Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Shortcuts

• WP:TEA
• WP:TH

Bonadea, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help

Wikipedia

• To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
• About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227

(Please remember to

I've been trying to publish Wiki page for ShareChat but it's getting rejected. Need some tips: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ShareChat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankurshva (talk • contribs) 06:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankurshva: - there are quite a lot of tips provided in the notices at the top of the draft. Do you feel you have addressed all of these, or is there some aspect of them that you don't understand? Hug^syrup 07:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have tripled the length of the draft since the last decline. However, much of what has been added - including entire sections - have no references. Either provide citations or deleted unreferenced content before submitting again. David notMD (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You disclosed a paid relationship on your Talk page: "I work for ShareChat (company Mohalla Tech Pvt Ltd), and, as part of my job responsibilities, I am editing this Wikipedia article about ShareChat on behalf of company Mohalla Tech Pvt Ltd." This information belongs on your User page. Also, you must comply with

WP:PAID. David notMD (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

It's an app available only in India, and supports several Indian languages, but not English. It might be appropriate for one of those Indian language wikis. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AlanM1, that makes no sense. Either it's notable or it's not. What has the demographic it services got anything to do with anything? It's borderline inappropriate to suggest such a thing, in my opinion. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 17:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was the bolded part – it is intentionally not useful to the English-speaking world, for whom it is not developed or targeted, with which I have no problem whatsoever. Is it of interest (notable) to enwiki readers? Doesn't notability have at least some attention to audience? Has it been covered significantly by English-language sources? I understand this is not a requirement, but it is an impediment to verifiability. I apologize if you or anyone else is offended by what I wrote; that is certainly not my intent. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand a little, I can understand that mention of things not of interest to English-speakers can be useful from the standpoint of complete knowledge. They should certainly find a place in lists, etc. But if English-language sources don't find them notable enough, that seems a good indicator that a separate article may not be appropriate.

Having said all that, unless there is another ShareChat, I believe it is notable based on a quick Google search (the above was based on comments by other reviewers in the existing draft when I wrote the above). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be English. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally i think it's notable enough. And notablity has been increased since Twitter has invested 100mn on ShareChat recently 12345 -- CptViraj (📧) 03:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everybody, i am seeking help writing a Wikipedia article for a person that i believe should have recognition here for the work that he has done and continues to do in Africa. How do i go about writing this biography in a manner that does not seem to be promoting him. I have a draft that has already been deleted previously.

--OLIVIAHNOAH (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, it is not sufficient that you believe he should have recognition here, you need to find independent WP:Reliable sources in which the subject has been written about at length, and the article should summarise these sources in your own words. Using such references is the only way that you can establish notability in the Wikipedia sense. Dbfirs 07:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. (Dbfirs) I am looking into more WP:Reliable sources for his reference. --OLIVIAHNOAH (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For an article I created Suzy Williams I had several documents in hard-copy (paper) form only, not available on The Web to my knowledge, that I wish to cite as references. Most of them are clippings from reputable newspapers that would normally be considered to be good secondary sources under other circumstances. I electronically scanned all these documents and had them archived in a photo album for the FaceBook page of the article's subject, so that I could cite them in the article. An editor labeled all these citations (and no others) as "[non-primary source needed]". Apparently, the scanned documents were not put into an appropriate place. Where IS an appropriate place? --Dr.bobbs (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To publish newspaper clippings here on Wikipedia would almost certainly be a

verification (such as newspaper name and date) you can cite them using {{cite news}}; they don't need to be available on the web. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

You cite the publication, not the individual piece of paper you happen to have in your collection. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

secondary sources which are not online which probably could be cited as sources to an article. In this context, "primary" doesn't mean "not online", but rather refers to the relationship of the source and the subject matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your replies--Dr.bobbs (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some pages are overviews of a topic that contain sections from very different perspectives. For example: Wisdom#Psychological_perspectives vs Wisdom#Ancient_Near_East. I'm interested in seeing only the revision history of one section. I've read Help:Page_history but I don't see any tool that would enable this use case. Given that sections are displayed next to the revision's line in the history, I would think this would be possible. Is there a way to apply this filter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crosleyj (talk • contribs) 18:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crosleyj. Unless other editors find a way to do that, I do not think it is possible to do that. Interstellarity (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. I don't believe that the section is automatically identified in the history, although in some circumstances the section name might be included in the edit summary. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur, I don't believe the software allows for such a function. The best you can do would be to(as noted) examine the edit history to see if a particular section header appears in the edit summary, though if users edited the page as a whole, that would not help. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crosleyj: Whilst agreeing with all the above -there is no way to display section histories - I might be able to offer you a couple of partial solutions to assist you.

1. First off, you could display every single edit of the article on one whole page (page stats show it has had 2,070 edits since it was created in 2002.) Then you could text search for edits that include the section name. To show them all, go to edit history, then and select 'older 500'. Now look in the url bar and you'll see it displays as: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wisdom&offset=&limit=500&action=history So, just change the 500 to 5000 and press return. After a while you'll see every edit, ever, made to that article on one page. Now you can use text-search (usually Ctrl-F) for the section name (assuming that either that single section was edited, or that it was explicitly named in the edit summary if the whole page was edited.) I note there are 100 occurrences of "Psychological perspectives" and just 4 of "Ancient Near East". Be aware that section headings can change over time, so you might wish to drop in on annual edits and check out the article structure.
2. The next suggestion is to look for particular text strings you either like or dislike within the current article and search on when they were first added. There is a tool called WikBlame you can use for this. See http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php I chose to use it to find out when this text was inserted: "Divine Wisdom allowed the provident designation of functions and the ordering of the cosmos". Although I rarely use it, I quickly found that phrase was inserted with this diff on 16 Aug 2019.

Whether these kinds of searches are actually of help to you, I really don't know. Perhaps you'd let us know? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Some good ideas here. I think I can use wikiblame or searching through the Revision History on a single page to find the interesting changes in sections. Crosleyj (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now in polishing phase of a draft article (biography of a living German author), some basic questions are relevant: firstly, what is the best way to submit the finished article for publication? I've learned a lot through tutorials, style guides and how-to pages, but always unsure if what I'm doing is correct.

I lack practical know-how on basic points (e.g. unsure how to insert 'categories'), and unsure how to reinstate a footnote that vanished in process of checking. Finally, the style guide suggests that referring to the existence of other-language pages (the biography of the author in question exists in German, French and other languages) in the 'talk' page of the (hopefully) published article, may help the English page to endure. Advice much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wortmead (talk • contribs) 08:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

talk) 11:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, Thank you for the good advice. Wortmead 12:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wortmead (talk • contribs)

Hi! I was threated by ukrainian far-right radicals in my user talk page [1]. They claimed, that I will be pursued and they want to severly punished me "as dog". I mainly active in Russian Wikipedia and don't know where to turn with this problem. --Mieczysław Podolski (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EMERGENCY to report this to the Foundation. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@331dot: I would encourage Mieczysław Podolski to delete that post and for you to also revdel it and temporily semi-protect their user page, too. The translation is not nice, and should not remain on view in their user page or edit history. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've revdeleted. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now protected and removed, too. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to hide SineBot's revision (which still has that translation). theinstantmatrix (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lectonar (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This man have access to Wikimedia Foundation. Somehow he read my letter, that I send to [email protected] and continue to threat me.--Mieczysław Podolski (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you send it using the webform on Wikipedia, or your personal email? 331dot (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal email, but without my real name.--Mieczysław Podolski (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And also, did they cite any specifics about your email? There is a possibility that he read what was discussed here and was referring to that. CLCStudent (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is reffering to statements, that was only in e-mail.--Mieczysław Podolski (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if your computer, device, or email has been hacked; they may have accessed your personal email. It's extremely unlikely that this individual has access into the Foundation. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this case they have more information about me, but they don't.--Mieczysław Podolski (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Problem solved. This was maniac, that terrorised russian wikipedists. He do this for many years and have a lot of expirience. This man do many preparation and eventually strike their victims. He bluffed and did that so well. Excuse for troubling.--Mieczysław Podolski (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to upload the latest poster for my film Shooting Clerks, to the Shooting Clerks wiki page but have been hit with a copyright warning and the poster has been removed. How can I fix this? I own the poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherDownie (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristopherDownie: -Hi, welcome to our Teahouse. While you own the poster, you don't own the graphical rights to the film - in effect you bought the right to display your poster, but not photos of it. I'm assuming that "my film" you mean a film you own a copy of, rather than you being a director of it (etc)? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a film I wrote and directed. I own the rights to everything related to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherDownie (talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

policy on use of Non-free images #4 and possibly #1. This involves uploading low-resolution versions of the image, normally for inclusion in one article only, for educational purposes. This is the normal way that we use film posters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

This is the original page that contains the link to Ms. Ham's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_by_Donald_Trump

This is Ms. Ham's page: Wikipedia.org/wiki/holly_ham https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_user_landing_page&page=Holly+ham

How can we edit her template protected page that was created for her? Thank you so much for your help!

Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashingtonDC123 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, detailing what changes you feel are needed. That said, Political appointments by Donald Trump

is not protected, and the link to the page about Holly Ham does not work for me. There are no other edits from your account(other than to this page) so I can't find the page.

Also note that accounts may

not be shared and must be exclusively operated by a single individual. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashingtonDC123 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, WashingtonDC123 that it is not her page, and it should not have been created for her. It is Wikipedia's article about her, and almost everything in it should be summarised from reliable published sources wholly unconnected with her. Anything she, or her associates, say about her (whether in their own publications, or in interviews or press releases) does not belong in the article unless it has been reported or discussed by an independent source. --ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: This is about

@

WP:SOURCEACCESS. RudolfRed (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Sparkle666: What is the web page in question? Why would a page be geoblocked at the source? Or are you saying it is blacklisted here at Wikipedia? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

GDPR. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

First, the page is this here and unless I really don't get the concept this page is not blacklisted by wikipedia, since it's an official TV-channel's website and other pages on this website are used as sources on some wikipedia articles. I was also able to access the page via a VPN once in the past. The vast majority of the pages the website does not geoblock, I don't know why it did with this page. Thank you for your answers.

talk) 07:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have two questions. Can I work on my article in drafts, saving it somewhere out of view, or do I have to submit it all at once? I suppose I could save it on Word.doc until it's ready to submit. Is that the best way to do this?

Also, if I successfully get an article up on Wikipedia, is that something to put on a resume, or no?

Thanks! Slowmusketeer 11:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.210.132.242 (talk) [reply]

Slowmusketeer Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Make sure you are logged in when you post so your posts are properly attributed to your account. If you don't want your work visible until you submit it, you should save it off Wikipedia. While drafts are not indexed by search engines like Google, edits to them appear in the Recent Changes feed, which is monitored by thousands of people.

I guess you could put that you created an article on your resume, if you think it relevant to prospective employers, but creating an article is no guarantee that it will remain, and doing so does not require special skills. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slowmusketeer: See also Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Being on Wikipedia is likely not a relevant point for a resume.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Slowmusketeer 14:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is M Winter. I am a wife of Tim Winter. Apparently the page is no longer applicable to Tim Winter. Many information in it were not correct, thus leaving him in dismay. Though the page was published long time ago, but he only realised is now the content were so awfully fake and fabricated.

He has been trying to locate the person who did the page but to no avail. We too were trying to delete some of the information but it was restored. What the hell embarrassment !!

We terribly found that the wikepedia page is not user friendly at all. Unlike facebook account where deletion is made easy and friendly.

We really urge the wikepedia experts and specialists to delete this page immediately.

Timorty Winter can be contacted at : (redacted)

Thank you & best rgds

M Winter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:D08:1203:DA1B:7C33:46A7:920E:EDE7 (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have redacted your contact information for your protection, it is not wise to post it in this public forum. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not typically deleted just because the subject or their representative wants them to be. If you have specific concerns about the article, please point them out. Your removal was reverted because it was done without explanation. Wikipedia does have a strict policy about how living people are written about(which you can find by clicking

WP:BLP), so if there is inaccurate information, we want to know about it. I would note that what you removed appears to be well sourced, but I am not familiar with the subject so I can only go by what is seen. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I would further add that Wikipedia is very different from Facebook. Facebook is social media where people control their own 'pages'; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what appears in independent

WP:OWN). 331dot (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm guessing this is about Timothy Winter (note spelling)? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The place to take this up is Talk:Timothy Winter. Be aware that in 2017 there was a lengthy and heated discussion on keeping or deleting referenced content about Winter that he no longer adheres to. His current position can be added, but not deleting old content if it was properly referenced. History does not go away because someone changes their mind. David notMD (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can I create a page from the scratch is it possible? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubreezy (talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

new user tutorial

.

However, if you still want to attempt to create an article, you should first read

Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor. This way, you find any problems and get feedback before the draft is formally placed in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! I have been editing on Wikipedia for about a month now and as i'm looking at categories in biographies i've been wondering if the living people category should go next to ''insert year here'' births or should just stay in alphabetical order? I personally feel that it should go to the very top with the year of birth category so its easier to see it but I wanted to get feedback. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyBoi3892 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

MOS:CATORDER, for example. I can see the logic of putting birth-related categories together, but it makes such a small difference to the article either way that I don't think it would be worth doing that as a project of its own. If you're editing page categories for other reasons and you feel like changing the order at the same time, I don't see an issue with that. Sorry if this is a bit vague. Happy hunting, and if you have any more questions do post them here. (You can sign your post with ~~~~). All the best, › Mortee _talk 00:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there a way to link to a specific spot in a Wikipedia article? I would like to add a link to the section titled Books in the Rosie O'Donnell article (to around this spot in the RD Wikipedia article: "...and an HBO special was made based on the books." The link is FROM the Ken Kimmelman article under the heading Television--linked to Twinkle Twinkle. (Twinkle Twinkle is the animation based on the Rosie O'Donnell book--made by HBO). Thank you for your help. I've never done a deep link in a Wikipedia article. Lore E. Mariano (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LoreMariano Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to put a number sign(#) in the link followed by the section header of the part of the article you want to end up at. Example:[[Article title#Section header]] 331dot (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LoreMariano: See Template:Anchor for how to do it when the link should not lead to a section heading. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Often when I input a tweet as a reference, it shows an error saying "line feed character in |title= at position 181" or something like that. I would like to know why it doees that and how to fix it. MrCheese76 (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

secondary sources. I haven't looked into this particular case, but if you have more questions you can always ask again here (please put new questions at the bottom of the page). I hope this helps you. › Mortee _talk 00:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 24.217.247.41. I think you should continuing to try and engage these other editors in discussion on the article's talk page. If that discusison stagnates, you can suggest seeking further assistance at either

disruption. The IP(s) can choose not to participate in the discussion, but they will be expected to honor any consensus which is established by it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your response,

WP:AN3, (which the IPs if all from the same person have violated). 24.217.247.41 (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

How do I suggest edit to protected content? I have noticed an incorrect birth date in the summary data about an individual which is in conflict with a later entry in the text which is known to be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarofDavidCox (talk • contribs) 03:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the page is

semi protected

, which most protected articles are, you can either wait until you have 10 edits over 4 days, or post a request on the talk page, by adding this {{Edit semi-protected}} to the top of your message.

Some pages have more strict protection, such as Extended confirmed, 500 edits over 30 days, where you can use {{Edit extended-protected}}, or full protection, which allows editing by only admins: use {{Edit fully-protected}}. It should be remembered though that any protection above semi is rather rare, and is only used where strictly necessary.

~~

- talk 03:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thus far, the problem seems to be that the dates given in the article's various parts (none of which cites a source) do not agree with one another. Wikipedia is not based on what anyone "knows", rather, it is based on WP:Reliable sources. If you have a reliable source for the date of birth, you may propose a change to the article on its Talk page, giving a link to the source of your information.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the birth month to April for consistency, but we really need a reference, otherwise the date might get deleted.  Dbfirs 06:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is a living person all the unreferenced dates must be removed, per

WP:BLP. This is not optional, BLP rules are mandatory. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

My article recently submitted has been rejected .Can some experienced editor edit it so that it gets approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sruthi srv (talk • contribs) 07:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, welcome to Wikipedia

ping}} me in replies) 07:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I submitted the article "Stefan Thurner" in November (!) already and added content in March (last time). It is sooo long now. Could you please tell me: What is wrong about the text? Compared to many other Wiki entries it seems totally ok to me?? Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avecaesaria (talk • contribs) 08:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if it was declined in November. Have you re-submitted it recently, since making your changes? If so, it will be reviewed again, but reviews can take time as it relies purely on volunteers. If you have not re-submitted it then you should do so if you believe it meets all the standards and has addressed the reason for being declined before. It certainly appears to be well-sourced and there are some credible claims to notability, but I'm afraid I can't understand the German sources so I can't say for sure either way whether the article is now likely to be accepted or not. Hug^syrup 08:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question at talk:Gulval that I hope someone will answer. —Best known for IP (85.255.233.81 (talk)) 08:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done please see answer on the talk page.

ping}} me in replies) 09:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

ping}} me in replies) 11:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

It would be better if you allowed someone else to do it, but if that doesn't happen in a day or two, you should be okay to move it yourself, but you will want to clearly point to the consensus when doing so. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(

"Three Dog Night Headlines the Fair Tonight". Bainbridge Island Review. Entertainment section. August 20, 2008. ISSN 1053-2889. Retrieved April 5, 2011.[dead link] (here the reference is removed, but I don't want it removed only marked dead)
Cite warning: <ref> tag with name notes2 cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all.
Cite warning: <ref> tag with name notes1 cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all.

You don't need images. It is good to have them, but is by no means a necessity. Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 18:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

ping}} me in replies) 19:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Once your article is published, a low-resolution copy of the logo can be uploaded to Wikipedia (not Commons) using a

WP:Fair use argument. Dbfirs 20:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Add in Wikipedia Site, under Novels: The Appointment: The Tale of Adaline Carson, Lynx House Press, 2019. ISBN 978-0-89924-163-9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Keeble44 (talk • contribs) 18:40, August 20, 2019 (UTC)

Hi

WP:NBOOK. If you'd like to start editing Wikipedia yourself, I'd suggest editing some existing articles, and asking questions here at the Teahouse if you need help. I've always found it a friendly and helpful place. I'll leave some links on your talk page, too. All the best, › Mortee _talk 23:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Best, Catie Algiere Marketing Communications Manager SeaChange International, Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsoc6 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marsoc6, are you on about the Wikipedia:Short description? -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or the

introduction? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

"Edit" in the very top menu bar allows editing of the Lead (stuff before History), and in fact, the entire article. HOWEVER, as a paid employee, you are not supposed to directly edit the article at all. Instead, you are required to comply with

WP:PAID, which means declaring paid status on your User page, and requesting changes on the Talk page of the article. An editor not affiliated with SeaChange will decide whether to incorporate your proposed changes. Yes, this is annoying. David notMD (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

paid editing as there are some required disclosures you need to make. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Members of a national parliament are considered notable per

the notability guidelines for politicians, so that is not an issue. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, Victor Agrici, once you have changed your username to your real name or to a pseudonym of your choice, you need to read

WP:Referencing for beginners, and find WP:Reliable sources for the information that you know, then use these as in-line citations. Dbfirs 20:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/northern-beaches/misunderstanding-the-historical-fiction-of-the-word-guringai-that-has-filled-a-void-in-our-knowledge-of-the-original-inhabitants/news-story/b1aec152c74220c535883621081a2fd2

In a new document, Filling A Void, by the Aboriginal heritage office http://www.aboriginalheritage.org/news/2015/filling-a-void/

The Aboriginal heritage office also states “there is no record of the word Guringai /Guringay or any of its derivatives, including Ku-ring-gai, in any of the early accounts of the colony after white settlement and no hint that the Aborigines of the northern beaches or any other part of Sydney had ever heard the word”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gringai Man (talk • contribs) 21:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

be bold and make the changes yourself, or you could start a discussion on the talk page for that article, or if there's a change you want to make but you're not sure how, you could ask again here, explaining the issue you've run into. I hope this helps. › Mortee _talk 23:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I wrote a Wikipedia entry several months ago which is not showing up in the Google search results for the individual. I read that new pages typically have a robot.txt on them to prevent them from being indexed in search results until they are either 1) approved or 2) 90 days have passed. I believe both of these thresholds have been met however I still do not see it! Can someone please look at the page and let me know what I did incorrectly? or what I can do to get the page to show up on Google when you look at his name? the page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Galante

Thank you! Drsammyjohnson (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)DrSammyJohnson[reply]

Drsammyjohnson, it looks like the article was approved by a new page patroller in July, so the robots.txt should have been removed. Additionally, while it doesn't show up as a search result for me on Google, it does show up for me on DuckDuckGo. This may be a problem on Google's end. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drsammyjohnson It takes time for search engines to index articles once they are marked as reviewed. They can do so at different rates; Wikipedia has no control over it. Google will likely index it soon. 331dot (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Knowledge Graph at the top includes a link to the Wikipedia article that you wrote, and that Wikipedia article is #7 in the natural search results, after two of his own web pages, and his Instagram, Twitter, Facebook and IMDb pages. Since he has such a robust social media presence, that seems like the correct search result to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I think this might have fixed itself very recently. When I looked a couple of hours ago, after Rosguill's reply but before Cullen328's, I didn't see mention of the the particular article, even if I added "wikipedia" to the search. Perhaps we have some friendly Google fairies nearby, or perhaps this was just fortuitous timing. › Mortee _talk 02:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

I know the MOS suggests that when adding a wiki link to a topic in an article it be linked once at the first instance. Does the same rule apply to linking newspapers, journals etc... in citations. I have been told the same rule applies, but I have also been told that for the convenience of the reader every citation should be linked. I have come across both "styles" as I copy edit articles for the GOCE. I can find nothing in the MOS to clarify this. Can you help?

Thanks!

Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Twofingered Typist, that's an interesting question. I've usually not seen works themselves linked to in citations. When citing an online news article, for example, you'd always link to the article itself, but it's pretty unusual to also link to the Wikipedia article about the publication, though I have seen it done. The examples given at {{Cite news}} don't include links, and there's no parameter |work-link= as there is an |author-link=.

Personally, I think links can be useful if the publication is interesting but a bit obscure, especially if its own history is related to what the main article is about, but for publications you'd expect most readers to know of, it can be, if anything, slightly unhelpful because they might click that link thinking it'll take them to the particular story. I wonder if anyone else has stronger views about this, or knows of relevant guidelines. For now, I'd say don't worry about it and leave links as they are while copyediting; it'll move you on to the next article faster and whatever you fix there will probably be more important. All the best, › Mortee _talk 23:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse,

named references for multiple uses of a reference. Problem solved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you both for yur prompt reply. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be 'moved' or ? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking if the Iowa Straw Poll should be moved to a new page. Then I would suggest not, you can always request a name change for the page using this template {{Requested move}} BigRed606 (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That template looks like a request to change the name of a section rather a page. Why are you thinking the page shouldn't be given a new name? While it started off as a Republican-only affair, the "results were non-binding" (per the Significance §). When the Iowa State Fair took over in 2015 and made it Dem as well as Repub, it was still 'non-binding'. Aside from renaming the page, it looks like all that would be needed is minor edits to the intro para. I'm thinking it might be better to me to do that than create a "Iowa State Fair Straw Poll" page separate from the "Iowa Straw Poll" page. That's a distinction without much of a difference. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TITLE) › Mortee _talk 01:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thx — it does seem that, for now, it's still largely referred to as "Iowa Straw Poll". I guess that means I should do a redirect(?) so people searching for "Iowa State Fair Straw Poll" get rerouted to the former. How is that done? Humanengr (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To make a redirect, go to the page you want to make a redirect from, in this case Iowa State Fair Straw Poll, and make a new page there that consists of the wikicode #REDIRECT [[Iowa Straw Poll]] (More instructions at Wikipedia:Redirect if you want them) › Mortee _talk 02:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thx much — done. Humanengr (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Humanengr You were very vague on what your questions was. And I was just trying to help. And I still don’t think you need to create a separate page for the same event BigRed606 (talk), 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@BigRed606 — Are you referring to @Mortee's edit? Thx for your help; At this point all I need is an answer to my question here. TIA, Humanengr (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not doing that, after there have been replies? It changes the meaning of what people replying to you said, without them necessarily being aware of it, and without it being clear to anyone else reading what they were replying to. In any case, it's great that you tried to help. Misunderstandings happen; no need to feel bad. › Mortee _talk 03:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@BigRed606 and Mortee: Thx again to you both. Humanengr (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

This page is of my father https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuc_Tuan_Thai, he passed away a few months ago and I would like correct the title of his page/name since it is incorrect. I'm a casual/beginner of Wikipedia and was wondering if anyone can help me change the title of the corrected name. "Thái Thúc Thuần"

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaoistThai (talk • contribs) 05:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

WP:Commonname. Dbfirs 06:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Is this how to reply? I feel so out of my depth, the order of the title/URL? Is incorrect, the last name is Thai, middle Thuc, first Thuan, it would be great if the it can be in the order ex; Thái Thúc Thuần in the page title since I don't think URL can have those special letter symbols, many thanks for replying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaoistThai (talk • contribs) 08:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, we can change the title of the article by

ping}} me in replies) 08:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The order of names is different in different countries. This is the English Wikipedia, so we use English order. If the olympic website has got it wrong, then please point out a website written in English that gets the order right. We are trying to help you here, so please don't be offended by Wikipedia rules. Would you like us to move the page to Thuan Thuc Thai (English order)?Dbfirs 14:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dbfirs,

Thank you, that is fine since it is english version website and so it follows the standard of english naming order.

As toward user Willbb234, I would like to keep some sort of semblance of privacy to verify, is there a way to give a proof/verify that's not public? I understand that the upkeep of wikipedia is on the good graces of volunteers and there isn't any 'official' capacity that represent Wikipedia right? I can provide proof that if I can do it with a modicum or privacy 1 to 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaoistThai (talk • contribs) 21:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any source you provide need to be accessible to the public so they can be verified if desired. Private sources aren't acceptable and shouldn't be used. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At 70 years of age, I would like to learn German, especially for Reading Knowledge of German. I speak and write American English. If I looked up an article written in English, and go to the same subject article written in German will the German article be a exact translation of the English article into German? That it to say, may I use the German article to learn German, and the compare my translation accuracy by comparing it with the same article written in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autodidact7 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general, no, there will be large differences because the projects are independent and the articles are independently written. Occasionally, an article might be a direct translation, but this will be rare and will be noted in the history of the translated article. Dbfirs 06:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've created my first article on Alfred James Collister, a Manx artist.

It says it is published but when I search live on Wiki, nothing comes up.

Is there a delay in publishing first articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svanhear (talk • contribs) 07:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just find the below, so I've answered my own question...….

This page in a nutshell: We can help you write an article if it is about a notable topic and it does not violate copyright law. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal home page or a business list. An article topic must be notable: covered in detail in good references from independent sources. Do not copy-paste content from other websites even if you, your school, or your boss owns them. To create an article, try the Article Wizard. To create articles directly, your account must be at least 4 days (96 hours) old, and have made more than 10 edits. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Wikipedia:Requested articles. If the topic is not notable, or contains copyrighted material, the article will be rejected or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svanhear (talk • contribs) 07:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse,

Your first article for excellent advice about writing actual encylopedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I am involved in a content dispute that spans many articles and templates. The dispute initially involved three editors. One of them was blocked for block evasion, but other than that, it has remained civil from all sides, so there is no conduct problem. However, the nature of the dispute involves quite a few navigation templates and articles, so the discussion is scattered and hard to follow. Other users got involved in some of the talk pages but are probably unaware of the broader dispute which involves mainly two editors, including me. What would be the next best action? Should I open a centralized discussion in an article's talk page that represents the central topic and reference all other discussions? Or ask for a third opinion? Any advice will be appreciated. Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

WP:TALKFORK suggests using {{FYI}} and sometimes {{Moved discussion to

}} to add links from anywhere else the same discussion has been happening.

If the particular question is still about when to say "Marxist-Leninist" rather than "[C/c]ommunist" then the

RfC as a way to get more editors involved and, in time, a definitive result. Perhaps try the centralized discussion first. I hope this helps. All the best › Mortee _talk 16:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Mortee: Thank you for your advice! Note that the dispute is not the naming one you mention (it is related though). That one is already covered by RfC and after listing it at WikiProjects there are other editors involved and we are somewhat advancing. The dispute I was referring to involves Template:Communism and Template:Marxism_sidebar, with some ramifications elsewhere. I'll check how to centralize in a meaningful way and then possibly prepare an RfC once the options are clearer. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MarioGom ah! Sorry, I should have asked instead of assuming. I saw the image issue at Template:Communism but I didn't see it being discussed anywhere else (the discussion at Template talk:Communism sidebar was moved there last night), which is why I got this wrong. Good luck! › Mortee _talk 17:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mortee: Actually I was not fully accurate with the characterization either. Since there are a few different disputes related to communism and Marxism-Leninism, with very similar arguments being used for them, I'm starting to mix things. --MarioGom (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry I wanted to know how are the conditions to edit articles for Wikipedia and get paid. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.178.143.107 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. You should see

LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 13:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, IP editor. Just in case there's a misunderstanding, 99.99% of all users who edit Wikipedia do it for free and for the love of improving the world's greatest online encyclopaedia. Don't look to this site to make you money. But should someone ever ask you to create or edit an article about them, you would have to read and follow the policy links given to you by

The Wikipedia Adventure to get a sense of how things work. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

What happen if I blank the sandbox page? - 139.194.23.247 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the

main Wikipedia sandbox (rather than one under your own username) then you are free to blank it, with the exception of the content above (and including) 'Feel free to try your editing skills below'. If you remove that, then not much will happen except that someone will revert it and, if you persist, you will probably get blocked. Hug^syrup 14:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Looking at your contributions, I see that you have indeed been removing the header. Yeah, please stop doing that as it provides useful information to other users. Generally you can do whatever you like in the sandbox, but persistently blanking it might be seen as disruptive and could lead to a block. Hug^syrup 14:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm new to wikipedia and i'd like to get paid by editing articles but i don't know how to disclose with employer. Although I read the "How to disclose" section but I still don't understand. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behnam1808 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:PAID for more info. Hug^syrup 14:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I did the contribution project on my user page/talk page

What should I do now?

Wait for an employer's request or what?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Behnam1808 (talk • contribs)

I think you've misunderstood this. As I said, no one is going to just offer to pay you because you have inserted the disclaimer into your userpage. The disclaimer is for people who are already being paid to edit Wikipedia, for example because they work for a company and wish to update the page about that company. If you are not currently being paid to edit Wikipedia, then you do not require this disclaimer, and you should not attempt to find a paid writing job through Wikipedia or you risk being blocked. Hug^syrup 14:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I wrote a draft wikipedia entry for Sue Heilbronner in my sandbox and asked for it to be reviewed. The draft was declined on July 13 but I was allowed to try to revise it. I did revise and resubmit it. Last time I checked on August 5 the second review was still pending. When I checked yesterday the revised draft had vanished and there was no indication what had happened. I looked in the history and there was nothing indicated after July 13. How can I find out what happened to my revised draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bklein61 (talk • contribs)

Your contributions are listed at Special:Contributions/Bklein61. Draft:Sue Heilbronner is still there, and its history confirms that it hasn't been edited since 13 July. If you had edited it subsequently it would be shown in the history. Perhaps you failed to save ("publish", in WMF's wording) your changes. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best way to indicate an inline source is related to a table? For, let's say sport competition results.

I have seen various variants:

Source in headline^[3]

This one is ugly and shows up next to the headline in the TOC! Also complicates linking to a section.

Rank	Name	Points
1	Example	4.00
2	Example	2.00

Lone source floating under headline

^[3]

Rank	Name	Points
1	Example	4.00
2	Example	2.00

Source crammed somewhere into the table

Rank[3]	Name	Points
1	Example	4.00
2	Example	2.00

All of these seem kind of subpar. Is there a better way? --Hecato (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third one is what I say is best. You could also have a separate column named ‘reference’. Regards,

ping}} me in replies) 15:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Hecato: My gut reaction is to agree to some extent with what Willbb234 says. However, if you're using the same source for each row in a table, it'd look messy repeatedly adding the same one again and again. I'd use that approach if different sources in a table were being used. In no situations should any level of headings or sub-headings ever contain a hyperlink or a reference, so you could either introduce your table with a single line of explanation (immediately followed by the reference), or you could caption your table and include the reference within that caption. Assuming the data in your table relies solely on one reference, I'd say the latter way is by far the best approach. See example 4, below. For more information on captions within tables see this. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demo 4: Country rankings for 2019^[3]

Rank	Name	Points
1	Japan	4.00
2	New Zealand	2.00

The first is certainly wrong, see

MOS:HEADINGS. I agree with Willbb234 in preferring either your 3rd option or a separate column. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The third option is preferred if the entire table is based on that source. If there are seperate sources for different lines then a column for refs makes sense. If the columns have different sources put the refs in the column headings. In any case the references should be in the table and never in a section heading as that "breaks" the heading for screen readers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks everyone! --Hecato (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

flagicon}}. Finally, Australia and New Zealand are different countries with different flags which makes {{flagicon|AUS}} [[New Zealand]] look like an error. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

How should I refer a reliable source...?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raiyan Ibrahim (talk • contribs) 15:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are links in the feedback on your user talk page, and on the draft itself. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raiyan Ibrahim, in case you haven't seen the link to Help:Referencing for beginners yet, that might be the best place to start. All the best › Mortee _talk 16:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you create a new profile for a public figure or celebrity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niinoinarh (talk • contribs) 16:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

ping}} me in replies) 16:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Team- Glad to connect. It was my first page on wiki. I have some doubts. As of now, i can see the keyword "user" & "sandbox" on the page title. I am unable to remove. Also, i wanted to use biography template but unable to do so. Need help in this regard. Also, please let me know if any recommendation/suggestion to improve the page. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajaram Jain (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When it is ready, you can submit your sandbox draft for

WP:Your first article. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Sir/Madam. I would like to know if i can write about a particular topic and contribute to wikipedia, what are the requirements for one to be an Active contributing writer on this platform. I thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdikadir Noor Aaran (talk • contribs)

There are no formal requirements to edit Wikipedia: As the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, as long as you

write from a neutral point of view

, everyone is more than welcome to edit.

As for a particular topic, the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia are detailed under the

- talk 17:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Your First Article as well. You may wish to search Wikipedia to see if the topic you want to write about does not already have an article. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I am citing sources only with link between usual ref lines. But I am seeing some more elaborate citations with lot more description, for example: "Barnes, Bart (March 11, 1999). "CIA Official Sidney Gottlieb, 80, Dies". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 15, 2015." There is even link inside that description. Does this happen automatically over time, what is going on? How can I get those big description sources? Polyison (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polyison, I'll tell you a hack if you promise to keep it a secret. After you copy a link, instead of writing the ref tags, just put your cursor at the place the cite is supposed to go and press "Ctrl+Shitft+K". When the window appears, press "Ctrl+V" to paste and press "Enter" to generate citation. Easy peasy! If the shortcut doesn't work, the "Cite" option at the top of the edit window does the same thing. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 18:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, your own documentation sets this criteria for sending an automatic invite thru hostbot:

New editors are eligible to receive automatic invitations to the Teahouse from Hostbot if...

• they created their account within the past 36 hours and have since made at least 10 edits.

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts/Database_reports/Automated_invites#Automatic invites

However, here's an invite [4] to a new user with five (5) edits, as far as I can tell.

What's up?

Hmm... no deleted edits either. (Though I note they've been blocked on it.wiki as a username violation and likely have an undisclosed COI.) @Jtmorgan:? GMG^talk 19:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtmorgan: Looking at a quick sample of today's invite's, several users invited have less than 10 edits. One of them only had one edit. RudolfRed (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, it counts global edits? Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 19:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

CapnZapp: the default threshold has actually been 5 edits for the past 4 years or so (I'll update the docs). That said, as RudolfRed and @Usedtobecool: point out there still appears to be a sampling/screening issue occurring (it should never invite someone after one local edit}}. So I'm looking into this and will update the thread with my findings. Thanks all, J-Mo 19:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmm. Can I ask for a bit more context of how the bot's parameters have progressed since it was

CapnZapp (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Edit: My apologies, I just came across this official info: "Initially named Araguaia, its name was changed to "Brasilia" in 1979 - when the project was officially launched." Meaning, the only incorrect information in the current version is essentially the "when", suggesting the CAAA convention is connected to the name change in some fashion.

On the Embraer EMB 120 page, the following line is incorrect:

Araguaia's name was changed to Brasilia in 1979 at the official launching of the project, when at a CAAA (Commuter Airline Association of America) convention at USA several suggestions from prospective operators were collected and incorporated to EMB 120 design.

It should read something more like:

The EMB-120 project was launched in September 1979. At a CAAA (Commuter Airline Association of America) convention in 1980, in the United States, several suggestions from prospective operators were collected and incorporated to EMB-120 design. Prior to being rolled out, the aircraft's name was changed from Araguaia to Brasilia.

Here's a quick translation of the source material (in Portuguese):

The EMB-120 project began in September 1979. In April of the following year a mock-up of the new aircraft was presented during an international congress of Bandeirante operators in Rio de Janeiro, and then sent to the C.A.A.A. (Commuter Airline Association of America) in the United States. During these opportunities several operator suggestions were collected and many incorporated into the aircraft design.

[...] Thus the EMB-120 was born as a totally new aircraft, now renamed Brasilia [...].

The only small issue is that 1980 is not specifically mentioned as the year of the CAAA convention, although the source material shows that the convention occurred after the 1979 launch, thus the name wasn't changed in 1979. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.41.153.82 (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This would be best discussed on the article's talk page. If you make your points there, and don't get any responses for two weeks, you could just go ahead and make the changes you advocate. Maproom (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am updating a profile for one of our global leaders and added a PR photo. It was there when I left off work yesterday but since then it was deleted -- I think because I don't have attribution for the photo? It's a publicity photo taken by my company and as a marketing person I have the right to use it. I've tried to get it undeleted but I can't quite figure out if I was able to do it. I also can't figure out how to post if it is undeleted (or where to access it). I used the upload wizard to upload it the first time -- is this where I would go to see if it's been undeleted?

Separately, I wanted to re-upload this photo as I added a caption in the uploading wizard tool not realizing that the person's name is already displayed above the box. I'd like to delete the caption as it looks kind of stupid to have it below and above the photo. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizhenry (talk • contribs) 21:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Donating copyrighted material. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

More importantly, if you are editing on behalf of your employers you need to read about

paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi

red link above (i.e. the name of the file) and then clicking on the talk page link of the administrator who deleted the file (c:User talk:Didym). Didym deleted the file per Commons speedy deletion criterion F1 and if you think that was done in error, then you should explain why to Didym. In any case, please don't re-upload the same file again because most likely it will only end up being deleted for the same reason. It's OK to make mistakes, but repeating the same mistakes may lead to a Commons adminstrator formally warning you about repeatedly uploading files with problems. The best thing to do is discuss things with Didym; Didym will either restore the file or explain what you need to do to get the file restored. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Your Soldier Medal Recipients page on Wikipedia does not include my name. I was awarded the Soldiers Medal for heroic action in Vietnam. There are many articles supporting this, plus it is on my DD 215. I feel it is important for women to be recognized for our service in Vietnam. How do I get my name included on this list? Thank you. Karen Offutt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:206:4200:5DAB:D022:968F:8084:BEE2 (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed numerous references to Karen Offutt recieving said medal. However, it appears the referenced article

notability standard to have a biography for some other reason, sorry, no, we won't be adding your name to that list.John from Idegon (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Karen, and thank you for your service and heroism. I've posed a question regarding notability at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Karen Offutt. We'll see what sort of feedback is received. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at an article on mobile there is a list of three Related Articles at the bottom. For example, when looking at

@BadHombres: The "Related Articles" section appears to be generated by the MobileFrontend skin using the RelatedArticles extension. I can't dig deeper at the moment, but that should point you in the right direction. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking to write an biography about someone in mongolian language. The sources of cites and references will be taken from news articles and books in mongolian.

The question is how would wikipedia verify the information?

Further info: The biography is does not exist in english, furthermore I would like to translate the biography to english once the sources have been verified.

Any info on this matter will help greatly.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Буддаа Батнаран (talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

WP:COPYVIO. You should also be aware that non-English Wikipedias don't always have the same standards when it comes to sourcing and notability as English Wikipedia; so, simply because an article exists on Mongolian Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean that the same article should exist on English Wikipedia, and simply because a source is cited on Mongolian Wikipedia doesn't mean the same source is OK to cite on English Wikipedia. On English Wikipedia, articles, sources, etc. need to comply with English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Because it is a contentious topic, i would expect simply stating the different accounts and positions of the Saudi and Iranian government or any independent investigation as presented through official organizations otherwise you end up with reference bloat with multiple sources recursively and circularly referencing each other but all drawing from the same source. Any peer reviewed journal articles discussing the incident that are published in reputable journals would also be good. It's not about what really happened, it's about what officials and expert accounts describe because nobody really knows what happened except the Saudi security forces. this incident happened around the time of United Nations Security Council Resolution 598 and United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War. 49.198.7.235 (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ultra noob here. i have a reference to add to a page referencing Charles Fort and I don't want to screw up. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&action=edit&section=new sometimes i have trouble concentrating but i wanted to contribute. can you point me towards info to do this right?Freqhertz (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Freqhertz: You would go to the Charles Fort article and probably edit the Charles Fort#Literary influence section. Since the section is already rather long, you'll need to find a place where you can integrate the information with what's already there – you should not just add a sentence (or paragraph) at the end that doesn't "flow" with what's already there. I've put a welcome message on your "talk page" with some info about Wikipedia and pointers to help you become familiar with editing. I removed the leading "/* References */" from this section header since it caused problems with edit summaries (at least). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YAY I'M SO HAPPY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humorous1234 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Humorous1234: Congratulations. If you have any questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia, you can ask here. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!!!!!!

Well done! I've sent over some cookies as a reward. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed no information about epiphone banjos in the article on epiphone ( a division of Gibson ). I own a long neck epiphone campus model made in 1963 ( information I got from the company in the early 1980's ). I was just hoping to find more information about it on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teborg.1092 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Teborg.1092. Our article Epiphone makes it clear that the company was known as the Epiphone Banjo Company 90 years ago, and still makes banjos. But there is a lack of detail about the banjos they have produced in the article. On the other hand, much of the detail about their guitars is unreferenced, and that is not a good thing. I suggest that you find reliable sources that discuss their banjos in detail, and summarize that content in the article, with references. If you can improve the guitar content, that would be wonderful as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Teborg.1092: You might like to check for images on Wikimedia Commons. If there isn't a good one already there, you could consider photographing yours and uploading an image that anyone can use. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia!

I'm kinda new here so I just wanted to ask whether the user that undoes my edits is right or not (as I don't want to be involved in some edit-war):

Edit that is in question (removed my added content by user Retimuko): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coinbase&oldid=911950715

User 'Retimuko' says 'what independent reliable sources noticed this?' are following media considered a reliable source? - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coinbase-says-foiled-sophisticated-hacking-090118574.html - https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614094/an-attempted-heist-at-coinbase-was-scary-good-even-though-it-failed/ - https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/20/coinbase_firefox_zero_day/ - https://www.wired.com/story/firefox-vulnerability-coinbase-ransomware-border-hack/

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrypentest (talk • contribs) 07:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit appears to me constructive and well-sourced. But I recommend omitting the word "fortunately", as it indicates a point of view (albeit one that most of us share). Maproom (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted! Is there anything I can do to get it published? I don't want to get involved in some flame war with this user. I've left him a message on his talk page but no response yet. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrypentest (talk • contribs)

Hi all,

I work for International Crisis Group, an international NGO dedicated to resolving deadly conflicts around the world. We are widely respected NGO as we have analysts in conflict zones with the aim to understand what is driving these conflicts and how they can be resolved.

Recently, a New York Times article by one of our analysts caught the attention of some trolls who started an online campaign against us. Among the things they did was to change our Wikipedia page, which resulted in a back-and-forth editing war. This led Wikipedia to bar any edits to the page, so the current version is one with edits by these trolls. Now the page has been opened again for editing, but I worry that as soon as we change it, the trolls will appear. I understand that not everyone has the same view as we do of our organisation, and e.g. in our edits we have left the Controversies section as they have edited it - although preferably it would not be right at the top where they moved it to. Wikipedia is not and should not be a promotional page, so I would like to find a balanced way to solve this.

Any advice on how we can stop these trolls from repeatedly changing our organisation's Wikipedia page?

Here is a link to the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crisis_Group

Here is a link to our website: https://www.crisisgroup.org/

I appreciate learning from your expertise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidsa (talk • contribs) 08:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute, and should be discussed on the article's talk page. As you work for ICG, you have a conflict of interest, and should not edit the article yourself. As a matter of tact, I recommend you not to describe people as "trolls" just because they disagree with you. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Sidsa. A couple of general things about Wikipedia.

1. A Wikipedia article written about your organization is not the property of your organization as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content; so, in other words, it's not your organization's page and nobody connected to your organization has any final editorial control over article content. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause.
2. Since you state you're a member of your organization and editing on it's behalf, you most certainly would be considered to have a
   conflict of interest about anything written about your organization on Wikipedia. Please refer to Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to learn about ways you can let other editors know about problems you might find in the article. You should also review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure
   to make sure neither you nor any other members of your organization are also required to comply with it.
3. Please try to remember to be
   protected
   ; so, it can currently be edited by anyone. As long as their edits are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, there should be no problem.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maproom and Marchjuly,

Thank you for your insightful guidance. I completely agree that the Wikipedia page is not our ownership which is why I highlighted my desire to keep the page balanced and sought out the expertise of this community. Better phrasing on my part would have been that the page for our organisation has been changed to be factually incorrect and sow doubt about our work. I also agree that I am not the best person to edit the page, and I myself have never done so. The page was not created by our Communications department nor have we maintained it specifically, and only started editing the page this summer after we were alerted that the page seemed to have been edited in a non-neutral way at the exact same time as we faced online bombardment following the dispute I mentioned above. As I also stated in my original description, I completely understand and respect that not everyone sees the organisation the same way as I do, and during our edits we have for example left the Controversy section with their edits.

However, as you will see the page currently has negative qualifiers such as: that Crisis Group "advertises itself as carrying out field research", "says it provides detailed analysis" which is not the norm for Wikipedia pages. Furthermore, some of the text under Regional Programs data has been edited in a way that makes it outdated. I don't know why anyone would want to do so but it is unfortunate that the page has been changed so it no longer reflects the latest information.

Thank you again for pointing me to helpful resources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidsa (talk • contribs) 11:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sidsa. Perhaps I could chip in here? You're right that articles saying "it advertises itself as" or "it says it does xyz" is unusual for Wikipedia but, if the only source of information is a reference to the organisation's own website, that seems to be a very fair way to phrase things. However, if the page cited independent reliable reference about your organisation, then that form of wording would't be necessary. Pehaps you could find some better sources to use and suggest them on the talk page? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick Moyes ,

Thank you for the explanation. I really appreciate how responsive everyone is and willing to help me find and use the existing avenues to solve this dispute. I have never edited a Wikipedia page before and worry I will do something wrong. On the bright side, I am getting insight into the fascinating world of Wikipedia. Following your recommendation, I will find some external sources that help substantiate the phrasing and see if that helps solve it. Could I get in touch with you again if I find myself lost in this new world?

@

WP:COI. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

And don't worry about "doing something wrong". Everyone here has messed up on here at some point. Everything is fixable. Actually breaking things we leave to the developers ;-) - X201 (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some material from the controversies section of the article. One paragraph was about a special issue of a scholarly journal critically examining the role of the ICG, which didn't seem to me to be the source of controversy, and the other was about Gareth Evans, but the sources made no mention of his ICG role, so it's not clear that they are criticising ICG. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the encouragement Nick Moyes! This feels a bit like learning a new language and while everyone is having elaborate adult conversations I am stuck in the baby-talk stage. Great point on editing other pages, I see that some of our peer organisations do not have elaborate pages so I can help there!

Cordless Larry Thank you for those edits. The comment from Gareth Evans was indeed made when he was Foreign Minister of Australia, not during his time at ICG. It is also interesting that the ones making these edits have highlighted the funding from Qatar (first falsely stated as 23% of Crisis Group's budget as seen in the Edits history) by creating a new paragraph highlighting only this particular funding and separating it from the main paragraph on funding, which explains that 68% of all Crisis Group funding comes from Governments and Foundations. I question what purpose it serves to single out this one government but I am choosing my battles here.

One question, for some reason the text has been changed so the Program Directors mentioned for both Asia and Europe are former staff. However, the only source I have for the new Program Directors is Crisis Group's website. What can I do if this information keeps getting changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidsa (talk • contribs) 15:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to cite an organisation's own website for uncontroversial information such as staff lists, Sidsa. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I have recently created a draft or two only to find there is already one now I have a draft that is useless and I don't know how to get rid of it.

Could anyone tell me how to delete it? If not or you feel it would be safer to do it yourself then the draft is 1973-74 Leeds United A.F.C. season.

User:2a02:c7f:9616:2800:1c7c:cf3f:2db:9edd (talk)

I've gone ahead and done so as an author request. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9616:2800:1C7C:CF3F:2DB:9EDD (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I am a fully disclosed paid editor representing

@

ping}} me in replies) 12:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The 7 days doesn't expire until later this afternoon. Leave it until then. Why the hurry? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a very pro-active person. I must say I find it a little confusing when I keep getting mixed responses from different editors like this. Essayist1 (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

are no deadlines on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi I need my draft Nathaniel Phillips could someone do it for me?

User:REDMAN 2019 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can request deletion of your draft by tagging it with {{db-g7}}.

LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 12:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, i have some questions regarding referencing the article, can we put blogspot, facebook, twitter, instagram links as a reference for the article. Hamidkhatri (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since these are user-generated sources, they cannot be used to establish WP:Notability and are not usually considered WP:Reliable sources, but occasionally they might be used for uncontroversial facts. Dbfirs 13:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

WP:TWITTER. All the best › Mortee _talk 14:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, thank you. Hamidkhatri (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, Wikipedia has always been one of my most important sites...and helped this old man who is simply not that tech savvy! For that I thank all of you who strive to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the website. Second, I believe I clicked the wrong thing one too many times and somehow got myself engaged in a chat that is simply over my head. My intention was to ask if my credentials qualified me to be added to the Wikipedia page which lists notable people from the State of West Virginia. After reviewing the requirements and realizing that I more than adequate validation from reliable news agencies and mainstream network media, I then attempted to copy and paste some of the links to major press releases, network television coverage, local and national network news and local, regional and national media publications specific to my achievements. I must have done something really wrong because the responses I received appeared to be of a disciplinary nature and actually hurt this old man’s feelings - which I’m sure none of you meant to do intentionally. Lastly, if any of you folks with Wikipedia can give me some advice on the proper way to make my inquiry with the right department, on the right forum and not take up any more of your time by having to address my technical shortcomings, please do so when, and only when, responding to me doesn’t interfere and you have a few minutes for me. Thank you so much and again, please forgive me. Sincerely, T. Osborne Inventor & Entrepreneur - ABC’s Hit Reality Show SHARK TANK. President & Chief Operations Officer - BioWALL — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCIBBInventor (talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CCIBBInventor Your account's edit history indicates that you haven't edited any pages other than the Teahouse and Help Desk. There also hasn't been any recent edits to List of people from West Virginia so I'm wondering if you were editing a different article while logged out? 331dot (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, T.Osborne. If you want your name to be enshrined in the list of notable people you mention, you have to have an article about yourself on Wikipedia. That would be a WP:Autobiography (read the article). You also need to read and understand the articles listed o your Talk page. The distinction of being mentioned in Wikipedia is, in my opinion, vastly overrated.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for trying to help me. Also, to Quisqualis...I appreciate your advice and personally agree with you about the list being overrated. I am losing a parent soon due to tragic illness. I simply wanted and intended to make my name visible on the list, something that we viewed together on many instances, prior to having to say goodbye. At this point, It would seem that divine intervention would be needed for that to be possible...even if it were to be uploaded and made visible for just a few days, just long enough for Mama to see it once...and then, I would ask that it be taken down anyway for the very reasons you describe. Thanks for attempting to help folks...I appreciate you and again, I’m sorry I just don’t have the skills to see this through. It’s just not the sort of thing I want to instruct my executive assistant or my IT team to do for me. You may feel free delete me from the site. CCIBBInventor (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CCIBBInventor: I am sorry to hear of your difficult time. I have seen other requests similar to this before, children stating they have a terminal illness who want to be a Wikipedia administrator before they pass away(for example)- and it's hard to say this, but we have to discount such reasoning in the course of operating this encyclopedia. Just as the Boston Red Sox will not allow someone with a terminal illness to be a starting pitcher for them, we can't consider illness or difficult situations in what edits or content is permitted. Content must meet the relevant notability criteria and other guidelines. Wikipedia really isn't that big a deal, anyway. This is just an encyclopedia.

If you no longer wish to edit Wikipedia, you may simply abandon your account; it is not possible to delete an account. Again, I am sorry to hear about your situation at this difficult time. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I completely understand and appreciate your response, I must say it was very inconsiderate and certainly changes the way I feel about Wikipedia. I understand you have to convey the business rules, but using the Baseball story was completely uncalled for. I only hope the the rest of your colleagues who interface with others seeking help are a little more compassionate than you and able to communicate effectively. Shame on you. CCIBBInventor (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CCIBBInventor: It was not my intention to give offense, simply trying to be clear. I unconditionally apologize. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• CCIBBInventor, yes, you are terribly confused! To call out an editor here who was trying to help you here like that. You are the one who should be ashamed imho. --Malerooster (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the ‘Category:Military–industrial_complex’ page, what needs to be done to put the 3 links preceding the ‘A’ set into their proper place? Thx Humanengr (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Humanengr, hope you're well. Those pages are sorted to the top because they've been given a blank sort key. That's what the pipe is doing in e.g. [[Category:Military–industrial complex| ]] on the main Military–industrial complex article. Because that one's the main article for the category, it's right that it goes there. The other two could be sorted in amongst the other categories by deleting the pipes. Sometimes a general but not main article is best sorted between that and the others, which is done with an asterisk after the pipe. Best, › Mortee _talk 18:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thx @Mortee, thx for instructions on those intricacies. Regards, Humanengr (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

For reasons I do not remember, I have two user names, DriverSafety, and Pierrot2007. I have made at least 10 combined edits under both names.

Q1. Can I combine my editing history under DriverSafety and then delate Pierrot2007.

Q2. I would like to create my first article that describes the company I work for. I am confident the brief article has Notability (with 15 outside references).

Thanks,--