Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 915

Archive 910

←

Archive 913

Archive 914

Archive 915

Archive 916

Archive 917

→

Archive 920

Reporting User

I want to report user Me2karen cause edit Korean Drama page without source just from the opinion. I think this user must be blocked cause I'm afraid this user will be edit Korean Drama page without source just from opinion again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk • contribs)

@Michaelelijahtanuwijaya: I suggest discussing the edits on the article's talk page rather than reporting the user. Mstrojny (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Michaelelijahtanuwijaya and welcome to the Teahouse. I completely agree with Mstrojny; that is not how we do things.

We do not censor or block editors without good cause. First, we ascertain the issue, reverting any unsourced content that has been added which adversely affects an article, and we (and by that I mean YOU!) should explain by means of an edit summary why you are making that reversion. You can either attempt to discuss your concerns with an editor who is acting in good faith, or you may warn a bad faith editor using one of our many types of warning template about adding or removing content in an inappropriate manner. But these should be used carefully and in incremental steps of severity - four in all before anyone considers blocking anyone.

Then, and only then might it be appropriate for you to report them to WP:AIV where one of our administrators would consider the matter and possibly issue a warning block. It depends on how bad those actions were. At a cursory glance, the edits you complain about seem to have been made in good faith, though without any edit summary, which is extremely frustrating for everyone. I find the table modifications they made somewhat complex, so sorry if I've missed something at first sight.

Talking of edit summaries, your own failure to use edit summaries is appalling, and it is unfair to other users when you revert their edits without any explanation of your own, and then complain about their actions. Of the 1,413 edits you have made here, you failed to give any edit summary in 97.4% of cases. I would like you to address this from here on in, please. Rather than calling for other editors to be blocked, I invite you to work to improving your own communication, not only when you make edit, but also to talk to other editors if you have concerns about theirs. Thank for all your contributions so far, and may you continue to work productively and cooperatively in the future. Please remeber to sign all yourt talk page posts, too, please (like this: ~~~~). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

When can I get extended confirmed user degree on Wikipedia?

Please Reply soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammmadahmad649 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mohammmadahmad649 and welcome to the Teahouse! Extended confirmed is a user right that allows users to edit pages with a certain protection level. It is generally only given automatically after a user has made 500 edits and had an account for 30 days. Wikipedia:Extended confirmed has more detail about this. However, most protected pages are only semi-protected rather than extended confirmed protected, meaning that any user who has made at least 10 edits and had an account for over 4 days can edit them; see Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed for more information about this. I hope this answers your question and if you have any further queries please let us know!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 04:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Creation

Hi guys, I created my first article and submitted for review and I got alerted that it already exists. I'm not sure how this happened, but I seem to have created the already existing article and it has a unique wikipedia link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OkadaBooks Will the submitted one be rejected? and is this already existing article approved already? I can't find it on google, but the link looks like it's an approved article. I am so confused right now. Can anyone help me understand all of this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarthaKings (talk • contribs) 01:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Resolved this way: There is now a Draft:OkadaBooks and a Draft:OkadaBooks (2). The latter (a bit shorter) is up for Speedy Deletion, which would end the confusion, allowing you to continue on the former. David notMD (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism in 'Alien' Movie Page

I am seeing that the page for the film 'Alien' has been vandalised with the addition of the following text (as the 4th paragraph from the top of the page). I could remove this, but it might be added again. Is it possible to LOCK this page to prevent it from anonymous editing? Could someone remove this paragraph and then lock this page to protect it from vandalism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(film)

Quote:

"Alien is an accurate retelling of a government conspiracy to murder individuals of the USSR, making it look like an accident. The extraterrestrial organism is now held in area 57 in the underground bunker with an entrance at area 51. Once Donald Trump is successful in his war on information the news of an alien running around North Korea will not be taken seriously. Please write to your congress represetitive to let them know that you have woken up to the truth." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivabhaskar (talk • contribs) 03:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sivabhaskar. Pages can be protected per Wikipedia:Page protection, but this is only really done to prevent serious cases of disruptive editing. After looking at the the page history for Alien (film), I'm personally not seeing any reason for the article being protected right at this moment; I see the edit you're referring to but that was quickly reverted by another editor. If, however, the situation worsens, you can request that the article be protected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Be advised, however, that pages are rarely protected simply just to stop IPs because many IP editors actually make positive contributors to Wikipedia; so, as I mentioned above, there needs to be some really serious disruptive editing going on for an adminstrator to step-in and restrict others ability to edit the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph in question deleted within minutes after it was posted. The editor who posted it blocked for other reasons. David notMD (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

photographic citation and authentic comment rejected

I posted earlier on the Egyptian Mau cat and made a comment that her facial expressions and eye colour change from pale green to turquoise, according to her mood. This is remarkable and I wished to share it. This was published, but with the comment 'citation required'. So I provided evidence - what better citation than two small photographs evidencing this extraordinary change of eye colour. But the photos were deleted. As was my further contribution regarding individual hairs graduating in colour from root to tip which aids the process of camouflage. This is first hand knowledge and more authentic proof of statement than any citation gleaned from any source and it's a shame that somebody chose to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madame Diana (talk • contribs) 08:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Madame Diana. It seems you've fallen foul of our policy prohibiting original research. Wikipedia's policy on this, which you can read about at Wikipedia:No original research, rules out using "first hand knowledge" and instead requires reliable, published sources. If you have any questions about the types of sources that would be acceptable in this instance, please do ask here. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we present the numbers of users registered or active in graphical way ?

Can we present the numbers of users registered or active in graphical way, is there any template which shows the graph beside the template {{Template:User numberofusers}}--Rocky 734 (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not clear what you are trying to achieve or why. There are some pie charts here. Is that the sort of thing you are looking for? I can't think how a template would be useful.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Shantavira: Thanks for your reply, that was also helpful, i finally found more better way to get most out of wikipedia by Wikipedia:statistics.

Meaning of "pipe"

I don't understand the meaning of 'pipe' (used to separate hyperlinks) please can you help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiandept.Of history&politics (talk • contribs) 08:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Does WP:PIPE answer your question?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

How to first edit the list?

I have edited list of Nepali poets.I thank the Wikipedia for welcoming me. But there are some remarks that my editing was not conforming to Wikipedia rules. Kindly suggest me what should I do so that my entries are as per Wikipedia rules. And one thing more how to make my page and put my profile picture or Wikipedia will do this themselves through links I have provided.

Thanks and regards Santosh Kumar Pokharel Poett and Lyricist Nepal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santosh1961 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Santosh1961. Another user, Bonadea, has now left a message on your talk page explaining the problem. To expand upon that, you added your own name (with this edit) to List of Nepali language poets in a way that was clearly seen as trying to promote yourself. It was also badly formated, though that is irrelevant. Only people who are already deemed as 'Notable' should be included in these lists. They are not there for everyone to come and add their own names to whenever they feel like it. There needs to be a page on Wikipedia about them before they are added to these 'Lists'. Your edit summary also seemed highly promotional, too. So the two attempts - one by an IP - to add your name were removed.

We advise anyone thinking of writing about themselves on Wikipedia to stop, and to leave it to others who are not liable to be biased in what they write. You would have a clear Conflict of Interest if you were to write about yourself here. As this is an encyclopaedia, we only want neutrally written articles on notable topics which are based on independent, publish sources, not the personal opinion of the subjects themselves. There are also down-sides to writing about oneself (so please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY). I do not wish to disrespect you as a Nepali poet, but not everyone (including me) has been noticed sufficiently by the world to merit a page here about them. Other people are the best judges of whether you or I meet those criteria, and they will surely write about us if we do. I hope this answers your concerns, and may I suggest your interest in editing Wikipedia is directed towards improving the articles already on the List of Nepali language poets? Your knowledge of reliable, published sources who have written about them could be invaluable. Good luck in your editing journey here - there will be tea available soon, should you decide to stay on the editing road. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Include parts of template without labels

Hello, I'd like to update several "software comparisons" pages with up-to-date information about the programs mentioned. This includes updating version numbers. Some of these applications have a Template:LSR (Latest software release) which can easily be embedded. This reduces the maintenance required in the future and should ensure that all version information is always updated. My problem is the following: In comparison pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_text_editors, the latest version and the date of the release of the latest version are in separate fields. Is there an easy way to include only the latest_release_version or latest_release_date from the template into the respective cells? I found the articles regarding section labels, but that seems quite complicated for such a task. Thanks & have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by XYQuadrat (talk • contribs) 21:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, XYQuadrat. I notice that your question here at the Teahouse has gone unanswered for nearly three days - which is extremely unusual. I fear it may be a little too technical for us. I certainly can't think of a simple way to achieve what you ask. You might now be better of repeating your question either at WP:HD, or at WP:VPT. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

My first edit in mainspace

Dear fellow wikipedians,

I'd like to make my first edit on the article Food processing, which classifies it into primary, secondary, and tertiary. And, where primary is further elaborated into -among others- livestock.

For livestock I'd like to create a new article called Poultry processing (it doesn't exist yet, neither something similar).

How do I go ahead? For example, should I start with a disambiguation page mentioning all kinds of meat processing first or should I make a Stub with a Wiki markup/link, and then create another article for poultry processing?

Thanks for your help.

Dotsonti Let's Talk! 15:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Dotsonti, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is an essay called Write the article first, which I wholly endorse. Links, disambiguation pages (and also images and infoboxes) are superficial ornamentation compared to the challenging but much more valuable task of creating a well-sourced and well-written article.

I advise looking at Your first article, and using the Article wizard to create a draft. Once you submit your draft for review and it is accepted, then is the time to look at DAB pages. Please don't aim to create a stub: they were valuable at an earlier stage of Wikipedia's development, but now they are really not helpful: instead, create a draft, and work on making it into an article. --ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dotsonti: I don't want to curb anyone's enthusiasm for editing, but on top of what ColinFine has said, I do think you ought to check out the existing article called Broiler industry and then decide whether you are better off editing and enhancing that one, or how you would justify creating a completely new page called "Poultry processing". If you don't think a new article is justified, you can always create a Redirect so that anyone searching for one term gets taken to the other article. However, we do already have a redirect from Poultry processing, which takes you to Poultry farming. We do allow a redirect to be taken back and used for a new article, but you would need a really clear rationale to do so, and I don't hold out huge hope. Good luck, and do try out The Wikipedia Adventure to get an interactive tour of the basics of editing and contributing. I feel there's a joke to be teased out here about editors running around like headless chickens, but I'm sure it would have been deemed to have been in very poor taste had I tried! So I won't. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks for pointing out the article called Broiler industry, there is already a paragraph called "Broiler breeder farms" that contains a lot of similar information to what I had intended to use for the Poultry processing page. Therefore, I will see if I can make any improvements on that existing paragraph. Then maybe we can decide later to make it a section and deep link poultry processing to it. Or is that technically not possible? And, thanks for the tip to try the interactive tour, I'll look into it! Dotsonti Let's Talk! 14:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dotsonti: It would be eminently sensible to expand either an existing paragraph within the Broiler industry page, or to start a completely new section there, if necessary. Later on, should it expand sufficiently, you could consider splitting off that content into a new page. But only then - see WP:SPLITTING. The key thing is to think about how a user who is seeking information on a subject would feel. Keeping everything in one place is the best approach. Forcing them to go off at different directions into other pages is not helping them until such time as the article becomes so unwieldy that a discrete chunk is best placed on another page for them to refer to. I don't think we're anywhere near that stage yet. Hope this makes sense. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

sapna chaudhary famous haryanvi dancer page need to be create

sapna chaudhary is a famous haryanvi dancer. She have a log reach in rural india and they always wanted to know more and authentic about thier Icon so there should be page about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaurang kapoor (talk • contribs) 09:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• If she is famous, then there should be sources. Find them, and use the information to create an article at Draft:Sapna Chaudhary. Also when you are not in an article, add four tildes (~) to the end of your posts to sign them. ^{[Username Needed]} 10:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

McCausland page linking to Roberto McCausland Dieppa

I am requesting help on linking two pages.

I edited McCausland surname page to include Roberto McCausland Dieppa. As a notable person on Wikipedia for the purpose of linking to the bio stub article on Roberto McCausland Dieppa. Initial result was a red link I then added a pipe. which removed red link. I have made an error I believe and would truly appreciate assistance to complete a proper link edit. Thank you in advance for any guidance . --Deanna Coakley 01:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanna Coakley (talk • contribs)

Hi, Deanna Coakley and welcome to the Teahouse. To make it easy, I have rollbacked your edits to the McCausland disambiguation page. I was all set to insert it correctly when I spotted an issue. To be honest, I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to link to his middle name from that page. It's for surnames and, unless I've misread the article, that's not his surname - it's Dieppa. There's no hyphen linking the two as far as I could tell, which would have justified an entry in that DAB page. Had his 'nickname in life been McCausland, then a link from there would have been acceptable. Does this sound reasonable to you, or have I missed something. (Forgive me - I won't be able to reply as I'm heading off to bed now) Nick Moyes (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Per Naming customs of Hispanic America#Colombia, both McCausland and Dieppa could be surnames. Deanna Coakley, can you clarify whether this is the case? Then it should of course be included at McCausland. Regards SoWhy 10:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@SoWhy: It's nice to learn something new every day here! If that is indeed the case, then the text Deanna might wish to insert into the DAB page as a link is: * [[Roberto McCausland Dieppa]], Colombian pianist and composer It's a shame there is no known birth date in the article that can be used to aid clarity. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

how to name article

hello i'm trying to give my article a title on wikipedia. how best can i do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.184.177.201 (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Guidance on article titles can be found at WP:TITLE. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Query about translation.

I recently translated the St.Joseph`s College, Bangalore page to Hindi. How do i view the translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawarma98 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Shawarma98: Do you possibly mean St Joseph's College, Bangalore and hi:सेंट जोसेफ कॉलेज, बैंगलोर...? --CiaPan (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Shawarma98: And if you ever forget some other page you edited in Wikipedia, the listings of your local contributions in specific language (e.g., Special:Contributions/Shawarma98 or hi:Special:Contributions/Shawarma98,...) and global contributions at https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/?user=Shawarma98 may help. :) CiaPan (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Shawarma98: To answer your question, you can access other language versions in the box on the left lower side of the article. Articles created using the Content Translation tool will automatically be linked in Wikidata and appear in that box. Regards SoWhy 10:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! CiaPan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawarma98 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding logo

Hi

I’ve been trying to add a logo to our NGO page (IGLYO). When I tried to upload it directly, it was refused, so I uploaded in to Wiki Commons, but when I add the link it still doesn’t appear.

Any help appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plentyoriginal990 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Plentyoriginal990: and welcome to the Teahouse. Please make sure to read and follow the guideline for editing with a "conflict of interest" at WP:COI, including a transparent disclosure. Regarding your question: you'll find detailed advice about logo uploading and usage at Wikipedia:Logos. Note that only freely licensed or non-copyrightable (simple) logos may be uploaded to our sister project Commons. Non-free copyrighted logos used under a "fair use" claim should be uploaded to English Wikipedia instead (more details in the link). Please feel free to ask here again anytime if you have any further specific questions. GermanJoe (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• The criteria your image was placed under was incorrect so I had to tag it for Wikipedia:Speedy Deletion. ^{[Username Needed]} 15:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It says "The article that you're looking for doesn't exist"

Please fix it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayscott478 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Jayscott478. Would you like to give us a hint what you were looking for? I don't see how anybody can possibly "fix it" without (at least) that information. --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I create a new entry

Hi, I'm a lawyer in the US with an expertise in specialized commercial/business courts. I wanted to create new pages/entries for some of these specific courts. Could someone give me a brief explanation on how to create a new page on a new subject. Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeapp (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Leeapp, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia. Are you sure that the courts are not already covered, maybe within more general articles? In any case, a good starting point for the (rather difficult) task of creating a new article is Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

How to change the page that a search result goes to

Hello, I work for a magazine called "Business Insurance". Currently, when you search Wikipedia for Business Insurance (magazine), you are directed to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crain_Communications

This is the page for Crain Communications, which were the previous owners of Business Insurance. They sold the title to the new ownership in 2016. There is no reference to Business Insurance magazine currently on that page.

There is not an existing page for Business Insurance magazine.

What I would like to do is:

1. Create a new page for Business Insurance magazine 2. Direct users who search for "Business Insurance (magazine)" to this new page.

How would I do this?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:130D:4198:71C1:3B2:B26F:ACF1 (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

First, creating an account would be useful. Make sure your username represents only yourself, and not your organization. Then, create a draft about this. Make sure everything is sourced by third-party reliable sources, and comply with WP:PAID and WP:COI at all costs. Then, make sure this change has been covered in verifiable sources! If it has, great. If it hasn't, you might be out of luck. Finally, if you have followed all of this perfectly and everything is sourced, add {{subst:submit}} at the top. It;s now waiting to be approved! Unfortunately, there's a high backlog, and it might take a while, but it's better to do it this way because you can get feedback from experienced editors. As well, since you are affiliated with the company, you probably will not be given the same leeway as new editors are typically given. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

New Editors

What are some good ways that new, inexperienced editors can be helpful to the site? SovietxRefill (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey SovietxRefill. Probably a good place to start would be taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure, which will help you get acquainted with the way a lot of things on Wikipedia work. GMG^talk 17:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check it out! SovietxRefill (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Minor Edit

How do I know if the change is a minor edit or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lighthouse Storage (talk • contribs) 17:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a help page titled Help:Minor edit which may be useful to you. Is there something from that page we can clarify for you? --Jayron32 17:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

User:LearnUkrainian/Ukrainian Language and Culture School

Hello, I am participating in Ukrainian Wiki gap action. Can you help me please to publish the following article in English Wiki: "Ukrainian Language and Culture School" Thank you for your help.--LearnUkrainian (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@LearnUkrainian: Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there are several problems here. The first is that the account name LearnUkranian used to promote the school's article is promotional, and violates a Wikipedia policy about promotional names. See WP:ORGNAME. The second issue is that the two of you should clarify if you are the same account, both arriving here recently to promote this article. Lastly, the article has no sourcing and doesn't effectively show notability, per WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I got confused - this is just one account - LearnUkranian. Moving Jay's comments to new section. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Need help with a Vietnamese editor

I would like to leave a "welcome, but" talk page message for User:Pham quynh mo. Basically, none of his/her (4) edits is comprehensible in English, and the edit summaries are in Vietnamese, according to Google Translate. Could a Vietnamese-speaking "ambassador" work with me on this? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Arthur Rubin. As this is English Wikipedia, we expect all contributions and edit summaries to be written in some form of comprehensible English. As their edits were either minor refname changes or removal of references, but their edit summaries were in a non-English language, it still seems reasonable to conclude that they understand English well enough to make those changes to articles. So feel free to leave one of our standard welcome messages - or a more personal one of your own - directly on their user talk page. I have already posted a polite message asking them to communicate in English, as this is the accepted practice here. I could have 'welcomed' them too, but maybe you would prefer to do that yourself. (Surprisingly, they do not appear to have contributed to any other language wikis) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk)

@Nick Moyes: I suggest replacing the words ‘directly on their user page’ with ‘directly on their user talk page’ in the advice above. --CiaPan (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)  Done Nick Moyes (talk)

@Arthur Rubin: You could also take a look at Category:Non-English welcome messages, which have text both in English and in the user's language. –FlyingAce^✈hello 20:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Comic Sans

I'm a big supporter of comic sans, and I was wondering if its use would be acceptable on non-encyclopedic pages such as forums or my own user page. I learned basic html just so I could use it. Thanks

SovietxRefill (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@SovietxRefill: I think people expect a uniform look and feel on non-user pages, and variation can be distracting, but you can get creative on your own user page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

ok thanksSovietxRefill (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

no start date for marriage template

What should I do if there's no start date to put into Template:Marriage? I tried putting in a question mark, but it came out as invalid (at Velvalee Dickinson). The Verified Cactus 100% 22:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus: An alternative is to just put the info in the spouse field. Visit Template:Infobox person#TemplateData for more info and scroll down to read the spouse entry where it specifically addresses marriage dates. You can put in a question mark there. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I see, thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 23:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

How to deleted article on Wikipedia name mayank123456 srivastava

Mayank123456 srivastava is a indian or google blogger.sir Mayank is a student .he no free to notable in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guruvandanaraju (talk • contribs) 03:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Guruvandanaraju. If you are talking about User:Guruvandanaraju/sandbox, that page has not been deleted. However, it is nowhere near acceptable as an encyclopedia article. Please read and study Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is my username red?

Hi I have noticed that most other editors are blue and I was hoping I could make my name blue also. Do I have to file a request for this somewhere or does it only turn blue after I do a certain number of edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericspant (talk • contribs) 02:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The red link is to your user page, and shows red because you haven't created one yet. A user page is entirely optional, but guidance is available at WP:user pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I see. How do I create one? I want to have a prestigious presence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericspant (talk • contribs) 03:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Ericspant, simply go to User:Ericspant, click edit (if you don't already end up on the edit screen), and type a little bit about yourself. Gaelan 💬✏️ 03:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ericspant. The way to create a "prestigious presence" here on Wikipedia is by expanding and improving encyclopedia articles in full compliance with the applicable policies and guidelines. If you do that, then you can mention that good work on your user page. A fancy user page is no substitute for the hard work of building the encyclopedia. Substance is far more important than style. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I added content to your User page, so now blue. Delete what I wrote and create your own User page. See WP:Userpage for guidance. AND, please remember to 'sign' your comments here and on Talk pages by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

submitting and publications

so by clicking show publishing changes or save, thise that mean my article has been published to the public? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaxanie (talk • contribs) 03:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Khaxanie. If you're making changes to an existing Wikipedia page and you click "Publish changes", then those changes will be incorporated into the page and others will be able to see them. If you click "Show preview" or "Show changes", only you will be able to see the changes you've made; the page is technically not saved yet and your edits won't be officially saved until you click "Publish changes". If you close your browser or log off before clicking "Publish changes", your edit won't be saved and there will be no record of it in the page's history.

Now, the name "Publish changes" can be a bit confusing if you're talking about creating a new article. It appears you might be asking how to "publish" the draft you're working on at User:Khaxanie/sandbox. What needs to be done here is to WP:MOVE the page from your user sandbox to the article namespace. Clicking "Publish changes" will save the page for you, but it will not automatically move the page for you. The page needs to be manually moved by either you yourself or another editor. I wouldn't recommend you moving the page yourself, however, because it can be tricky to do for a new editor and also because I think what you've written so far is likely going ti end deleted fairly quickly. Instead, I think it would be better for you submit your draft for review via Wikipedia:Articles for creation so that an experienced reviewer can look it over and offer some suggestions on ways to improve it. I think it might be a good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article, Help:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Too soon and maybe even Wikipedia:Autobiography because writing a proper Wikipedia article from scratch is a pretty hard thing to do, especially if you're not too familiar with what Wikipedia is and isn't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Editing "List of Afghans"

hello, I was wondering if I may edit "list of Afghans" and have my input of some popular and famous past and present afghans with relevant resources as my referencing? Thanks, Solomon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmankhan6 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Salmankhan6. Your changes were reverted by an editor named IronGargoyle for the reason given in this edit summary. Being reverted is something that happens to all editors and one time or another, so please don't take it personally. If you still feel the changes you made still should be made, please follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and propose them again at Talk:List of Afghans. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

(editconflict) Hello Salmankhan6, and welcome to the Teahouse! Nothing prevents you from being WP:BOLD and have at it. Note though, that the Afghans in this list should only be those that already have their own WP-articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I just corrected some terminology which is more appropriate in the langauge of describing ethnic groups and way of describing certain things with afghan people. I will edit with references more afghans and people with afghan ancestry tomorrow. thank you for you response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmankhan6 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Salmankhan6: You were bold in making a change to an article, but your change was reverted by another editor who asked you to discuss things on the article talk page. You then tried to make the same change again, and was reverted once again with another request to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. You then tried to make the same change for the third time, but I've gone ahead and reverted you. Continuing to try and make this change to the article without establishing a consensus for it is going to be seen as edit warring and will almost certainly lead to an administrator stepping in and possibly even blocking your account. Many new editors make the same mistake you're making, but once you've been bold and then subsequently reverted by another editor, it is up to you to DISCUSS things on the article's talk page and convince others that the change you want to make actually should be made. The link I posted above is to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; it's not to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert back to your preferred version, discuss cycle.

Finally, please also try to remember to sign your talk page posts. There are couple ways to do so, but the easiest way is explained in WP:TILDE. Signing your posts makes it easier for others to know who posted what and when it was posted. It's also good talk page practice -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Why are the links red

Some links about loops are red. How to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayscott478 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Jayscott478. Welcome back to the Teahouse. You seem to have asked a number of questions recently on roughly the same topic, without telling us what the page is you're concerned about. A redlink is an internal hyperlink to a page which doesn't yet exist, and on a topic that someone 'thinks' is worthy of having an article. They might be wrong in that assumption, but it's a hint that they think one is needed. See Wikipedia:Red link for more information, and next time please sign your posts with four keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~) and supply a link to the page you're talking about. The way to fix a red link is to try to create the article, or to leave it for someone else to try. Quite often an experienced editor will remove redlinks where they think there's no likelihood that an article so linked would ever meet our Notability criteria. See this page for help with that. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The Highgate Vampire

Somebody by the name of Steven Slater has been deleting every single revision I have made to this entry on the grounds of "conflict of interest."

What conflict? I am the author of "The Highgate Vampire" and if anyone knows anything about that particular case it is me.

The original writer of the article (Jacqueline Simpson) is a personal friend of David Farrant and harbours enmity toward me. If that is not a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.

Until a few hours ago, her entry had me described as "extremely unhinged." How was that not considered a conflict of my interest? It was indeed libellous and defamatory.

The entry itself is exceptionally biased, misleading and packed with factual inaccuracies. Yet every time I attempt to correct some of the error it is instantly deleted.

I have now received a warning from Steven Slater that I could be banned. What on earth is going on? This is undemocratic and surely violates my right to not be misrepresented and abused.

The Wikipedia entry for the Highgate Vampire, therefore, is worthless; save for use as ammunition by those in the business of trolling and waging vendettas against me.

It really ought to be taken down in view of it being nothing more than a platform from which to attack me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishop Seán Manchester (talk • contribs) 17:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually not every single revision, I let at least one stand. Ohh and it was me who removed "extremely unhinged.", so lets not portray this as if I am protecting Ms Simpsons version of the page (or having some vendetta against you). The issue was a series of edits that violated COI, as well as being OR and unsourced. You continued this after being told you had a COI (and being asked to "take it to the talk page" and being pointed to wp:COI) hence my warning. If you continue down this road (and with this attitude) you are also going to fall foul of wp:nothere and wp:rightgreatwrongs. Please listen, this is not some gatepost to get at you. I was brought there by a post ant the Fringe noticeboard, trust me if you fall foul of some them you will look at how I have treated you as a model of fairness.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

location infobox

When i tried to add location infobox using source code the infobox doesn’t appear.Why did that happen? Not debil (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Not debil. If you're talking about your edits to your sandbox, the infobox wasn't showing up because {{infobox swiss town}} doesn't exist, whereas {{infobox Swiss town}} (note the uppercase ess) does. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

not to sandbox but to article because it doesn’t appear in preview page I just discard it. I want to know why Not debil (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Not debil: Anything you typed into an edit screen but only previewed and didn't save can never be seen by anyone else but you. Therefore, unless you show us what the edit contained, it is literally impossible for us to know what the problem was.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

A question

Is there a way to preview an article just by moving your mouse over its wikilink? I mean like to show only the lead paragraph and maybe the photo without having to enter the article--SharabSalam (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi SharabSalam. You can try Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget about Page Previews :) StaringAtTheStars (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. That was very helpful--SharabSalam (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding Page Numbers to a Citation Used more than once

I have a reference that I use several times in an article I'm writing. I want to use the standard <ref name="BookName"> rather than repeat the whole reference multiple times. However, I want to reference different specific pages in the book for some of the references. I.e., the first reference would be for pp. 110-115 and the second reference for pp. 23-30. (Note this is a different problem than my previous question, this is just one book by a single author rather than an edited book with articles by several authors). Is there an easy way to do this? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey MadScientistX11. Always good to see you. If you don't want to use parenthetical referencing, or shortened footnotes, then you can use {{rp}}, which was created by another user after I was looking for a solution to just this problem, back in the mists of time here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Same here, thanks, that looks great! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: The problem seems replied now, but ...have you seen Help:References and page numbers? --CiaPan (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Time Frame

Hello. I re-submitted an article - "Trevor Clark (writer)" - in January that I believe meets Wikipedia's standards after initially being rejected for improper citations, and was just wondering what the normal waiting period for a final review might be?

Thanks - Whitefinch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitefinch (talk • contribs) 23:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Whitefinch: The Draft:Trevor_Clark_(writer) is not currently in the review queue. If you think it is ready for another review, then click the "resubmit" button at the top of the draft. RudolfRed (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Awkward Space

This is kind of driving me crazy: Why is there an awkward space at the top of this article: "Zero Point (photometry)" [[1]]? I can't seem to delete it. Could someone show me how? Thanks!

Sam-2727 (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sam-2727:, I removed the br, is that better? Schazjmd (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Schazjmd:. Yes! Thank you!

Sam-2727 (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is currently vandalism under the ‘Personal life’ section of Linda Henry, related to her age. I saw it via Twitter and went to remove it but the page is protected. can someone help out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.82.88 (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

You can submit an edit request via the talk page of the article and request your changes. If you would like to edit semi-protected pages, create an account. Mstrojny (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Our contribution about the "Moon" Information was removed by "Zefr" - editor / admin

Hi , I recently made contribution to the "moon" information, X found on the moon . The real evidence is submitted with photos. The people who captured the images includes my son, myself and Yvonne from Malaysia. Whereas the information was undone by an admin or editor saying they are not constructive. I would like Wikipedia to have common sense. While they are building Nuclear powers in space potentially bringing harm to mankind , I believe the real space and moon activity should be revealed to the public. These are constructive evidence coming to light little by little.

I Would like Zefr to undo the removal (of my contribution) . The moon contribution made by myself was accurate with photographic evidence. Its time people know about the facts on the moon and its surfaces. Zefr has not made any research on the topic nor viewed the moon in detail as what we have done. Its wrong for Zefr to remove facts out of mere self opinion.

Annamalai1973 (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Annamalai1973

Wikipedia does not accept original research. That includes photos you and associates have taken. Any changes to articles, ESPECIALLY Featured Articles (the star on top bar, right) require references to sources of good reputation. Extraordinary claims for evidence of non-human engineering on the Moon will require extraordinary references. YouTube and an obscure book are not appropriate. Your mention of consideration of nuclear weapons in space has nothing to do with the Moon article. David notMD (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Where should I report an editor

I am having issues with an editor that is insulting other editors and is not here to contribute. The matter is not urgent but does need to be addressed relatively quickly. My post was removed from AIV and I was told that that was not the right spot for it. However, it is not severe enough for long-term abuse. Where should I go with it? Almy (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Almy. It appears to me that this editor has confined their activity to their sandbox recently. Earlier, they were posting bizarre accusations against other editors. My suggestion is to do nothing unless and until disruption resumes. If that happens, file a report at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Where do I discuss this important issue with Admins?

Wikipedia is being turned into a mess due to excessive use of Indian media sources, which needs to be tackled as soon as possible. Indian media is ranked 138 on world press freedom index, tops list of countries where fake news is passed off in mainstream and should be partially banned from being used as reliable source on Wiki environment.

Any page where issues like these can be discussed with Wikipedia?- Gracespingmier (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC) -- block evading sock puppet, struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE --DBigXrayᗙ 05:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gracespingmier. I am an administrator, and am always willing to discuss the reliability of specific sources. I use the word "specific" because we do not accept or reject sources based on the country where they are published. Of course, there are problems with press freedom and fake news in India, but this is true to a greater or lesser extent of every country on Earth. For example, the president of the United States regularly attacks respected news organizations as "fake news" and "the enemy of the people". Please note that Pakistan is 139 on that list. We cannot write decent articles about the India/Pakistan conflict, for example, by banning all sources from those two countries. Instead, the proper approach is to select the best and most reliable sources from both countries, and from other countries, and write articles in accordance with the neutral point of view. The place where we discuss the use of specific sources for specific purposes is the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Read the instructions at the top of that page carefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

References

X on the moon contribution removed by Zefr (editor)

Our recent contribution was something like this :

Recent unresolved issues on the moon are the X structures found on the moon. A young hopeful astronomer and Photographer took detail pictures of the moon with his 8 inch Reflector telescope and discovered that the X markings (X structures on the photo frame to frame appears to be moving when seen in sequence ).

The X markings looks and sounds eerily similar to the book "somebody else is on the moon" written by Scientist George H. Leonard in 1976 <Copyright violation removed> . (page 60 states " for a case in point, look at the foot of the ridge in plate 12. There is a large X-drone there, one of the largest I have seen on the Moon. It measures at least a mile and a half and probably more from tip to tip. It looks like this : Please go to page 60 :

In this video footage about the moon , a similar cross or X can be seen at minute 12:09 , According to the Video footage these are NASA photo's

I believe wikipedia is part of a cover up to hide Nuclear activity on the moon and outer space , which is why the editors are removing our contribution by saying "have been undone because they did not appear constructive"

I strongly believe the space activity and Nuclearization should be exposed , it is a concerted effort by editors to hide Nuclearization which is greatly connected to the moon but yet editors says it is nothing to do with the moon :

Quote : 28. Some delegations expressed the view that the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space was a competent organ to consider all issues affecting the peaceful uses of outer space, including any militariza- tion of outer space, which was contrary to international law, such as the Charter of the United Nations and the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the “Outer Space Treaty”, General Assembly resolution 2222 (XXI), annex) of 1967. Those delegations expressed the view that consideration of prevention of an arms race in outer space by the First Committee of the General Assembly and the Conference on Disarmament should not prevent the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space from also considering related issues.

Annamalai1973 (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

No it's not. It's credulous conspiracy theory bullshit and original research. Do not waste your time; it will not be allowed anywhere on Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

References

More politely, you have twice posted here at Teahouse a protest that your edits to the Moon article were unfairly removed. Both times, the response was that your 'evidence' does not meet Wikipedia standards. You can believe all you wish, but Wikipedia is not part of any cover-up. A more appropriate place to try to make your argument would be the Talk page of the Moon article, but the end result would be the same. David notMD (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for a second opinion (after article rejection)

Hello My article was declined with the comment: Wikipedia is not for publishing research papers or abstracts. Is it possible to request the opinion of an additional editor before making changes to the original draft? If so, how do I do this? Thank you, Nili — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nili Dahan (talk • contribs) 08:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nili Dahan: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would concur with the person who declined your draft. No amount of editing will make original research acceptable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only for summarizing what other, independent reliable sources have written about a subject. I might suggest that you use the new user tutorial which will help you understand what is being looked for and how to do it. Reading Your First Article may help as well. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that the draft is closer to being an essay and original research than it is an encyclopedic article. In addition, articles on medicine/health topics are restricted to referencing meta-analyses, systematic reviews, reviews, NGO guidelines, etc. (see WP:MEDRS). This means no citing in vitro or animal research, which so much of your draft rests on. David notMD (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Article on Abhinandan Varthaman

Article on Indian wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman claims in the opening paragraph that he shot down a Pakistani F-16 jet, there is no proof to this whatsoever. Please ask editor of this article to change or remove this claim and report the facts only. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.64.234 (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please discuss content-related concerns at the article's talkpage Talk:Abhinandan Varthaman, and provide some independent reliable sources for discussion (the Teahouse is mainly focussing on editing-related help for new editors). I noticed that another IP editor already started a discussion there - you are welcome to add your viewpoint and additional sources to this thread at the article's talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

HELP! I am so frustrated I'm pulling my hair out

I am trying to have our university upload a new photograph of a professor of ours to Wikimedia commons. I made the mistake the first time by claiming to own the copyright because my office took the photo, but it belongs to NYU. The photo was flagged by a moderator, so I went to my universities main communications office to have them upload the photo stating correctly that my university owns the copyright. But someone flagged that photo, saying that I own the copyright, apparently. here's the message I got: Oppose User:Kgberg also claims to own the copyright. Please ask the correct copyright owner to verify the license through Commons:OTRS. Fine. But can someone please, in common English, explain to me how to do this? I don't have the time to pick this apart. Anyone? Again, the university I work for, not I, owns the copyright. Kgberg (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You asked the question at commons:Commons:Help desk#Adding a photo to Wikimedia commons and received a reply there, including a link to commons:Commons:OTRS. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism

Hi I've recently started looking for and reverting vandalism on Wikipedia and have encountered a problem with two IPs 2602:30a:2cbb:a3b0:ec69:fdd9:2351:950 and 162.203.186.59 on Alien vs. Predator (film) who repeatedly edit the year of the film's release to 2014 rather than 2004. I'm not whether (or how) to report this or take some other action. Thanks in advance. The Skeptical Ham (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The place to find advice on how to deal with vandalism is at WP:Vandalism. Before you think of reporting anybody, you need to warn them on their user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)