It is worth commenting that it is the whole Wikipedia community, through its various policies, and not just admins, who require Reliable Sources to be added to articles. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)