(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

Greetings,

I own a Trademarked name of a Wikipedia page and I would like to know my options for protecting the page? I have just joined the Wikipedia family and therefore I am not an administrator. The page that I am inquiring about was not created by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlborgert (talk • contribs) 14:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if we knew which article you are referring to. - X201 (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Earlborgert: just so I'm clear, you are the owner of a Trademark - presumably a company or organisation of some kind? - about which there is a Wikipedia article? And what do you mean exactly by 'protecting' the page?

I can tell you that as the owner of the company, you should avoid editing the page directly, but if you wish to make changes you can request them on the talk page of the article. You cannot, however, prevent other editors from editing the article - this is an encyclopedia and if your organisation is notable, Wikipedia can have an article about it, your Trademark does not give you any rights over the content on Wikipedia. If the article is being vandalised or otherwise damaged, don't worry as other editors will be very happy to prevent this. Hug^syrup 14:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan the Gorilla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_(gorilla) is a trademarked name & some of the information contained in the page is inaccurate.

Earl

@Earlborgert: Alright. Please suggest changes on the talk page, not all of us have the time to go through the page in its entirety hunting issues. The trademark does not affect wikipedia in any way, and while you are here, you should simply forget about it. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it was possible to trademark the name of a deceased gorilla. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, Me neither, I'm just going with it, because they clearly think they can. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it could be done in order to sell things with the gorilla's image or name on it. Maybe. In any event, it's immaterial to protecting the article, which won't be done for this reason. 331dot (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, And that indeed appears to be the case. See trademark 86913298, which happens to be owned by this guy. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback & the inaccurate content is not harmful, I just wanted to inquire about my rights in general since Ivan was my family member. Earl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlborgert (talk • contribs)

EarlborgertWhat info about Ivan is inaccurate?, please discuss on the talk page. I remember Ivan well, saw him each time I visited your family's World Famous B&I Circus Store.Three painted concrete walls and a large plate glass window for customers to view him.Always felt pity for him.Oldperson (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Earlborgert: You have the right to request changes to the page at any time if you find any issues. You can also edit it directly like any other editor, but it may be reverted for Conflict Of Interest related reasons. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the advice but one last question. Why would the truth be reverted for a Conflict of Interest reason? Earl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlborgert (talk • contribs)

@Earlborgert: Generally, if you abide by wikipedia policy, it won't happen. The problem is people with a COI have trouble adhering to policy like Neutral point of view. I recommend you read one of our essays on these policies, Verifiability, not truth. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and thank you for the clarification. I will review the article. Earl

@Earlborgert: It might also be reverted if your source is merely your own personal knowledge. For example, you might know that Ivan's favorite fruit was mangoes, but unless that is mentioned in some sort of publication we can't say it. In most cases the source should also be independent of the subject. --Khajidha (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For transparency, you should post on your User page the nature of your connection to Ivan. And as Khajidha stated, Wikipedia requires verification. Truth without verification is not sufficient. David notMD (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you clearly consider your trademark a valuable asset, the you certainly stand to derive financial benefits by having your say on the content of the article. Earlborgert, because of that you are considered a WP:PAID editor. There are numerous restrictions placed on PAID editors, and you are expected to learn about these and follow them. One of those restrictions requires you to post a disclosure on your user page. It is in no way optional. You also need to add a notice to the article's talk page, and except for indisputable vandalism reverts, are forbidden from directly editing the article. We are not here to tell your version of this story. We derive content from what reliable sources say. (WP:RS is our definition of reliable.) John from Idegon (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you trademarked the name Ivan the Gorilla for use in marketing certain items. That doesn't give you any say whatsoever about what anyone says about said gorilla. All it means is no one else can use use the name in conjunction with marketing kids toys. That's all. So, by all means, read PAID, comply with its requirements and make edit requests on the article talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote about this before at the Help Desk and at the Village Pump, but got no response.

As of 13 November, I can not access Wikipedia from Google Chrome. I get an error message that reads

www.wikipedia.org normally uses encryption to protect your information. When Google Chrome tried to connect to www.wikipedia.org this time, the website sent back unusual and incorrect credentials. This may happen when an attacker is trying to pretend to be www.wikipedia.org, or a Wi-Fi sign-in screen has interrupted the connection. Your information is still secure because Google Chrome stopped the connection before any data was exchanged. You cannot visit www.wikipedia.org right now because the website uses HSTS. Network errors and attacks are usually temporary, so this page will probably work later.

If there is anything I can do on my side that will address this issue, please let me know. I am using Microsoft Edge right now, but I really would prefer to use Chrome. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I am using Chrome now and I am having no problems. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzledvegetable, Hi. Have you tried en.wikipedia.org instead? Basic things to try when browsing error occurs that doesn't make sense (which in this case would be because you're already signed in to the router and your ISP, and you are trying the actual address of the website and haven't made a typo in there), would be to check that the computer's calendar is up to date (both date and time, may be even the timezone), update the browser, turn off VPN, clear browser cache, restart the computer, etc. Which of these have you tried and hasn't worked? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously not a Wikipedia problem, but a problem with your Chrome settings. You could ask at WP:RD/C, or there are plenty of results if you do a Google search. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzledvegetable IOW, does it work when you use this link: en.wikipedia.org? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Puzzledvegetable: HSTS remembers the "correct" certificate and prevents connection when somebody substitutes a different one. Are you on a corporate network or somehere like that, where they may have valid reason to decrypt and inspect your web traffic (TLS inspection)? If they have changed something in your environment then you should also be seeing problems with sites like Google Search, if you had used them before Nov 13. Could you view the certificate and report back whom it's issued by? (Include the root CA and all intermediate CAs, please.) Please ping me in replies. –Pelagic (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia use British English or American English? I have seen instances where users are in dispute over whether British or American spellings should be used, such as here and here. I would like to know, so that I can avoid getting into such disputes myself. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 18:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWarrior9919, It's complicated. Essentially, use whichever the article you're editing uses. If you're making a new article, use whichever you prefer. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moonythedwarf Alright. Thank you. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 18:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWarrior9919, There are exceptions to this. For example, an article on New York City uses American English because it has strong national ties to the article. London is written in British English for the same reasons. Please read: MOS:ENGVAR for more info on this. Interstellarity (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellarity Got it. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 18:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you find an article where both varieties are used (and there is no obvious choice as described above), then the one to choose is the one that was first used in the history of the article. This might require a bit of research to determine. See WP:ENGVAR for details. Dbfirs 19:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to lean towards WP:TIES in toss-up cases. If someone creates an Indian placename stub with AmE, and there is signficant addition in InE since, I would make it InE consistenly. Note that English variety changes are often controversial, but particularly so when they are to the non-WP:TIES variety. Date formats have similar issues. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that the TIES test should come first, but there are many articles that have no ties to any particular country. In the case cited above, the British spelling programme should be used under both tests. Dbfirs 07:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to advise you about the reference no 14 on Libby Houston's page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libby_Houston - which reads

"Site Report for October 2010 – visit to field around Victory Park, Brislington, Bristol" (PDF). brislingtonarchaeology.org.uk. Brislington Community Archaeology Project. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 February 2014. Retrieved 21 August 2012.

Brislington Community Archaeology Project ceased in 2016, and the person who was supposed to take on the domain name didn't: it was subsequently bought by a porn site, where the links now leads. I can't find any way to remove the reference myself: can a moderator do it? Or can you advise how I do it myself?

Thanks in anticipationThe OriginalAlestrel (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general, such citations should not be deleted, _The OriginalAlestrel, but rather an archived copy should be found, and used to update the citation. See WP:DEADREF for instructions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When an archived copy is found, you can set |url-status= to usurped to prevent the original link from showing. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there - you seem to be clicking the hyperlink in the words 'the original' in the citation. If you click the actual first link in the citation itself, it should lead you to this wayback machine link of the PDF. Easy mistake to make, I've done it myself. Hope this helps. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the url-status to usurped, so the porn page is no longer linked. Case closed. Fabrickator (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good thing to know about. I hadn't heard of the "usurped" status before but I'm very glad to hear it exists. Thanks! › Mortee _talk 23:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to remove the URL, so that someone doesn't try copying the link into the search bar? ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 12:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we do that? --Khajidha (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi y'all!

When there's been ambiguity between the name of a rapper and something else, I've generally seen the article on the rapper be moved to <rapper>_(rapper) (e.g. Eminem_(rapper)), but today I encountered Face_(rap_artist). Assuming Face_(rapper) would is the de-facto correct title for the article, is it worth moving? And if not, is there some sort of standard on what words should be used in parenthetical disambiguation?

Tiraboschi (talk) 09:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tiraboschi, the title policy for articles is at WP:TITLE. WP:DAB also has valuable information. And, it's not as simple as putting a rapper's biography at "Name (rapper)". As you'll note, Eminem doesn't have a (rapper) after his name. That said, I do agree with your observation and reasoning in this particular case. I managed to reach WP:SINGERDAB starting at Category:Wikipedia naming conventions, and it specifically recommends your choice. Hence, I endorse your proposal to move the page, and of course, also recommend you read/bookmark the policy/guidelines pages I just linked, for future reference. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks}, I wasn't aware of WP:SINGERDAB. I'll keep it in mind! I've also moved the page :) Tiraboschi (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all- I have just now deleted a large section of material on the Voynich manuscript page which was comprised of three paragraphs and an image which were nothing but unsourced claims about alleged connections between Asiatic languages and the Voynich manuscript. The content had been on the website essentially unchallenged since 2004.

I invite you to take a look at my triage work on that page ([1]).

Thanks for any input. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appears you deleted three paragraphs in the Natural Languages section that have been in the article for a very long time, but without references. I suggest you create a new section on the Talk page to concisely describe what you did. David notMD (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geographyinitiative, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your edit. It actually looks like you have found and removed a 15 year-old copyright violation from the page. In your edit summary you noted that the same material exists at [2] - I had a look and our article is a verbatim copy of the link you provided. Copyright violations are very serious and should be removed whenever they are found, so thank you. Having had a brief look at the article and the website you provided, I would guess that there are more copyright violations in the article. I will report the article at the copyright problems noticeboard and put a note on the article's talk page. WJ94 (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soon after creating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Oliver_(artist,_born_1823) I received a message as follows When creating draft articles please could you start with a fresh page, it is very confusing to find that looking at the history of William Oliver (artist, born 1823) the article began life as a draft for another article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC) I therefore investigated this problem further. When I clicked 'sandbox' On my User:BFP1/sandbox page it said Draft William Oliver. I then went to 2 other articles that I either created or extensively edited, namely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_James_Wilson and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul-L%C3%A9on_Jazet. When clicking 'sandbox' on both these articles I again got Draft William Oliver on the User:BFP1/sandbox pages. It was the same for another three articles that I had edited.

This is presumably why the resultant history was a confusing composite of previously edted articles. I think it was caused by using the same sandbox page (writing and deleting drafts) for all the articles. Obviously this should stop. So how do I start a fresh page (with its new associated sandbox) if I want to draft a new article? Also, if I want to extensively edit an existing article do I do a preparatory draft on the User:BFP1 page (rather than a sandbox) before copying and pasting into the article? I apologise for inadvertently continuing what, for many, was such a basic error. BFP1 (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BFP1, hi. If you search for the title you want to create, you will get a message saying the page doesn't exist, and asking if you would like to create it; if you follow the link, you'll be asked if you want to create a userspace draft - that's how I always create new articles. When it's ready to publish, just move it into article space, as you have been doing with your sandbox. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BFP1, thanks for your question. It looks like you are a little confused about what the sandbox is. When you say that you are clicking the sandbox link on different articles, do you mean the one at the top, which appears along with a link to your talk page, preferences, etc? This link is not specific to the article you are on - it directs you to your own sandbox, rather than the sandbox of a particular article. This means that it will always direct you to the same place, whatever page you click it from. Articles do not have their own sandboxes - feel free to make your edits directly to articles. If you want to check what you have written before you publish it, click the "Show preview" button - it is good advice to preview your edits every time.

If you want to create a new article and would like to draft it before you publish it into the main article space, you can create a draft in your user space. Your user space is any page which begins with "User:BFP1/". So if you wanted to draft an article called "New page", you would create it at User:BFP1/New page. To create this page, type it into the search bar - if the page does not already exist, you will be given a link to create it. I hope that helps with some of your questions; let me know if you need further help. WJ94 (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hello again, BFP1. You don't need an "associated sandbox" for a draft, and in fact there isn't an "associated sandbox with these various article drafts. When a draft is started in your user sandbox and later moved to a draft page, a redirect is left behind in the sandbox, so that clicking on the sandbox link takes you to the draft. Doing a copy&paste (which i strongly advise against) leaves the history of the former draft in the sandbox. In my view, the better practice is to start each draft on its own fresh page. There are several ways to do that. One is to decide on the desires name of the page and to use Special:Search to look for it. When the results start with "ou may create the page ..." click on the red link and start editing, and save (publish changes) to create the new page. Another is to type the desired new name into the "Search Wikipedia " box near the top of every Wikipedia page, and again click the resulting red link and edit. A third is to edit some page, such as your snad box, and create a linbk to the desired new name, such as [[User:BFP1/NewTopic]] or [[Draft:NewTopic]]. You don't even have to save this, just preview. Then click the red link and start editing as above. Any of these will get you a new draft page without a prior history. When/if you want AfC review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. Or just move the draft to article space directly. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody BFP1 (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC) That helps with starting a fresh page. What if I want to greatly expand a named stub article? I would like a suitable space for large scale preparatory editing with no retention of history. Then that draft can be pasted into the article and recorded as history relating to the article. BFP1 (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BFP1 It is often (albeit not always) better to do such improvements incrementally in the article itself. But if you don't want to do that, you can use a user page for it. Say you want to improve the stub XYZ. Then create User:BFP1/XYZ-Revisions (say) by any of the methods described above. Do your edits there, and when you are ready, paste them back into XYZ. As long as no other editor edits yiur work page, you don't need to do anything about the history. (However if anyone else does edit your work page, you will need to preserve attributions, at least by linking in the edit summary when you do the paste, and preferably by using {{Copied}}. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more detail. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC) However, BFP1, it would probably be wise to announce your intent on the talk page of the stub, Talk:XYZ in the example above, and when you do the paste, to post an explanation of your changes to that same talk page. This lets other interested editors (if there are any) know what is going on, and makes a reveert for "unexplained major changes" less likely. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DESiegel BFP1 (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In America, immigrants direct from Japan are called, Issei (ichi=1=first)( generation), Children born to the Issei in America are called Nissei (Ni =2=second) not Nikkei as in your article. The grandchild of a direct Japanese immigrant is called a Sansei (san=3=third), and so on by the japaneses numeric yomikata (number tablet) so, the forth generation of a direct immigrant from Japan is a Yonsei. That is how Japanese Americans count thier generation from the direct imigrant. I am a forth generation descendant of an England Imigrant, from Scothern England, Ishmael Scothern is my Great great Grandfather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.69.34 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you post this to the relevant article talk page, and then correct the article. If some editor reverts, do not edit war, rather discuss on the talk page, as per Bold, revert, discuss. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is Topaz War Relocation Center. The word nikkei means "Japanese diaspora" and is used correctly in that article. It means people of Japanese ancestry living outside of Japan, without regard to the number of generations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

because the weird people cut everything away

Lutz Fehling 89.15.238.121 (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lutz Fehling, do you have a question about editing English Wikipedia? If so, feel free to ask it here in this section (don't start a new section, just click the "Edit" next to the heading "There is no "happy editing", I'm afraid", and add your text below.) As stated when your previous section was closed, people here are not able to help with questions about German Wikipedia. Each language version of Wikipedia is its own project. --bonadea contributions talk 16:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We English-speakers have no more control, or influence, over German Wikipedia than German speakers do over English Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to contact an editor to discuss a revision to an article. I have gone to his/her talk page to ask a question, but it just seems a list of interests. There does not appear a space to to ask a question. How do I do it? BFP1 (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't say for sure without seeing the page in question, I suspect you visited their user page rather than user talk page. Clicking on someone's name on a revision of a page leads to their userpage. You can navigate from there to their talk page by clicking the tab "Talk" near the top left of the page. Alternatively, you can navigate directly to someone's user talk page by clicking the link 'talk' after their user name from the revision history of a page. (Most signatures also include links to one's user and/or user talk page: in the standard signature format (like yours), the username leads to the user page and the (talk) link to the talk page. In custom signatures, the links may be more hidden. See for example my own: the first half of my signature (yellow text on purple background) links to my user page; the second half (purple text on yellow) to my talk page.) AddWittyNameHere 18:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that is helpful. BFP1 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, My inline citations are no longer numbering properly in my References, nor are they visible. I noticed that they began to disappear and the numbers became jumbled when I began making changes to the citations. I refreshed the page, removed all text and tried to essentially start over with a blank slate and as I added my first citation, which should have auto-populated as [1], it's showing up as [5]. Any ideas as to why this is happening and how I can get past this?

Thank you for your assistance. Dawnpalmyra (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnpalmyra, what article or draft is this about? Your list of contributions does not show any page where you've been using references. Maproom (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnpalmyra, you need to include your citations between <ref> and </ref> tags. Generally, it is preferable to use a {{cite web}} template (or other "cite" template) so that the citation can include more that just the url. BTW, "less than"/"greater than"/"less than or equal"/"greater than or equal" are not the way to "wikify" your links. Look at the source of other pages ("edit" them but don't save) for examples of citations and urls in general, you shouldn't have to look too hard. Fabrickator (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am editing the released removal draft for Carmen Gentile. The issue seems to have resolved itself. Thank you.

Dawnpalmyra, unless you've got a lot more than is at Draft:Carmen Gentile, this fella doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NCREATIVE. In short, it doesn't look like this guy qualifies for a biography. John from Idegon (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a help article I saw recently that described syntax about how to crop an image. It showed a cropped image that focused on a drop of water on a leaf. I'm having trouble finding it again. Also, is there a way to crop images using multiples of the original dimensions, instead of pixels as that guidance described? Thanks so much! – Kekki1978 talk 19:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I once read a page about how to crop images. But I found it hard to understand, so I put some working examples on a user subpage at User:Maproom/cropping for my own use. I can't help with your second question. Maproom (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom, your info is great! Thank you. Regards. – Kekki1978 talk 05:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When editing an article and using the "templates" to insert a citation ("cite web", "cite news" and "cite book") and selecting the "show extra fields" option, there is an "archive url" field displayed. For "cite web", the "url-status" field is also displayed, but it is not displayed for "cite news" or "cite book". I presume that this is an oversight.

Please suggest where this should be reported (or perhaps "the teahouse" is good enough). (ex post facto edit) Fabrickator (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fabrickator. If you do not receive a good answer here, please try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrickator, I am not sure what the criteria is for what is displayed there. I am guessing it is either the most relevant ones (in which case there would be a room for an oversight) or the most used ones. Of course, for cite web, what's most relevant would be the url and the status of it, while that's not at all true for news or book, for both of which url isn't one of the primary requirements. Indeed, I imagine in a perfect world, we'd have more cites to offline books and newspapers than online ones. At any rate, there are dozens of other fields which may be relevant but can't be displayed on the drop down (when I click the show more on the cite news template, it shows about three fields and below it says "show 93 more fields"). That's why there is a blank text-field where you can type "url", and no matter whether it is a book cite or a news cite, you'll get all the relevant fields associated with citing and maintaining an online book or news reference. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, my point is that if you have the archiveurl parameter, you should be able to specify url-status, which determines how the two urls are displayed, i.e. if url-status=dead (this is the default), then the main link displayed is archiveurl and the url link is displayed as the "original" link, if url-status=live, then the main link displayed is url, and if url-status=usurped, then the main link displayed is archiveurl, but the url link is not displayed at all. To reiterate, if you're going to have the option to specify archiveurl, then you ought to be able to also specify url-status. FWIW, there isn't really much difference between "web" and "news" citations, and I expect editors will generally try and identify urls for newspaper citations. Fabrickator (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrickator, when I try to cite news as a template from the insert menu, it has more than 90 available fields, only a few of them displayed by default. When I click "Add more information" at the bottom of that list, I get a blank textbox, followed by three fields listed and 93 more available but not listed. I can simply type "url" on the blank textbox, and it displays all fields related with URLs, which include "archive-url" and "url-status" fields. So, your contention that "url-status" isn't available doesn't make sense to me. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clicking on "cite" at the top of the editing area, then click on the "templates" selection list, which offers four difference "cite" templates. This initially displays around a dozen fields, then I can click on "show/hide extra fields", and it displays about 25 fields. Of course, these are merely "tools" so I can pretend they don't exist without any loss of functionality, but using these specialized interfaces helps to remind me which fields I might want to enter and helps to produce a more standardized result. Fabrickator (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrickator, when I click "cite" at the top of the editing area, I get three choices, "Automatic" which takes only the url and generates a cite automatically, "Manual" which gives options for "web", "news", "book" and "journal" cites as well as an option at the bottom to type in the whole citation manually, and "Re-use" which gives me a list of citations already in the article to choose from. When I click one of the template options offered in the "Manual" tab, it opens the window for the template of that citation as discussed previously, which has a few fields by default but about 96 more available for news and about 185 available for book, any one of which I can get to by clicking "Add more information" followed by "show xxx more fields" or using the blank textbox to type in the field related keywords. Perhaps we are using different editors? I am out of ideas. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if we are using different editors, I am guessing that's what the answer would be. To simply switch to an editor which doesn't have the limitations. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, you are using "visual" editing, while I am using "source" editing. Source editing has not been deprecated. Please do not be dismissive of my choice. Fabrickator (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrickator, I was actually thinking of the various customisations to the editing experience available in the preferences menu. FWIW, I use source editing too, but I checked with both source and visual editing when formulating my response here. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will drop by shortly. I am sorry my last response came off as dismissive and apologise for wasting your time. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia who has been trying to contribute to this wonderful platform in the proper way. I made a few edits to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_vigilante_violence_in_India I tried to make several edits to my post based on user suggestions, so that they complied with the paraphrasing guidelines "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text" under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing However my edits were deemed so illegal that they were permanently deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cow_vigilante_violence_in_India&oldid=927507375 I need advise whether the violation was serious enough to merit revision deletion and whether I can dispute this or not? Is this the correct forum to ask this question? Regards Guglusharma (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Guglusharma: welcome to the Teahouse. Only an administrator (which I am not) will be able to see the revision deleted text, but since you have already been clearly informed here and here that your edits were copyright violations, I can say with some confidence that they merited revision deletion. Close paraphrasing is a lot more difficult than writing original prose, so why not simply use your own words to describe the issue? --bonadea contributions talk 20:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your Quick reply. I reported 3 separate incidents. I edited the text quite a lot in all 3 reports after first intimation by User MPS 1992. You cancheck the word count difference to see that it was not a simple redo. The second user El C instantly Revision deleted my text without giving me an opportunity to correct the text. Regards Guglusharma (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The word count does not tell us anything at all, I'm afraid. And copyrighted text must be revision deleted, it would not be allowed to remain in order to be "corrected". --bonadea contributions talk 21:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand, but I feel that since you can't see the deleted text, you can't be certain whether its copyrighted or not. I have messaged the 2nd editor El C to clarify, but is there a forum on Wikipedia where another Admin may be able to see the edits and judge? Regards Guglusharma (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin, Guglusharma I can see deleted content, and I will take a look. Such a thing could be reported at The admin notice board but that forum will often examine the conduct of the reporting editor quite thoroughly, and is not likely to fault a RevDel for even a merely probable copyvio. Really it is better to just start over with original text. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help DESiegel, My edits had language similar to the news reports because Cow lynching cases are complex cases where there is difference in narrative between 2 sides. The killers try to portray the victims as Cow smugglers for Beef whereas the Victims families portray them as traders or transporters. So the language of edits had been kept similar to what was reported in news to maintain neutrality. Guglusharma (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guglusharma I looked over the most recent deleted revision in that article which was created by an edit of yours. In at least two of the incidents you added, you included specific wording from the source with no acknowledgement. This is enough for revision deletion in my view. I have done over 80 RevDels myself. It is true that statements of facts (such as news reports) have less protection than creative works. But specific wording still must not be copied, and Wikipedia is very strict about this, perhaps stricter than the law requires. It is better to either completely rewrite the passage, using the facts but none of the wording from mthe source, or else to explicitly quote the source, marking it as a quote, and introducing it with an attribution such as The Hindu reported that: "{Quote from news story here}"{cite to sourer here}. This was not revenge, El_C was in my view acting quite properly, as I would have expected from that editor. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you wish to portray the source accounts accurately, but copying specific adjectives such as "mercilessly" is likely to cause problems. Report the same facts, in detail if that is relevant, but in different words in future, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification DESiegel. I did not accuse the user El C of revenge, but I admit I had accused another user because he kept undoing my edits without giving me a little more reason. Now that I understand the concerns of Wikipedia, I would try to act accordingly in the future. Regards Guglusharma (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Guglusharma . You should know by the way, that doing this kind of reveiw is more than a bit tedious. The reviewing admin must find the deleted revision in the history, open it, find the relevant passage, find the allegedly copied sources, open them, and manually compare the text. This is just FYI. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you doing this for a newbie. Guglusharma (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Guglusharma: While I can't see the deleted content, the above mention of "mercilessly" leads me to think that, in addition to the copyvio issue, the text also may not have been encyclopedic in its tone or neutral in its point of view. Please keep those in mind as well. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How could I get access to locked pages to edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyplayer (talk • contribs) 15:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tommyplayer, and welcome to the Teahouse. Some pages are semi-protected, and can only be edited by autoconfirmed users Some are EC protected and can only be edited by Extended-confirmed users Some are fully protected and can only be edited by admins. Some have other levels of protection. The vast majority of pages are not protected at all. Please see Wikipedia:Protection policy for more details. Please add a link below to the page you would like to edit and more specific advice can be given. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tommyplayer. You can make an edit request on the talk page of the locked article. Please read Wikipedia:Edit requests for the details about how to do that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

What is this box called that contains bio info, pic, occupation, years active, etc.? I am a wiki rookie and attempting to add this to a draft I am working on. Should I insert an image and write out the bio, etc info in the description space?

Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnpalmyra (talk • contribs) 16:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dawnpalmyra and welcome to the TeaHouse. That would be what Wikipedia calls an "Infobox". Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes for information about infoboxes. The most common infobox in an articel about a person is {{infobox person}} but ther are quite a few more specific infobox templates. See the instructions on the template page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you would link to the page you are interested in, we could give more specific advice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please WP:SIGN your talk and discussion page posts (but never contributions in articles) with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software will convert this to your default or custom signature plus a timestamp. This helps both people and script recognize separate contributions to threads, and keep track of who said what. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. Dawnpalmyra (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused. Is my page deleted or shall I do corrections and keep going? Dr. Loriaux received an email from Wiki person offering to finish my page about him if he pays them money? I am feeling my toes have been stepped on completely. Is this accepted from a Wiki editor?

Patricia Hastrich Hasttago — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasttago (talk • contribs) 18:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hasttago, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, that is not acceptable. It is quite likely to be a scam. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. There has been a history of people trying to get payments in such cases, or even people claiming that they can get articles deleted if they are not paid off. Do not pay any such people. I haven't yet looked t the page you have been working on, but I will. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hasttago, Draft:Lynn Loriaux has not been deleted, and you absolutely may continue to work on it. There are some formatting issue. For example section headers should be in sentence case, not title case or all caps.The citation formatting could use work, see referencing for Beginners. But most important, additional Independent, published reliable sources are needed to celarly demonstrate the notability of the subject. See our guideline on the notability of individuals and [[Wikipedia:Notability (academics)|our guideline on the notability of academics. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please WP:SIGN your talk and discussion page posts (but never contributions in articles) with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software will convert this to your default or custom signature plus a timestamp. This helps both people and script recognize separate contributions to threads, and keep track of who said what. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That scam is famous enough that it has an article on Wikipedia, Hasttago. See Orangemoody. John from Idegon (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hasttago. Just going to add some things to the comments you've received so far. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project that basically anyone from anywhere in the world can participate in without even having to register an account or pay a fee; so, in that sense of the word it's really a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". This means that anyone asking you for money to edit on your behalf is basically asking yu to pay for something that anyone can do for free; of course, what they're trying to charge you for is their time, effort and knowledge/experience, but all editors are really only WP:VOLUNTEERs and there are plenty of editors who are here for the right reasons without looking for some kind of personal gain. Most things on Wikipedia tend to be decided through WP:CONSENSUS; articles are being constantly created and improved, and disagreements about how to best do those things are often resolved through discussion. For sure, there are Wikipedia administrators chosen by the WP:COMMUNITY to make sure things run smoothly and an administrator may take action to prevent disruption or serious violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but for the most part they will just monitor things and try to keep them track. So, if anyone is promising that they can guarantee a certain result (e.g. creating an article, preventing an article from being deleted), they are either not very familiar with how Wikipedia works or not being very honest with you. Nobody has any real ownership of any Wikipedia page; so, nobody can really guarantee that the page will end up a certain way or stay a certain way. Anything you or I change in a Wikipedia article, can be undone or improved upon by someone else at anytime. We agree as part of Wikipedia's licensing and meta:Terms of Use to give up any claim of ownership over the edits we make as soon as we click on the "Publish changes" button.

It's OK for you to continue to work on the draft; when you think it's ready, I suggest you submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review. However, as pointed out above by DESiegel (DES), it's not really ready to be published as an article just. There are formatting errors such as DES pointed out (I suggest you also take a look at MOS:DOCTOR and WP:SURNAME for some other minor issues that I noticed), but the most important problem is that it's not clear how this person meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). Everything cited in the article is a WP:PRIMARY source which proves that the person you're trying to write about is an actual person, but does not establish how they are Wikipedia notable. The word "notability" as a very specific meaning in a Wikipedia context and what determines whether the draft you're working on is ultimately accepted is going to depend on assessing the subject's Wikipedia notability.

In the end, it's your money (or Dr. Loriaux's money) and you (they) can spend it as you (they) see fit; however, whatever contract you enter in with someone to edit on Wikipedia is going to be between you and them, not you an Wikipedia; in other words, they are a private contractor, not an employee or representative of Wikipedia. If you feel the emails being received are suspicious in nature, perhaps the best thing to do would be to take a look at Wikipedia:Contact us or Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Reporting undisclosed paid editors and contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly by email to ensure privacy. You need to be very careful about posting too much real world personal information about the person or persons sending you the above emails as explained in "Posting of personal information" even if you truly believe this person is doing something inappropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Fatoumata Sow and I am currently a student at Northern Kentucky University. For my class project, I added a paragraph to the Wikipedia article entitled "Haitian Mythology" and I would love to receive feedback because it is part of the assignment. Help me with any comments you have about the article or ways to improve the paragraph please.

Here is the link to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_mythology The title of my paragraph is: History and Origins of Voodooism in Haiti

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timsha54 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your paragraph is pretty good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by !matt2446 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Timsha54, and welcome to the Teahouse. That section (it contains three paragraphs) needs additional sources. Most of the first paragraph is uncited. So is most of the 2nd paragraph. The Americas citation in the 2nd paragraph uses a non-standard |date= value and the URL doesn't work -- I think it includes your personal session data. The National Catholic Reporter. citation in the third paragraph uses a URL that is a search, not a document. This is not acceptable, and I have commented it out.

You wrote ... that is till today the main source of misery, poverty and natural disaster. Did you mean "still today" or "until today"?

You wrote the Haitian Voodoo practitioners invoke these same spirits that in return will possess their bodies and dictate to the people the solution to their social preoccupations. As written this implies that the spirit possession actually takes place. If you meant only that this is the belief of the practitioners, this should be made clear.

In short, while not a bad start, there are significant issues with this section as a part of a Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Duplicate request here, with additional response(s) here. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at your Talk page, in response to your question to Wiki Ed content expert Shalor. One important issue is whether that paragraph belongs in the article at all, per article title policy, as it seems more appropriate to Haitian Vodou to me. Mathglot (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best way to clear a backlog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by !matt2446 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@!matt2446: To which backlog are you referring? Please provide a link to the page. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@!matt2446: It seems you are going through articles that are marked as being underlinked, adding wikilinks to them. Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of those are unnecessary. Please see WP:OVERLINK for what shouldn't be linked, as well as the surrounding section for what should be. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@!matt2446: More specifically, links like music (common term), 1892 (date), and domestic (dab page) should not be made.

Also note that there is a special way to link a plural form of an article without using the "pipe trick"; e.g, the plural ownership rights is formed with [[ownership right]]s. The software automatically includes characters immediately following the link (without a space) in the link to allow easy use of the different forms of a word (plurals, participles, etc.).

Please also see MOS:DUPLINK, which describes another form of overlinking. As you've seen, there are sometimes pages that are adequately linked, yet nobody has removed the underlinking tag from them.

I hope this helps. It would be appreciated if you would self-revert or correct the overlinking that you did. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. Your contributions can be seen at Special:Contributions/!matt2446. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will try I am sorry that I over linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by !matt2446 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I am trying to add my first article on wikipedia about a new form of martial art - Kungchido. Wikipedia is so huge that I am feeling I am already lost. I did my 10 edits and now I think I have a confirmed wikipedia account. I thought I could first publish some information about Kungchido and then keep on editing afterwards and get someothers to add more information about too. My article was rejected unfortunately due to sources as it says. I have added those information in references and also the weblink. Can I please know what else should I need to do in order to get my article available to public to view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajra 2019 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should add third party sources such as books, journal articles, news articles or publications on the well-known websites devoted to martial arts. Ruslik_Zero 13:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the previous feedback, but apparently hadn't read it. It gave you useful links, including to Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I am a new editor on Wikipedia and I need some advice. I work in the contemporary art field and I see a lot of artists who are notable for their work in my field, but do not have wikipedia pages. I would like to begin adding some of these online, but I need help selecting the ones considered noteworthy.

I wanted to ask, if an artist had verifiably been exhibited in a gallery such as the Royal Academy, Tate Modern or Somerset House for example, and there were articles about this artist's work in chronicles such as Art Monthly, The Verge, Timeout, or Frieze Magazine, then would this be considered noteworthy for this platform?

Hoping to upload some knowledge of the art world in 2019 :D

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contemporaryartlover1 (talk • contribs)

Hi Contemporaryartlover1, thanks for your question. The general notability guidelines are that a subject is notable if they are the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The examples of sources you suggest would appear to meet this standard. If you are unsure about whether an artist meets our notability guidelines, you can always try creating your article as a draft and having another editor review it for you - let me know if you need help with this process. WJ94 (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See List of contemporary artists for examples. However, while all of those articles exist, it does not mean they should all exist - sometimes articles are created with inadequate referencing, and either need to be improved or else nominated at Articles for deletion. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there WJ94, thank you so much for your reply. Yes, I would love to get some advice on this process. I am particularly unsure of how much detail I can/should go into about each artist. I have begun an article already (working my way through alphabetically).

Hi Contemporaryartlover1, the best way to create a draft is to create it in your userspace. You userspace is any page which begins "User:Contemporaryartlover1/" - so if you wanted to create a page called New Page, you would create you draft at "User:Contemporaryartlover1/New Page". To create it, just type the title into the search bar and the option will appear to create a new page. I see you have already worked out how to use {{userspace draft}} - that should go at the very top of the article. There is much more advice on how to write an article at Your first article which I would recommend having a look through. The main thing I would suggest is that you get your sources together before you start - it is important to make sure you do actually have the sources to support an article you want to write (it can be frustrating to put a lot of time into an article and then find that it is not notable). The minimum is two, though I would recommend having three or four sources ready to go before you start; once these are in place, you can work from there. WJ94 (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{re|Contemporaryartlover1))It will help if you preview some biographies of artists first, before you create your own article, get a feel for how to construct, how to cite a reference, what is an acceptable reliable source, etc. You can start by checking out categories of artists here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Categories?from=Artists, click on a blue link it will take you to subcategores, then click on selected links.Oldperson (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many new editors think the first thing they should do is write new biographies of living people. This is one of the most difficult things to do correctly; the rules on notability and citation are strictly enforced. Better usually, to start with easier tasks. Try improving existing articles. For example, find an article to which your subject is important, and add a sentence with citation. A day or three later, check to see what happened to it. If good, expand to a paragraph, also well cited. It may eventually become a full article (it has happened to me) even without your further help. Another idea is to add a Wikidata item. Much easier; you can put certain kinds of information about your subject there, and other editors can pick up your citations and perhaps make an article of it. In sum, if other editors are interested in the subject, you don't have to do the whole job yourself. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the advice. I read everything I could on the topic and then wrote my first draft entry. If you have any feedback please let me know. Thanks so much. I saved it as a draft so hopefully I can correct any errors before it gets deleted. Here it is : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alexander_Augustus

Hi, This is concerning the entry for "Luna de Xelaju". The account given is correct except that the song was actually written in 1942 and dedicated to another woman, born and raised in Xela. While i have not seen the actual letter, La Morena de Dulce Mirrar's daughters found the letter from Perez, the composer, to their mother, with the lyrics and a dedication. For reasons of privacy, and La Morena's sense of discretion concerning the 1944 dedication to Sra. Cohen, the family never did and, to this day, won't talk about it. I was a very close friend of the son of La Morena, whom i met 40yrs ago in La Antigua, and knew the whole family, including La Morena, who was every bit the delightful and beautiful woman to whom Perez wrote his song. My friend also passed away but i'm still in contact with La Morena's daughters, granddaughters and great grandchildren. Is there a way i can offer an alternative version to that presently on the Wiki page without documentation? Thanks very much. Best, Jeffrey Haptas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.131.76 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Luna de Xelajú

No, Jeffery you can't. This is an encyclopedia, which are composed of material paraphrased from reliable secondary sources. You cannot use what you know personally, nor could you even use the letter if you could access it - it would be a primary source. John from Idegon (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey. I looked at the existing page and found a problem. There are no reliable sourced citations to support the lead of the article. In fact the lead,which claims that the song was dedicated to Sra cohen, is not even mentioned in the body of the article. John from Idegonis absolutely correct, however the article as it exists does not conform to the standards of Eikiepeidia Policy and Guidance. It might as well have been written as you stated, as is currently written since neither has a reliable source to back up the claim.Oldperson (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HI My English is still in constructing and still learning. I would like to keep in touch with you and your team. From now on, I will do an update of my page more and I might need your help furthermore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moenwayoo (talk • contribs) 13:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moenwayoo: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for your note. In the future, when starting a new section on a talk page (such as this one), please be sure to enter a short description of your posting in the "Subject/headline" field so that a new section is created. Please also remember to sign your posts by putting four tildes at the end like this: ~~~~. Thanks, and happy editing. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Can someone explain to me what are the proper steps to add a company's logo to its Wikipedia page? I attempted this by uploading the image to WikiCommons, but I did it incorrectly because I got a notice that the image doesn't satisfy copyright policies.

Thanks!

DaniaAlrehaili (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DaniaAlrehaili and welcome to the Teahouse. Company logos are pretty much always protected by copyright. As such, they cannot be uploaded to commons, which hosts only public domain and freely licensed content, availalbe for use legally anywhere in the world. Logos on Wikipedia are mostly used under a claim of fair use, and are uploaded directly to the en.Wikipedia site, using Wikipedia:Files for upload or Special:Upload. Such logos may only be used in compliance with the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. A detailed fair use rationale is needed, normally using {{Non-free use rationale logo}}. The source (usually a URL) must be clearly specified. A copyright tag, usually {{non-free logo}}, must be used on the file description page created by the upload. See Wikipedia:Logos for detailed information about Logos and how to uploadf and use them, including details I have not covered here. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help. I followed the process you outlined and it seems to have worked out. Best.

DaniaAlrehaili (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just uploaded a photo file: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Acor_Ivor_Salter.jpg ; and in my haste I've left out the letter 't' in 'actor'. Is there any way I can correct this, please? Beryl reid fan (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Beryl reid fan, and welcome to the Teahouse. Only an Admin or a File mover can move (rename) files on Wikipedia. Often it is best to simply upload a new copy to the correct name, an tag the old name with {{db-author}}. However, in this case, since the file was recently uploaded, and used on only one page, I have moved it to File:Actor Ivor Salter.jpg. The old name remains as a redirect to the new name for the image file. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that files on Wikimedia commons cannot be moved (renamed) in this way. For those one must get the name correct or else re-upload. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much DES, I appreciate your help. Beryl reid fan (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can I port over the record charts infobox from https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ute_Berling to the English-language localization of it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ute_Berling)? I'm unable to successfully do the port because I can't find the best template to use for that purpose. The purpose of the port is to make it so one can find a better deal of information about Ute Berling in the latter version than they can as of the sending of this message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Childishbeat (talk • contribs) 17:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Childishbeat and welcoem to the Teahouse. I looked in Category:Music infobox templates but the closest I found was {{Singles}} which is for use in {{Infobox album}}. You could simply create a table to hold this information, of course. See Help:Table for more information. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Childishbeat: Not sure if I've seen infoboxes for this here. I think we use tables (e.g., Joan Baez discography), though having just the one chart entry makes neither seem necessary. You might look at other musician articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies, etc. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to add the 2019 contest winner to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Prize

I was trying to note the name and title according to format, and then add a footnote for confirmation. Here's what it I wrote for the "Sandbox:"

·2019: Rebecca Makkai for "The Great Believers" https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/books/ct-books-heartland-believers-rebecca-makkai-1020-20191012-i4k2gcy6wfcvvktxa33rqoqf6i-story.html

What am I doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etayloretayor (talk • contribs) 18:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Etayloretayor. It doesn't appear that any one has edited the article Heartland Prize since back in September. From checking the page's history, you did edit it a few times back in 2016, but have made no edits since then. If, by chance, you are working on an improvement in your userbox sandbox, then you will need to add that directly to the article yourself; the Wikipedia software doesn't automatically transfer content from user sandboxes to articles. What might be the case here is that you're confused by the "Publish changes" button; that basically means "Save changes" (the name of the button was actually changed awhile back from "Save changes") and it only saves the content on the page you're editing. If this is not the problem you're having, please clarify further. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​You can edit almost any page here just by clicking "Edit", you don't need to submit additions through your sandbox. For example, click here to edit the article directly yourself. By clicking on "Cite" and pasting your URL you can insert a correctly formatted citation. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Etayloretayor you edited User:Etayloretayor/sandbox and apparently cliked the blue "submit" button that a sandbox has by default. This had the effect of submitting a "draft" which consisted only of the one line you intended to add to Heartland Prize. This draft was rejected as it didn't make any sense.

I have edited the Heartland Prize article here to add the 2019 winner using the source you linked to above, but with a fuller citation. I hope this was helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section header to merge two threads. John from Idegon (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

..don't know what I was doing wrong! I was trying to put the 2019 title and author in for this prize. I tried to attach a link that could be in footnotes and show that I was on the right track.Etayloretayor (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by The Mirror Cracked was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

The Mirror Cracked (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Teahouse logo

Hello, Etayloretayor! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! The Mirror Cracked (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Etayloretayor Please see the answers in the section above #Rejected Addition to page. When you have a followup or addition to a question here at the Teahouse (or the Help desk) please add it to the existing section (thread) rather than starting a new section. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent all morning creating a new Wikipedia article and the software stopped responding. I reset my computer and it appears all of my work is lost. Is there any way to find it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AppleCorey (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the slim chance that you were not logged in, and saved it, what was the name of the article? If you didn't save it, and reset your computer, it's lost. I see no contributions from your account today other than this one. It's a good idea to save things periodically for this reason. You can just copy-paste into a text-editor like Notepad on your local machine and save it to your local drive if you don't want to save it on-wiki for some reason. Sorry. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editors, how long does it usually take for a submitted draft to be reviewed and published? A few days ago, I submitted the draft for a page I created for the book, An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States. Is there anything I should do, any place I should go in wikiville, to check in about the process? Does it take... as long as a week? Gasp! I'm wicked eager to see it and add to it! Thanks to anyone who can assist me. :) PaulThePony (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, PaulThePony. I assume that you are talking about User:PaulThePony/sandbox. If so, you have not submitted it for review, which you do by clicking the blue box at the top.

There are currently about 3600 drafts waiting for review, and some have been waiting for as long as three months. I suggest that you do some additional editing of your draft, because at this time, it does not establish that this book is notable. Please review the notability guideline for books. By far the most common way of establishing the notability of a book is to provide references to multiple reviews of the book in independent, reliable sources. Please add those. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious subjective bias on John Posobiec causes me to distrust Wikipedia, as I know all self-respecting researchers do. Why such an obvious negative bias?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.215.192 (talk) 20:58 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not "subjective bias" if the claims made are well-referenced using reliable sources. We only write what the reliable sources say, so I don't know what the source of your distrust is. All claims about Posobiec being a conspiracy theorist and alt-right are well-sourced to respectable sources. AFAIK, the major source of mistrust among the general public of Wikipedia is that "anyone can edit it and therefore anyone can say anything they like", but given that the article is semi-protected, that can't happen there. Mgasparin (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find no issues with the article in question. Posobiec is an alt-right conspiracy theorist, and thus we present him as such. Many sources from across the media and political spectrum describe him as such, and thus so do we. Wikipedia's central pillars include a neutral point of view, which we believe in strongly and this article adheres to. If you have a specific issue you want fixed, you should open a section on the article's talk page and explain. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the above two comments, I would have preferred not to see "we," as that suggests a coordinated effort to edit the article. As to bias, there are L-E-N-G-T-H-Y discussions of that question on the Talk page of the article, including in the Talk page archive. A new discussion could be started, but in my opinion that would be beating a dead horse (something that Jack is not accused of). David notMD (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A "self-respecting" researcher should not be depending on an encyclopedia, other than to see what sources that encyclopedia has drawn from. Actual research goes back to the original sources, not tertiary compendia such as encyclopedias.--Khajidha (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For example, at Hurricane Ivan there are many hatnotes above the infobox in the source code and this renders the infobox with white space above it. I couldn't find any info in the policies Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes or Wikipedia:Hatnote to direct me whether there should be whitespace such that the infobox renders parallel with the start of the article's text or should it be moved up to be directly below the toolbar. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply)[reply]

MOS:ORDER confirms that hatnotes do precede the infobox. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hong_Kong_Police#Second_half_of_the_century there is a request for a citation.

The prefix "Royal" was dropped at midnight on 1 July 1997, when China resumed sovereignty over Hong Kong, and the force reverted to the title "Hong Kong Police Force".[citation needed]

The citation needed can be found on the official police force's page https://www.police.gov.hk/ppp_en/01_about_us/ph_04.html

But for someone who usually just enjoys reading Wikipedia and has never edited anything before, it seems that adding a simple citation is beyond my abilities.

Perhaps someone else clarify the citation.

Sorry you had trouble with the ref. You can find advice on how to work with references at WP:REFB. Normally I’d happily add the reference for you, but I feel there must be a better reference than this available. As a police website talking about their own history, this is not an independent source, so although the claim is fairly uncontroversial and I don’t really doubt that the source is correct, we’d be much better off finding a more reliable source such as a newspaper article or published history book. Surely there must be some comment about the name change in newspapers from the time, or history books? Hug^syrup 09:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It will be if they feel free to move alone without his or her mind will run in an direction ehich reveaks in things which can't help them in a way they want to live in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:2309:95AF:99BA:258B:1956:F3E9 (talk • contribs)

What is your question about editing Wikipedia? That is what this page is for. --ColinFine (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'd've reverted and left a message on their page explaining that. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WE try hard not to revert even apparently unhelpful comments at the Teahouse. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:George_Hammer_III reviewed to be published as an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AleLagos77 (talk • contribs)

You have submitted the draft for review, so there is nothing further you need to do. As the notice at the bottom says "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,593 pending submissions waiting for review." Hug^syrup 15:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question about editing.

I have noticed that periods are outside of quotation marks. Is this done so that the reference link will appear after the period instead of after the quotation marks?

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quill & Bean (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find advice at MOS:INOROUT. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please help, before giving citation from a source is there anyway we could check if it violates the copyright rules of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glittershield (talk • contribs) 10:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Glittershield and welcome to the Teahouse. Unless a source is itself a copyright violation, citing it as a source will not violate Wikipedia's copyright policy. Including a short quote via the |quote= parameter in a citation template or as a marked and attributed quote in the text of an article will not normally violate copyright either. That is well within fair use, and is routinely done. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Glittershield: Just to expand a little, I'm not sure we generally have to audit a source to confirm it is free of copyright violations, except to the extent that it may indicate that it's a poor quality source. However, there is also the issue of WP:CIRCULAR references, since there are many WP:FORKs that simply copy collections Wikipedia content (mostly legally, with attribution), even including "books" that you might find in places like Google books. Such sources should not be cited, since they are effectively cites back to Wikipedia itself (and often old content that has since been edited/corrected). See the blue links for more info.

When signing your posts to talk pages such as this one, the ~~~~ should go at the end of your text, not in the Subject/headline (section header). Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to start a Wikipedia page for an Artist. How do I get started and develop it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.188.175.47 (talk • contribs)

I'd suggest you read WP:YFA. Most important of all, make sure that the artist meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability - namely that there are multiple, reliable, independent sources that cover them in substantial detail. And if you know the artist, or are being paid in any way for your work, be sure to also read WP:COI and WP:PAID. Hug^syrup 16:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". Writing one successfully is probably the hardest task on Wikipedia. It takes time and practice. If this artist meets our special definition of a notable artist, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, you may use Articles for creation to create and submit a draft for review. You may also want to read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to change my name. How do I do that? Porygon-Z (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Porygon-Z474, and welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Changing username for detailed instructions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello thank you and where can I find the Global Renamer? I don't understand it very well.... Porygon-Z (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Porygon-Z474, just go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest, which is where the link on the Wikipedia:Changing username page would take you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific word, phrase, or sentence I can look for? Because I can't find it..... Porygon-Z (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

???? Click the request link that is right there that you replied to. RudolfRed (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Porygon-Z474 Follow the link above as RudolfRed advised, or type "Special:GlobalRenameRequest" into the box labeled "Search Wikipedia" which is near the top right of every Wikipedia page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Found it! I thought it was in the Special:GlobalRenameRequest page. Hehe.... Thank you! Porygon-Z (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case you people did not notice, the entry for Patrick Hobbs had been hacked with inappropriate insults placed. I simply removed them...TWICE! If you go to this page now, you will see it hacked again!— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Bknewman (talk • contribs)

‎Bknewman Unfortunately, vandalism can happen. However, you should not respond to it by defacing the article with your own messages for the vandal or vandals, as this is exactly what they want from you- attention. Simply remove the vandalism, and report the user engaging in the vandalism to WP:AIV. If the page is a habitual target of vandals, you can request temporary page protection at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that vandalism is not 'hacking', which has a very specific meaning. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

‎Bknewman I have blocked the IP that was doing the vandalism to Patrick E. Hobbs, as that editor persisted after a final warning. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]