Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 816

Archive 810

←

Archive 814

Archive 815

Archive 816

Archive 817

Archive 818

→

Archive 820

How do you change the photo in the bio box?

Hello,

Can anyone provide guidance on how to change the photo that appears in the profile box for an entry about a person? I'm a new editor.

Thanks,

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwcote (talk • contribs) 23:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The image used in the box is designated in the "image" line in the infobox template. Changing it requires substituting another image's file name. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Johnwcote. Changing an infobox image is fairly easy to do; you just need to replace the current image with another one as explained above. However, you can only use images which are already uploaded to either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons; in other words, you cannot add images found on external websites, unless you upload them to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons first. Before you upload any images though, you should carefully look at Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Non-free content and c:Commons:Licensing because only certains types of content can be uploaded and used in Wikipedia articles and how such content can be used largely depends upon its copyright status. In addition to copyright matters, changing an infobox image can sometimes be a contentious thing to do and it's often a good idea to be cautious and propose such a change first on the article's talk page. You're not required to do so, and perhaps nobody will have a problem with the new image; if, however, someone does contest the change by reverting your edit, please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and discuss things on the article talk page.

Finally, I'm curious about this edit sum for one of your edits to Dennis Herrera. All of the edits you've made with this account have been made to the Herrera artcle, so I'm assuming you question here at the Teahouse is also related to Herrera. Anyway, you refered to the article as "our page" in the aforementioned edit sum, so I'm wondering if that means you are connected in someway to Herrera. If you are connected to him, either personally or professionally, then you would most likely be considered to have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with respect to anything written about him on Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't explicitly prohibit conflict-of-interest editing, but it does highly discourage it because it can lead to some serious problems. So, if you do have such a conflict, please read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and follow the guidelines listed on that page as closely as possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines for vulgar language?

Hi everyone, I'm attempting to copy edit this page for tone: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Gag_name The text has quite a bit of vulgar language (and I'm wondering if that isn't why it was flagged for editing). My question is, essentially, is that okay? I have no issue with strong language but I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's standards for that kind of thing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citrivescence (talk • contribs) 01:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Citrivescence: Yes, it's OK for the purpose being used in that article, particularly since most examples are vulgar. See also the policy Wikipedia is not censored. It would not be OK to use vulgar language in article prose, but perfectly fine in quotations and relevant examples. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

'H.L.A. Hart' Biography Entry - Article 'Law and Fact'

A team called 'Hartteam' edited the wiki page on H.L.A Hart, and added some information to his biography. There they added four articles he published during his early time. 3 of them I can find, but the 4th, titled 'Law and Fact', I cannot find mentioned anywhere. Is there a possibility to contact the person who made the addition to the wiki page, to ask for a citation or the article itself?

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1c01:2f07:3f00:48e9:a2b7:46ac:2e29 (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Hello 2001:1c01:2f07:3f00:48e9:a2b7:46ac:2e29 and welcome to the Teahouse. A belated welcome, it seems.

The way to contact a Wikipedia editor is to leave a message on their talk page, in this case User talk:Hartteam. The editor may have email notifications set and will see your message in a short time - or, they may not see your message until the next time they log in. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

infobox

someone help me enter the the template infobox bus accident to the article 2018 kiryandongo bus accident — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollback95 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rollback95: could you explain what help you need? There's an infobox on 2018 Kiryandongo Bus Accident already, which you added and another editor moved to the top of the article. What's the current problem? › Mortee _talk 10:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

SEO tools list

Hi, I was just wondering why the page called "List of SEO tools" redirects to Search Engine optimization#Methods - there is no real mention of tools to use here. A list like this is a bit hard to find. Everyone is posting their preferences, but there is no definitive, informative list of everything on the market. And I do believe an informative list like this would be helpful to many people. So, since there are other lists on Wikipedia, my question is - why not this one?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorraNoire (talk • contribs) 09:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Such a list would be a magnet for promotional editors wanting to use Wikipedia as advertising for their SEO tool. See WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Iffy★Chat -- 10:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

CorraNoire We can only have such a page if independent reliable sources have published such lists. If not, it's not a notable topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello CorraNoire and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you examine the history of List of SEO Tools, you'll see that in 2010 or so, there was an attempt at an article. It was turned into a redirect because the article was unreferenced and too incomplete to be considered useful. And it is never Wikipedia's goal to have a list of "everything on the market". Opinions about SEO as an activity are quite varied and the Methods section mentions the distinction between "black hat" and "white hat" approaches. That sort of controversy is going to make creating a list on WP rather hard. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up to Help me guys im poor but need a ghost typer

anyone able to write a Article about Icynexstar i have pictures and info all i need is someone who has the time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icynexstar (talk • contribs) 15:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Icynexstar: - the original request is archived here, and was responded to by yours truly. The answer remains the same, so I will copy and paste it here in hopes (perhaps futile) of more comprehension and engagement on behalf of the OP - In relation to your query, I am afraid that you are likely out of luck. You appear to have a common misunderstanding of Wikipedia. We don't write "wikis" about people who ask for one. We write encyclopedic articles about subjects which satisfy the notability guidelines, using citations from reliable sources. A google search shows that you don't satisfy our threshold for notability, as your web presence is minimal beyond self-created Genius pages. Moreover, having you have a conflict of interest in editing matters related to yourself and your corpus of work, and shouldn't seek an autobiography. Besides, an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. As such, alas, an article about you is not a possibility in the foreseeable future. However, with improved penmanship and grammar, and perusal of our pillars, you could become a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, and I urge you to attempt to do so. Hope this helps, and don't hesitate to ask any further questions. The answer, similar to the question, is unchanged. Hopefully, you will need it this time. It is worth noting that editors are unpaid volunteers, and have no obligation to edit outside of topics which interest them. Thus, being poor won't coerce people to pen a promotional puff-piece on your behalf. Nonetheless, perhaps in can, I hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC).

  If it's any consolation, Icynexstar, once you have made a name for yourself as a musician, perhaps some fan or other editor will create an article about you then. If you are indeed an upcoming rapper, then over time you may become notable enough to have an encyclopedic article written about you.

  With that said, be thankful you don't have an article about yourself yet; if you ever do, it will not be within your control and will serve as a place for documenting your public life. Many notable subjects do not like having articles about themselves, especially since certain personal information and controversies are often documented there, too. We occasionally find musicians and celebrities creating accounts to delete content from biographies about them, only for that content to be restored minutes later because the inclusion of that information is not their decision. Perhaps one day, you will be faced with that curse of fame, but until then, focus on your art and let it speak for itself. If it's good enough, others will notice it and write about you without you having to ask. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Citing a source more than once

I note that on many pages a source is cited more than once and the reference number remains the same, but the reference list recognizes the subsequent citations with a, b, c… How is this done? Anobium625 (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Anobium625. There are a number of ways to cite the same source multiple times in an article, but the way you7re seeing it done is explained in WP:REFNAME. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply.Anobium625 (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Anobium625: there are a few ways to do this. Two ways I use are 1) giving the reference a name: "this is true<ref name="source">{{cite book|...}}</ref> and that is true<ref name="source" /> and 2) using {{sfn}} to give short references to a different page number within a reference I've already used. I'd be happy to help more if I can. You're welcome to ask a question on my talk page or at the teahouse. I've found referencing a surprisingly deep subject and the best way to learn it has been to look at the source of good articles. There are all kinds of tricks to pick up. › Mortee _talk 02:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, too! If I'm not successful, I'll get back to you for more help.Anobium625 (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Got it! Cf. Constance Savery, if interested.Anobium625 (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Help with references

I am FARRR too lazy to use refernces, so can you add some sort of auto ref system? Addust (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, Addust. Maybe Wikipedia won't suit you then! References really are essential for Verifiability to support almost everything we add to this encyclopaedia, and simple opinions (and silly comments in articles) will swiftly get removed. Did you realise that many references to books, newspapers and websites can be automatically inserted using the Visual Editor. It's more WISYWIG than our source editor, though many long-term editors do tend to prefer the latter. If you need help with this, just let us know. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Even using the source editor, most references are straightforward when the "cite" templates are used. It's just a matter of filling in a few boxes in "cite web", "cite news", "cite book", or "cite journal" template. People who turn to Wikipedia for information deserve to know the sources of that information. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You still have to use references, but Wikipedia:REFILL can be a help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

REPLY from Addust: You could just add it so if you add the name of an arcticle in an edit, it automatically becomes a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addust (talk • contribs) 08:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:REFILL is a bit like that. You add the bare url between the reftags <ref></ref>, save the page and then use the refill tool. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Addust blocked. David notMD (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh well, one can only try. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal or renaming of content

There is a page on the Isle of Man Portal referring to "Manx Electricity Authority: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manx_Electricity_Authority&action=edit

This no longer exists.... the service is now called Manx Utilities as its both Water and Electricity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.10.102.252 (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I've updated the article to note this. However in future, if you see things like this you should consider being bold and making the changes yourself. Everyone is welcome to make constructive changes to Wikipedia! Neiltonks (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

article's quality classification

Hi people! I'm just trying to find an article that describes the article's quality classification. Does anybody could help me? Thank you. Greetings Lu Brito (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content assessment – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of external link

I tried to include, in the article about John Michael Greer, a page which I maintain, listing his works. The article has a history of discussion about providing a list of his works; I decided that a good compromise would be to include a list maintained outside of Wikipedia. However, the inclusion was reverted by an automated system. Is there anything that can be done to make this external site compliant?

--Packshaud (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Packshaud. The link addition was reverted because wordpress is essentially just a blogging service, and blogs are generally not to be linked to according to policy except in a few circumstances, such as when the blog is written by a recognized authority on the subject. GMG^talk 19:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

spacing error in new article title?

I just posted another article about a member of the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1868, who also served in the House of Delegates (and so meets the notability guideline). Though I changed the Virginia Constitutional Convention link associated with the Albemarle County delegate to reflect his first name rather than initial, the link doesn't go to the article I just added. Since this laptop has a spacebar problem, I suspect that I didn't actually add a space between his middle initial and surname, which would cause the broken link. However, I cannot see it, nor correct it. I would appreciate some help here. I know these 19th century politicians seem pretty trivial, but I have met historians who appreciate my work. Thanks.Jweaver28 (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this about Clifton L.Thompson? It would be more helpful to tell us what article the problem is in, rather than why you believe he's notable. Maproom (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

how do i include a reference/link that backs up what i wrote and how does the corresponding number get added in the text, newbie here on wiki.ty

how do i include a reference in the list below a page and the number in the text that corresponds with it? a newbie here so i got little experience yet with wikipedia. thanks for any advice. bryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchmzungu (talk • contribs) 17:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Dutchmzungu, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read referencing for beginners both for how to add references, and how to identify acceptable sources to reference. --ColinFine (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I also added a quick little something to his talk page, since it's something that I use. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Does a college course offered as part of a graduate program at an accredited program qualify as a notable subject for an article??

I am a teaching assistant for a course being taught at a large public college in the US. My professor has asked me to research the possibility of creating a Wikipedia article for the class that could be used as a reference by the students in the class. I am wondering if this would qualify as a "notable" worthy topic for an article. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhns 03 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Lhns 03. The question I would ask is, which reliable published sources (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers) have contained extended information about your course, not deriving from anybody connected with the course? If, as I expect, the answer is "None", then your course is not notable and not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article.

I'm not quite clear what you're trying to achieve: I'd be very surprised if your professor accepted references to Wikipedia articles in assignments, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source, being edited by anybody. If your professor wants somewhere for you all to communicate among yourselves, a wiki might be a way of doing it, but not Wikipedia. You might want to take a look at WP:Educational program. --ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lhns 03, the link ColinFine meant to give you is actually WP:Education program. I have created a redirect Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Image editing

I remember there is somewhere on this website where volunteers can do simple image editing. I want to request some editing of an image... could someone point me in the right direction? With thanks, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tom (LT) I think you're looking for the WP:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! That's exactly what I was looking for :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Changing User name

hey i am trying to change my user name can any one help me getting set up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalvybzmusic (talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Digitalvybzmusic: see Wikipedia:Changing username. Since you haven't made many edits, you could just create a new account with the desired username. That way, you wouldn't have to go through the bureaucracy of changing your user name. If you did that, it would probably be a good idea to let people know by adding a note to your new account's user page. For example, you might write, "My previous account was Digitalvybzmusic." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Winnipeg Table Hockey League (WTHL) Nominate for deletion?

So I prod-ed this article as I thought it didn't meet WP:NSPORTS, WP:CLUB or WP:GNG requires, the person who created the article Scapizzi removed the nomination saying it met WP:CLUB due to their activities being National and significant coverage. I don't want to get into a deletion discussion here as I know its not the place but I'm not sure if I should be taking the next step and AFD the article. The National coverage Scapizzi talks about is just the fact that the sport is a National sport, not that this league played National league as far as I can tell. As for the significant coverage, most of it is local news and the organisation own websites. I'm happy if I'm wrong, but it feels more like an advert for the league and the game. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 01:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed a bunch of unsourced stuff and also the logo which is a copyright violation to the organization's website. I'm not seeing notability, but I try not to get involved in sports related notability discussions. Thanks, NZFC. John from Idegon (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Pages created by trolls

I'm aware that if a troll/vandal creates a page, beneficial or not, it will have to be deleted in accordance with WP:DENY, however, what if the page is on an extremely notable subject? Would it still have to be deleted? I'm guessing that the loophole around this rule is for the page to be recreated by a good-faith contributor, but what if the page was discovered to have been created by a troll far too late? Would it just have to remain, with little regard to DENY? SimpsonsFan94 (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi SimpsonsFan94. The information you're probably looking for can be found in WP:EVADE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The Wrath of Vajra

Can you please add more reliable source and plot. Apollo C. Quiboloy fans (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Apollo C. Quiboloy fans. You can be WP:BOLD and try to improve the article yourself. Articles are pretty much exoected to be WP:IMPERFECT and improved over time through collaborative editing. Improve what you can, and then perhaps somebody will follow up what you started and make further improvements. If someone reverts/undos any changes you make, just follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and discuss things on the article talk page. You might find some helpful tips on writing plot summaries in Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up to How do I make an image appear at the browser's width?

I am trying to display an image in the browser, not as a thumbnail, but at the browser's width.

The advice given so far was:

{{wide image|Helsinki z00.jpg|1800px|[[Helsinki]] panorama - based on example from Template:wide image|100%|center

Unfortunately, this makes the image full size, within the browser's window width, so there is a horizontal scroll bar. Not the image scaled to fit the browser window.

Can this be done?

Keybounce (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Keybounce and good to see you back at the Teahouse.

I noticed, as I moved from computer to computer, and that image was still on the Teahouse, that sometimes I got a scroll bar and sometimes I didn't. Different screen widths and OSes and browsers. How to force it to always scale rather than scroll, I'm afraid I don't know. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

ASK HELP: Draft:Peace Treaty on Korean Peninsula

Hi, PLEASE ADVISE ME the necessary revision of the contents to be updated. From my understanding, it meets the three rules Wikipedia:Notability Neutral point of view, Verifiability.

I created some articles, but I would like to get support this topic as it could be a hot topic this year. Regarding the potential issue- WP:CRYSTAL, I believe that it could be covered as per the current public statement of the leaders of the five major countries: US, China, Russia, DPRK and South Korea. All of them now support the ending the Korean war and establish the Peace Treaty on Korean Peninsula. Especially, it is now all documented officially on the two documents which are Joint Statement and Panmunjom Declaration. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding a photo to a draft entry

Hi. Was asked to add a photo into an entry that was submitted by another user and is currently pending review. I'm not familiar with images and need assistance. Le Bijoux (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Le Bijoux. It's hard to give you a specific answer without knowing more about the photo in question. Only photos uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons can be added to pages, but whether such a photo can be added to a draft depends upon its file copyright tag. If the photo has been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, then most likely you can add it to the draft and it should be fine as long as the file was uploaded in accordance with c:Commons:Licensing. On the other hand, if the file was uploaded locally to Wikipedia, then you won't be able to use it if the file is licensed as non-free content because non-free files are not allowed to be used in drafts per non-free content criterion #9 and Wikipedia:Drafts#Preparing drafts. In such a case, you will need to wait until the file has been approved as an article before adding it, and then you will need to make sure that the particular use of the file satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If you're not sure about this, you can always ask for help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.

Now, if the photo is something yet to be uploaded to either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, then you should take a look at Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files and the aforementioned Commons licensing page. What file copyright tag the file may be uploaded and where it can be uploaded under depends on things such as its copyright status and whether permission from the original copyright holder is required, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Help reviewing potential article for creation

Hi, thanks in advance for taking time to read my question! I am working as a paid contributor to submit a page for eFax.com on behalf of j2 Global. I have ensured that the copy is factually, neutrally written and well sourced. My previous attempt to submit the page was nominated for Speedy Deletion for lack of notability and was indeed deleted quickly. I have worked to improve the article, and would like to resubmit, but I am hoping I can get someone to review the article first to provide any input and feedback. I have discussed this personally with other Wikipedia editors that I know to get some feedback, which I've incorporated, but I'm hoping to get some fresh eyes and input before I submit again. What is the best way to approach this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixedmediamaven (talk • contribs) 15:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Mixedmediamaven. Thank you for declaring your status. You don't seem to have created a draft since your previous draft was deleted, so there is nothing to review. If you mean that you are hoping to get somebody to review it outside of Wikipedia, then I for one would not be interested in doing so: that is not how we work here. Frankly, if you are asking for that, and also noting the number of your contributions to date, I don't understand how you can in conscience represent yourself as somebody who is competent to edit Wikipedia for pay. I'm sorry to be blunt, but I think that honesty is more useful in this context. If I am misreading the situation, I apologise. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine. Thank you so much for your reply, and I apologize for any confusion; I have not yet published the draft but do intend to do so in order to have it reviewed. To eliminate any further confusion, I have submitted the draft to my sandbox. I would certainly not ask or expect anyone to do so outside of Wikipedia. I was not sure if there was a better (more preferable to other editors) method for getting it looked at before actually submitting to AfC.

My contributions are indeed limited with this account as this will be my first paid contribution. I have contributed to Wikipedia as a volunteer in the past, but wanted to be sure to be completely by the book in terms of this entry. My uncertainty for this project is mainly centered in wanting to ensure that everything I do is aboveboard, transparent, and in keeping with Wikipedia's standards. I truly appreciate your honest and direct feedback, as it's exactly what I'm in search of. --Mixedmediamaven (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, Mixedmediamaven. Submitting for review is exactly the way to do this: there is no point in trying to get a draft reviewed before it is reviewed. There is no opprobrium in submitting a draft for review several times, as long as it is clear that the submitter is taking note of the reasons why it was declined, and working to ameliorate them. --ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Mixedmediamaven I don't know how you get from "Mark ran his own successful telecommunications business, efax.co.uk. A US company, efax.com, wanted to buy it and so when they made him a good offer Mark sold out." (source) to "The first service branded as eFax was created by British-born entrepreneur Mark Oglesby in early 1997, providing a service to integrate email with existing fax technology. Oglesby eventually sold his eFax.co.uk domain to eFax.com, which at the time was owned by JetFax" (your draft) without inserting unsourced information. It looks to me like you're trying to find sources to fit what the subject would like the article to say. That's a strategy that is doomed to fail. Vexations (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Appreciation

How many edits does it take to become appreciated? 2hark (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@2hark: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It only takes one good edit to be "appreciated" for it- but I think you mean "autoconfirmed". To be autoconfirmed, your account must be at least four days old and have at least 10 edits- which yours meets on both counts. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Advice sought for connecting references with the statements they support

I recently introduced an error into Wikipedia trying to add to the arcticle Scrabo Tower. I went to the local library, found some books talking about it, returned home and added some text to the article, then added in-line citations but got it wrong by mixing up my sources. Obviously, I must be more careful and take detailed notes when at the library. Nobody noticed and I found out later when I went back to the library to add a page number that I had forgotten to mention. I then added quotes in the citations, but that seems not to be often done in Wikipedia. I find that often, even when citing a page in a source, it does not really become clear which statement in the source substantiates which statement in the article. Do you have advice for me? With many thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Johannes Schade thank you for your diligence in correcting that mistake. Adding quotations in ordinary references is often unnecessary, since a reference is typically a news article or a couple of pages of a book, and it's reasonable to expect a reader to look over the whole thing if they're interested in following up a claim on Wikipedia. That said, it can be useful particularly if the statement in the source is oblique. It's really up to you how much you want to use them. My suggestion would be to generally not give quotes, but put them in where you feel they add value. I'm sorry not to be more specific. For what it's worth, I've looked over to your edits to Helen's Tower and I think you've improved that article greatly. Welcome to Wikipedia! › Mortee _talk 22:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

As someone who often uses the |quote= parameter in CS1 templates, I maintain a somewhat different position. For me, brief quotes help provide immediate context and assists readers in finding that context in the original source. This is especially helpful for readers who are curious enough to check the citation, but not invested enough to follow it to the source.

With that said, the only times most editors will clamor for a quote is in the case of non-English sources (please translate it!), offline sources, and paywalled sources. In all cases, it's a matter of accessibility and verifiability. Beyond that, it's really a matter of editorial discretion and preference. I have occasionally had quotes I have included in citations removed or reverted, especially long paragraphic quotes from online news articles, but most stick. The only downsides I can see, beyond superfluity, is a bit of byte bloat and larger reference sections with bulkier citations. Other than that, it's basically a just another way some editors, such as myself, tend to cite sources. If you prefer to quote some context, go for it. If anyone finds it objectionable or excessive, I am confident they will let you know.

Alternative methods of adding quotes include using {{efn}}s, adding {{Quote}}s within the reference (but outside any CS1 or CS2 template!), and adding them in the main article text in various ways. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. I agree with all of that, just tend to use quotes less often myself. Very good point that they're particularly helpful where the original source is not in English or is otherwise inaccessible. › Mortee _talk 13:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

article for creation

there is no article named catalogue market.it must be created as soon as possible because many people are waiting for that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snikitha raj (talk • contribs) 07:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Why must the article be created as soon as possible? In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. Who is waiting for it? Statements that an article must be created as soon as possible are deeply troublesome to me. They are usually an indication that the editor making that statement is being paid to get the article accepted. Are you being paid? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Snikitha raj. If you want to request for an article to be created, you can do so at Wikipedia:Requested articles, but there are many topics there and not many people with the time to research it all. Since you are an autoconfirmed user, it might be quicker to create it yourself. There is a guide to article creation at Wikipedia:Your first article. If you would like help to create your article, feel free to contact me on my talk page or using a reply template, or one of the editors who participate at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, either using the Help Desk or by submitting your article for review as a draft. Good luck. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Snikitha raj: You created Draft:Catalogue Market and submitted it for review, but it was declined by Robert McClenon. Robert did leave a comment on the draft's page explaining why he declined the draft. Did you read the comment? Is there something about it you don't understand? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Snikitha raj, we do have an article Catalog merchant. Maybe Catalog market could be a redirect to that? Rojomoke (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The article at Catalog merchant is better than the draft and does contain the discussion that I said was needed for Draft:Catalogue Market to be encyclopedic. Is the Original Poster satisfied? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Resubmitting an article which has been redirected

I have been working on a article which was online for about eight years and then deleted + redirected because of notability. The online article is Jon Doscher and I wish to resubmit an updated full bio which can be seen here https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Gibmul/sandbox_22. Should I just do a (subst:submit) or what? Gibmul (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Gibmul: Yes, you can submit it ({{subst:submit}}); if it is accepted, the reviewer will take care of the pesky technical details. (The only limit is that you should not submit drafts similar to a recently-deleted articles because it loses everyone's time, but in eight years notability might have been gained.) I am not sure (either way) whether your draft shows notability, but I took less care perusing the refs than a reviewer should. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Eight years? WP:Articles for deletion/Jon Doscher was this year, or are you referring to some other discuusion? I would also suggest that if I were a client paying someone to create a Wikipedia article I would expect the editor to have read Wikipedia guidance on such things as capitals and external links. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

how

Curious to know how to become a great editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razio mikoshi (talk • contribs) 13:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Razio mikoshi and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to be a great editor, you must be familiar with our policies and guidelines. Then as you stay here longer, you will gain more experience about editing and problem-solving. Interaction and communication between editors are also important. You will be greater after sometime. Regards ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Engaging in activities which result in this is generally not characteristic of great editorship. Avoiding such behavior is a step toward becoming one. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to write a great article may have something of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for web ref privilages

Hello, how do I go about getting the refill tool added to my account, instead of manually having to keep going back to reFill, to type the name of the page to fill in bare references?

Regards L1amw90 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, L1amw90, and thanks for your note. This kind of blanking is not helpful, and we kind of have a rule against it. Wikipedia:Citing sources is a "do your best" thing, and if someone's best isn't perfect, then we clean it up instead of blanking it. Bare URLs definitely aren't great, but they're a lot better than nothing, and on a page that's getting that many edits, people are usually trying to get in and out as fast as they can, to reduce the risk of edit conflicts for themselves and others. Formatting could happen next week with no real loss in the meantime.

As for your specific request, the instructions for reFill are at User:Zhaofeng_Li/reFill. As an alternative, you could switch to the visual editor (look for the pencil icon in your toolbar). It works like a word processor and has the mw:citoid service already built in. For that, you just paste the bare URL into the "automatic" tab of the cite box, and it will create the citation template for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Confirming account

How do I confirm my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosper omoregie (talk • contribs) 18:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Your account will be autoconfirmed after 4 days and 10 edits. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

How to Proceed with Mediation

Recently, I submitted a mediation request that seems to have "vaporized". In following up on this, I was advised by a Wikipedia volunteer to: "I like to urge you to try asking for help with the tea house before resorting to the more formal approach of mediation. (One of the challenges of mediation is that all parties have to agree to participate and that's not always the case.)" Consequently, I am here.

The mediation concern pertains to this Wikipedia page: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:The_Handmaid%27s_Tale_(TV_series)#References_to_Trump_and_Pence_need_to_be_deleted.

My user ID is TheBlackMark.

I believe that references to Trump/Pence should be deleted as empty facts. The editor who is the originator of this text does not appear to be willing to modify his text. I do not wish to become involved in a revert war. Therefor I am seeking mediation for resolving this concern.

TheBlackMark (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I looked at the content disagreement and the current text and think it's a good compromise.

There was much debate on whether parallels could be drawn between the series (and by extension, the book it is based on) and American society during the Presidency of Donald Trump.

There are numerous sources that point out the timing of the program and the current administration. The reader can read the sources that are listed for more background. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess that I am "swimming against the tide". This is an "empty fact", in that this controversy is simply being manufactured by a political group to generate controversy to push their agenda. It is not is not a a controversy (discussion) between two groups that have a differing opinion concerning how to interpret the meaning of The Handmaid's Tail. Jdavi333 noted, "The fact that some opinion writers are reading more into this than mere coincidence just does not fit in to the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia.". My edits were proposed to further the "encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia". Well thank-you for responding.

TheBlackMark (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding, this apparent political agenda-pushing, even if what you say is true, that does not matter much because Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize the reliable sources according to their notability and noteworthiness to provide a compendium of all current human knowledge. That information appears to be within the latter scope and furthers that purpose, however infinitesimally. Maybe some cabal is gaming the system to get these "empty facts" inserted through (unwitting) editors, but that is beyond the scope of this project and the mere fact that they are biased sources is not grounds for exclusion, especially since the Neutral point of view policy applies to you, not the content (essay). Moreover, given that social commentary and analysis using the series is generally within the scope of that article, your claim that it is an "empty fact" is unclear. In principle, everything on Wikipedia is so; it's the context and sourcing that gives it meaning and veracity—and determines its inclusion.

With that said, TheBlackMark, the strongest rule-based rationale you can probably provide in these circumstances are along the lines of due weight, particularly on the point that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. After cursorily reviewing the issue and the article as of this revision, however, I personally suspect that would not be a persuasive argument. It does not persuade me. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC); edited 09:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

As I stated before, I am "swimming against the tide". Based on the comments that I have received, not much point in continuing to advocate for the removal of the pointless references to Trump/Pence. Thank-you for responding. TheBlackMark (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Photos

How do I upload a photo? There doesn’t seem to be any way of doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel T Keer (talk • contribs) 20:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It depends whether it is free of copyright (in which case you upload it to Wikimedia Commons) or being used as permitted non-free content (in which case you upload it here to enwiki). See Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Galvarino

Hello, I couldn't help but notice the recent pages about the Mupache Galvarino. Would you please share the contact info for those contributors? I'm pretty sure we are the only Galvarino's in the world and don't know about this history so far! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambernotes (talk • contribs) 06:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The contributors to the article over the years are listed on the article history page (accessible by clicking on the "History" tab at the top of the article itself). --David Biddulph (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Ambernotes. If you go to the article Galvarino, and click the "View history" tab at the top, you can find out who has contributed to that article. You can ask questions on those editor's talk pages, but I suggest that you find the editors who made major contributions. Please be aware that these are volunteers and some of them may no longer be active. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

How is the process of deleting handled. It seems that some people's role is to ensure that good articles are deleted.

How is the process of deleting handled. It seems that some people's role is to ensure that good articles are deleted. --Chichi Chilufya (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)--Chichi Chilufya (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kapya John Kaoma would seem to be what the OP is asking about for those looking into this. MarnetteD|Talk 23:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Chichi Chilufya: The article has been proposed for deletion on the grounds that it does not cite sources to establish that Kaoma is notable. In the deletion discussion, those voting delete have pointed this out. Those voting keep have argued that he's a great guy (true but irrelevant), and that sources establishing his notability do exist (probably true, but irrelevant unless someone cites them). If you want the article kept, your best way to achieve this will be to find some reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of Kaoma, and cite them in the article. Not stuff he's written himself; not stuff based on press releases; not passing mentions; but real independent discussion. Maproom (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Neoteric Evolution

Can anyone tell me why there is a call to delete this page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeQuinceyMalden (talk • contribs) 08:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I could not find such a page with that title. Can you link to it? 331dot (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Neoteric evolutionary theory was deleted last month on an expired PROD. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Crosskeys Inn Edit Deleted

Hi, I am not to familiar with using Wikipedia. I had edited a page called Crosskeys Inn and the edit was deleted by

Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:EC87:C300:4C3C:D2B1:E1F7:8B79

Can anyone advise me on how to have the information reinstated.

Thanks in advance. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.217.59 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Which edits are you referring to? Your IP has never edited that page, and 2A00:23C4:EC87:C300:4C3C:D2B1:E1F7:8B79 did not delete anything from that page. If you mean that you were editing as 2A00:23C4:EC87:C300:4C3C:D2B1:E1F7:8B79, then no, your edits cannot be reinstated because they were deleted and WP:REVDELed as copyright violations. Meters (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It cannot and will not be reinstated. It was a blatant copyright violation. The text was copied from another website. That activity is not allowed here. I haven't seen what was removed, but, given previous experience with this subject matter, Wikipedia is NOT here to promote businesses or to advertise features and/or facilities. It is only interested in what reliable third parties have to say about the subject. - X201 (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:COPVIO , and for an intro on linking to particular edits see WP:SDG Meters (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

My first post

How to create my own user page? I am new as contributor. I faced difficulties in including Referencs in my first content — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRABHAKAR.S (talk • contribs) 12:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, PRABHAKAR.S, and welcome to Wikipedia! There's some advice here on what's suitable for a Wikipedia user page. There's rarely any need to use references on your own user page, which is not a Wikipedia article, and should be about your activities in editing Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

More basic, you create it by clicking the redlinked PRABHAKAR.S and then writing something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Article creation

i have created three articles, but all are being considered for deletion, should i just retire coz its like iam doing nothing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollback95 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rollback95: Retirement is up to you, but you don't need to. There's plenty more to do here besides write articles. And even then, you're better at writing articles than a lot of editors who have only been here for a week. I'm not even going to post my usual advice for writing articles, because the ones you've written are pretty close to what happens when you follow that advice.

As you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soroti Secondary School, it looks like the article Soroti Secondary School will stay and not be deleted. Likewise if you look here, the article Allan Okello will probably stay. Although it's too early to say how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Kiryandongo bus accident will go, I've seen similar articles survive an AfD. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

what else can i do on wikipedia apart from editing and writing articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollback95 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rollback95: You can work on existing articles instead of writing new ones. But again, you're actually pretty good at writing new articles. Two of the three articles you've should not have even been nominated for deletion, one of them will probably survive. Most editors who have only been here for a week generally get all of their articles deleted, and for good reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rollback95: I'd suggest you slow down with the article creation / edits; listen to people's comments and advice; and get help to edit. GiantSnowman 15:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rollback95: Wikipedia is a large place with lots to, so really it's more of a matter of what you're interested in or good at. For example, Wikipedia:Maintenance lists the various cleanup tasks that you can help with: there's usually a few requests for copyediting at the Wikipedia:Guild of Copyeditors, checking for style, consistency, spelling, etc. if that's your thing. If you're good at research, there's [Citation Hunt, which is a WMF tool that allows you to filter articles that need citations.

If you have a specific field of interest, there might be a Wikipedia:WikiProject that covers your field. This is basically a group of collaborating editors that all edit in the same area, and they will each have their own tasks that they want to do.

Another option is to join one of the patrols, which go through Wikipedia in specific ways to find things to improve, remove or tag. Many people choose to monitor Special:RecentChanges for vandalism edits and revert them, though care is needed for edits that might look like vandalism but might be helpful – when in doubt, leave it and it'll probably be reviewed by someone else later. Random Page Patrollers go through Special:Random to find pages, and can improve pages if they have minor problems, tag them with maintenance templates for bigger problems, and mark pages for deletion if they are totally unsalvageable. (WP:Twinkle is a good tool for automating reverting and tagging if you want to learn to use it). — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

When can my Draft be accepted?

When may my Draft be accepted for a wikipedia page? This is the link.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Galaxy_Life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qxgen (talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Qxgen To nominate an existing draft or user sandbox for review at Articles for Creation, add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or sandbox page. In its current state, your draft will almost certainly be rejected because it cites no sources. Please refer to Help:Referencing for beginners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Qxgen, in its current state the draft will not be accepted as you have not provided any references to reliable sources. Please see the Your first article and the Referencing for beginners guides. If you need further assistance please return here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Searching for a tutorial on editing I saw in the Wikipedia community ten years ago

Hi,

Years ago -- circa 2009 to 2011 -- I wandered into the Community Portal and found myself at a helpful tutorial for editing writing to make it more succinct.

It had many examples of sentences which were not succinct, and after you had thought about them, you could reveal a more succinct version.

I think it was actually a sub-page for a user.

Does anyone here remember something like this and know if exists anymore or where it is?

Thanks! --Yoderj (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this (WP:SUCCINCT) it? - X201 (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm looking for a page with many examples of sentences before and after editing for succinctness --Yoderj (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Found it! Removing fluff --Yoderj (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Help

I need Coding help in creating a Wikipedia page for myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eydharh (talk • contribs) 17:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Eydharh: See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, WP:COI, and WP:NOTRESUME. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Updating Reality of Wrestling champions listing

ROW WRESTLING NEEDS TO BE UPDATED SINCE AUGUST 11, 2018. THEY HAD A "SUMMER OF CHAMPIONS" EVENT ON THAT DAY AND FAILED TO UPDATE THEIR CHAMPION'S LIST. PLEASE ASK THEM TO UPDATE THIS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:C002:2BEB:4032:66F7:8AB2:B04D (talk • contribs)

Typing in all caps is like shouting. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

According to their web site their titles have not changed since last year Blair277 (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Page Translation

Sorry! This is an unforgivable sin on my part. I asked a question recently about how to have a page translated from French Wikipedia to English. I did not get back here for an overly long time. I don't see the results here or in the Archive but I did find: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 63#How to create a translated page which may serve perfectly well as an answer. Any additional comments since I do not plan or wish to create an English page? I imagine I could go to the Talk version of the English translation and copy the code from there to the English version of Wikipedia. Does the original author(s) get the credit due to him/her/them? Nicodemus (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Translation, and the answer to your recent question was at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 813#Request a translation of a page from the French Wikipedia. (You can find your previous questions in the archive by typing your user name (or the name by which you signed) into the archive search box at the top of this Teahouse page.) --David Biddulph (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)