Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 623

Essentially, I was saying that, as it stands, the article doesn’t really give an understanding of how World Café events actually work and how they differ from other types of group activity. I thought it would be useful to include an explanation of this.

Additionally, while the older version of the article indicated the range of organisations that have used World Café events, both in terms of type and geographical location, this is missing from the article as it now stands. I made the point that this underlines the notability of the article and so may be worth including. What do you think? Fbell74 (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The thread is archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 621#Request: World Cafe. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

original research. Secondly, notability is defined very precisely in Wikipedia's terms, and the number of customers (or fans, or associates, or whatever) does not figure in it. In most cases, a selective list of significant customers or partners is more appropriate than an exhaustive list. --ColinFine (talk

) 13:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Added a ping link. CiaPan (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

... but of course the ping link won't ping as it wasn't added in the same edit as the signature. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You have once again failed to declare your

WP:PAID relationship to this topic while discussing it, Fbell74

. Why exactly is that? Just as before, declaration is obligatory, not optional.

I assume that you have by now looked at DGG's clear and detailed reply to your previous post. It seems to deal with all your concerns.

As for what I think … well, I think that paid editors should stick rigorously to the conditions under which their presence here is – for reasons that I am quite incapable of understanding – tolerated. And I think that someone, or perhaps a small army, needs to go into John Travis (physician) with heavy equipment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks David Biddulph for pointing out the link to the previous thread. I can see the detailed response left by DGG to my other post, which addressed the points I had made before.

ColinFine There are independent reliable sources that were included in the previous version of the article, which describe the World Café method. These tend to focus on the latter rather than discussing several kinds of group activity, so they don’t necessarily make comparisons between the different types. Do you think they would still be worth using? DGG picked up the point about not including a long list of customers and suggested inputting references instead. That’s probably a better way to go, maybe mentioning types (e.g. local government, oil companies).

Justlettersandnumbers - apologies, I had previously indicated in the article that I was a paid contributor, but didn’t repeat this in the Teahouse posts. Hopefully this will rectify that. Fbell74 (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

May I know that why are you deleting my articles along with the reference. If there is any problem, please report me. Last time, I wrote the article Moon that earth had 2 moons. I wrote it as a proven fact. Then it got deleted and a Wikipedian wrote in my talk page that I din't write as the collision would have formed 2 moons not 1. Then yesterday - 3rd of June, 2017, I wrote it as it would have formed 2 moons and I din't write it as a proven fact, but it also got deleted, so I want to know the reason. If you want the link of the reference which is a video please visit ^[1]K. Badri Vishal (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, K. Badri Vishal. You have been trying to add a fringe theory to an important scientific article using a YouTube video as a source. This is disruptive editing and there is no way that you will get consensus for such edits. You must use high quality, respected, peer reviewed scientific sources for such claims. Examples would be articles in respected astronomy journals or books published by respected university presses. This is not negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

K. Badri Vishal, User Tomruen has now added the information to the article, with a more reliable source. Rojomoke (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP was unable to find Claimed moons of Earth. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone

I am new around and have decided to contribute my quota in this amazing website called wikipedia.

I want to know how long it takes for my contributions, citations and dead link correction to be approved and how do I know if it was approved by the moderators in the house?

thanks Rebecca Exlink10 (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rebecca. Changes you make to Wikipedia are live the second you save the page - there isn't a moderation process. If you make a change to an article, that change is immediately visible. There are a couple of exceptions (when you create a completely new article as a

pending changes protection), but as a rule, when you save, the edit is live straight away. Yunshui ^雲_水

12:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

Recent Changes Patrol who ensure your edits are not vandalism. There are some pages that unregistered users, or users with a low edit count, cannot edit. This is because they are often vandalized. To answer your question - all of your edits are live on Wikipedia! Thank you for your contribution to our project! Keira1996

12:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Just a tip, Exlink10: when you replace a dead-link reference, as you did here, you can remove the dead link template message (the code {{Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=H3llBot}} in this case). Cordless Larry (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

In this case you also needed to change the name of the reference to match that of the article which it pointed to - as it was, it was misleading as it referred to a different year. I've made both changes. If you want to see what I did, you can take a look at the 'diff' in the edit history. Neiltonks (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

If you're creating a new article, you can save it as Draft:.... (see HELP) and it will automatically be reviewed for approval fairly quickly. If it's just a change to an existing article, as others have said, it's IN unless someone objects to it. Some important or popular pages are monitored by a senior editor, and some editors keep a watch on pages of particular interest to them. When you make a change, check off the "Watch this page box", and it will be added to your Watchlist. Check your watchlist regularly (should be a link on the top bar) -- if nobody's changed or reverted your edit, it stands -- for now (Wikipedia is always in flux). D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have created the page Andi Bonsai, and it is saying I need to cite a valid reference or it will be deleted. I am a music producer and I have cited discogs website, a cite that I have an endorsement with....does anyone have a tip on best way to do this before I am deleted.

Andibonsai (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The question is not whether you're "real", it's whether you're

notable

, in the strange sense in which Wikipedia uses that word. To establish that you are notable, you'll need to cite several reliable independent sources that discuss you. At present there are four references, but

1. does not give an issue number or page number, so it's not practicable to check it
2. does not discuss you
3. does not even mention you
4. does not discuss you

Maproom (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

In addition, as I noted on Help Desk, where this was also asked, please read Wikipedia:Autobiography - you should not be working on an article about yourself.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi I'm Braden can you be my friend we can play infinite warfare and slouch people. We can also make a family friendly YouTube video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Familyfriendlybraden (talk • contribs)

Hello, Familyfriendlybraden. I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place to ask this. This is a help facility for editing Wikipedia, not for any other kind of activities. You are very welcome to get involved with editing Wikipedia, but please keep social activities, game playing, and making videos, to other sites. --ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Hi Colin, when something like this happens, does the post get removed? Checks Facts _{will happily talk} 01:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Checks_Facts. Normally, we only remove a post if it includes things like gross personal attacks on other people, obviously obscene language without any intent to improve the encyclopedia, or complete gibberish. Otherwise, we leave posts intact, since someone may learn something from them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, ColinFine. Every day you learn something new. Checks Facts _{will happily talk} 20:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I get a book jacket cover to use in Wiki article?MoondawgII (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Moondawgll. If you have the book you can take a picture of the jacket, or take a screenshot if you can bring it up online. However, please note that, unless the book was published prior to 1923, it is under copyright and the picture can only be used via fair use reasoning on the book's article. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MoondawgII.White Arabian Filly is correct. For complete details, please read Wikipedia:Non-free content, especially subsection 3.1.3. If the cover is copyrighted, which applies to the vast majority of books published since 1923, you need to upload a low resolution image here on Wikipedia, not on Wikimedia Commons. A book cover image can be used only in the article about the book. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it required or just preferred that we sign in with a user name other than our own? Why is this? Jean-ramon (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Jean, it is suggested that you select a user name that is different from your given name, as revealing your real name may leave you vulnerable to harassment from malicious editors. Many editors, however, do use user names that include all or part of their given names. In the end, the choice is yours. Feel free to read more about the user name policy at Wikipedia:Username policy. Thank you, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 22:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Jean-ramon, I for one, edit under my full legal name, and I wish that more editors did so. But that is each editor's choice to make. It is a good idea that an editor be aware of possible downsides when choosing to edit under a name easily linked with his or her (perhaps particularly her, from what I hear from female Wikipedians) off-line self. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I upload pictures.

Try this:

Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. NikolaiHo^☎️

03:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm going on, but it's been a month, and a lot of wasted electrons. I'm fairly convinced that the editor is going to continue to be obstructive, and that he can't be neutral on the subject (ironic, given the NPOV), but that will likely change in the face of consensus. What would you recommend to break the deadlock? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bromley86. I do not see the other editor refusing to talk, as you claim, but rather I see that editor explaining their position quite clearly and cogently. The bottom line is that you have been unable to achieve consensus for your proposed changes and Wikipedia operates on consensus. My suggestion is to drop the matter and work on other articles instead, but that is just my personal opinion. The Teahouse is not a place for resolving content disputes, but is instead a place for answering questions from inexperienced editors about the basics of editing the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328. Actually, he is refusing to discuss most matters, but that's beside the point, and I'm not too keen on dropping it just because someone thinks they own the article. But you're right, I should have stuck to the point: I was really asking what the correct dispute resolution procedure is. Another try at 3O, RFC, or something else? Bromley86 (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, Bromley86, an RFC has the best chance of attracting input from thoughtful, uninvolved editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328, much appreciated. Bromley86 (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi editors, first time attempting to contribute-

How do I know if my content is appropriate to post? eg. If I did a post like "Things to do in Cape Town, South Africa", or would I have to refine the topic more? Editorguy 919 (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Editorguy 919, and thanks for planning to contribute. When thinking about what to write an article about, I find it's helpful to look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you read this policy, it mentions that Wikipedia articles should not read like travel guides. If you find a location or business in Cape Town, on the other hand, that has been covered by reliable sources, that would be a good topic for an article. Let me know if you have any more questions! Margalob (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Margalob, thank you for the feedback.

Was very helpful. So just to clarify, if I did decide to write about a business how would I know the line? Because as far as I know, you can't write about businesses entities (may be considered promotions)? 12:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorguy 919 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You may certainly write about business entities,

neutrally. State only facts, and only those facts for which you can cite a source. Any opinions should be those of a named person or entity, preferably in a direct quote, and should be directly supported by a citation. Terms such as "best of its class" ,"extraordinary", "Committed to customer satisfaction", "World renouned", "famous" and similar marketing talk should be left out. That is the line. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

12:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to ask another question, unrelated and probably silly. But how do I tag/link someone in the post, so they know I'm addressing them? Editorguy 919 (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Explained at

WP:Notifications. --David Biddulph (talk

) 13:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I need help changing the page name from reabiliti(https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reabiliti) to reliabiliti. The page was misplelled. Reliabiliti should be the translation from reliability. Hayate891 (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

move function, but I do not know what it is called or where in the interface it is for the version of Wikipedia that you re working on. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

12:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hayate891:, a help desk for ms-Wiki seems to be located at ms:Wikipedia:Meja_bantuan - you could try asking for additional advice there (I don't speak the language myself). All language-specific Wikipedia projects have their own autonomous policies, administrators and forums, so we can't help you here on en-Wiki with ms-Wiki questions. Hope that helps a bit nonetheless. GermanJoe (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks @GermanJoe: and @DESiegel:. I will try over there. I was looking for the move function. I can't find it. It's not in en wiki or ms wiki. I don't know why. Hayate891 (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed users, and your account is not listed as such, although I think it should be. Perhaps a few more edits will do it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

Yes, indeed. I got a notification of 10 edits just after that. And the move function is then available in en wiki. I don't really need it now in en wiki. But at least I know why. I will just have to make some more editing in ms wiki to unlock the move function over there too I think. I guess, the case is solved now. Thanks DESiege. :) Hayate891 (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"This article relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this by adding secondary or tertiary sources."

I have read the instructions that follows and I am still confused. I addressed the issue and want to remove this warning. According to the instruction, I should be able to do it in Edit. I didn't see the message in there.

Thank you in advance for any help on this.Afunai (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The template which gives the warning is the one that says {{Primary sources|date=June 2017}}, but you oughtn't to remove it while 2 of the 3 sources are from the company's own website. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

reliable sources cited, more if possible. The one in place is a fairly through coverage, but a single source is always a problem. The advice above from David Biddulph is quite correct. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

16:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Afunai, here is a link to a promising source:

International Directory of Company Histories. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Im new to wikipedia.. How do I get an article i stumbled upon approved in here? I have been editing wikis at wiki.teamliquid as well.. Shikarath (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

Articles for creation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

16:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Shikarath. Is this about Draft:Kyoto eSports?. That draft has several problems.

1. It uses other wikis as sources: wikis are usually not considered
   reliable sources
   .
2. One cited source is another Wikipedia article, this is never acceptable.
3. It includes lots of game results, rather than content about the gaming company that is the nominal subject. Those should probably be removed. If they stay, they must be cited to a
   reliable source
   .
4. Several of the cited sources seem to be affiliated with the subject. Fully
   independent
   sources are needed.
5. Because of the previous issue, the
   notability
   of the subject has not yet been demonstrated by this draft.
6. It seem there is also a problem with
   neutral
   , and does not contain unsourced opinions or promotional content. Everything in the article should be derived from a cited source, and anything at all controversial or surprising should be cited to an independent source if at all possible.

Until those issues are dealt with, the draft is unlikely to be approved. If you have more specific questions after reading these pointers and

Your First Article please do ask them here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

16:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I cannot seem to get my page published even thought I have followed the template of a competitor brand.Eosonaike (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

On wikipedia, pages need to show the

notability of their subject. A way to check notability is to see if this company has been covered by independent, reliable sources. I noticed that you cite the company's website in your article, which is not an independent source. If you're unable to find independent, reliable sources, this company is not notable enough for an article. Margalob (talk

) 16:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

reliable sources, that discuss the company in some detail, normally several paragraphs at least. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

16:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

For reference; Draft:Orbus Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

My page has been deleted because it was described as promotional. How do I get back the content of my work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YanniYanni (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You presumably haven't read the message given to you by

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi at User talk:YanniYanni#Speedy deletion nomination of User:YanniYanni/sandbox/LendMart.com? --David Biddulph (talk

) 16:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't that page a personal sandbox? I'm confused as to why it was deleted.Margalob (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It was a sandbox, apparently intended as a draft article. But while sandboxes and drafts do not need to comply with all the standards that articles do, promotional pages can be and often are deleted under speed deletion criterion

G11 even in draft or user space. Phrases such as It is the first lending marketplace platform in Canadian that helps small businesses identify, compare, and apply for loans in one place, all in under five minutes. made the draft quite promotional. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC) @Margalob: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

16:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi - I was wondering how best to create a family tree for an individual who has a wikipedia article published already ("Edward Howell died 1655"). His ancestry has been proven by genealogist Douglas Richardson Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study In Colonial And Medieval Families, 2nd Edition (2011) and thought this may be worthwhile/valuable information to publish considering Edward Howell has a wikipedia page? Wasn't sure, if worth creating, if this the tree should be published separately or included in the Howell article itself as an edit? Kind thanks in advance for your feedback/advice. Carterclewis (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I just found an article with a frivolous edit that was made just yesterday. It appears to be vandalism. How do I report it as vandalism? Lupine453 (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You can correct it yourself and warn the editor. See WP:Vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I was making an edit to a college mascot page (Wilbur and Wilma Wildcat, University of Arizona). I thought it would be fun to add an autograph or signature to the Infobox on the right, which is when I learned what an Infobox was. I tried to mimic the page from Bill Clinton to add the signature, but it didn't show up on the page. Then, I tried to add an autograph key to the mascot Infobox template, but that didn't work either. What am I doing wrong? Thanks!

Hey

Adamjaffeback. You're not doing anything wrong. You could try forever to add the autograph to the infobox and it will never work--because the parameter is a phantom. While the template documentation lists the facility, no actual code for an autograph parameter is in the template's code. It could be that the person who made the template planned on adding it but never did, or maybe they copied the documentation for the template from another one that did have the facility, and then never removed those instructions from this template's documentation. I'm not a great coder, just a dilettante, but I think I can add the code to make it work. I'll report back in a little while. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 01:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@

Adamjaffeback: Done. Autograph is displaying.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 01:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Fuhghettaboutit! AdamTWildcat (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. Maybe I should just ignore this, but I can't resist. I got an "alert" indicating that an article I wrote, Golgi matrix has been accepted. Later, I got a "notice" indicating that the matrix page had been reviewed. The 2 messages were from 2 different editors. The notice appears in "public logs", but not the alert. What is the difference between "acceptance" and "review"? What is the difference between "alerts" and "notifications"? Thank you. JeanOhm (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi JeanOhm. You got the alert because a user posted to your talk page: [1] Any post would have caused an alert. In this case the post informed you that your draft had been approved and become an article. It's possible to make this approval without posting to you and causing an alert. The later notice about the review is part of Wikipedia:New pages patrol which can apply to all new pages anywhere but is mostly used on new articles. The feature ignores whether an article started as a draft and was accepted there. You can just ignore this, or read the link if you want to know more. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Right after creating an account, there was a tool bar prompt that suggested articles that needed basic help (grammar, formatting etc.).

The tool bar has since disappeared. Wondering how to get it back? Thanks.

AllenAdam76 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi AllenAdam76, welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:GettingStarted#Try it out, or click Random article. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The article I am trying to edit is highly inaccurate and each time I try to correct it there is a particular User (perhaps more than one person but one user account) who is just undoing it each time. The user account seems to have been created solely for this purpose. I'm certain that they know the page is inaccurate but they want to keep it that way. What can I do? Thanks Banjo92 (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

for reference: Kenja Communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

Third Opnion might be a good place to start. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

01:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the article

talk

) 01:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DES, will do. NZ Football, thanks for your suggestion. It is clear that there are other users on here who are biased. Talking to them isn't going to change that, as you are probably aware. Just aiming for accuracy so I'll get more input as suggested. Banjo92 (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Posting here to seek assistance from someone versed in welcoming new editors. A large amount of unformatted text has been added to this article by a new editor. It needs formatting, better referencing, etc. The change broke the existing infobox. They did ask for assistance in an edit summary. I reverted once, but don't want to be too

Hi

closely paraphrased). Checking for copyright violations is often a go-to starting point when you see any large additions of content. This content had many hallmarks about it that made me think it was likely to be a copyvio, which was then confirmed by looking at the source. I recently wrote a guide to recognizing such hallmarks, provided material on checking for them, and procedures for dealing with them when they are confirmed, at Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 23:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, Thanks for taking care of this. I am on vacation now with a small keyboard and slow internet connection, so I can't do that much easily. I didn't think copyvio because the tone seemed rather informal. Glad you had the time to check more thoroughly. I read what you put on the editors talk page. Hopefully they will follow those guidelines. MB 04:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi!

I have created a draft, and waiting for a review, for the page "Magnus Penker" (Draft:Magnus Penker). If anyone have time to help me look at it I would be very grateful! :)

Best regards, Strongline123 (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at

notable. A reviewer will be looking for reliable independent sources with significant discussion of him. They won't be interested in what he has said about himself. Maproom (talk

) 08:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Maproom! Thank you for looking at the draft! Do you mean "Talarforum" or cites from his books? I used his books to explain his works/methods. I also added a few independet sources. Several of his books are "best-selling". His been cited on several wikipedia-pages: Hans-Erik_Eriksson#Eriksson-Penker_Business_Extensions, Unified_Modeling_Language, Enterprise_engineering and Business_process_modeling

Best regards, Strongline123 (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I've now looked at the "Talarforum" source, and I strongly recommend omitting it. For one thing, Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject says about himself. Also, it can give a negative impression of him: "Mr. Penker is driven by the recognition that in these turbulent times, we must understand what we are really good at" makes him sound (to me, anyway) like a self-promoting bullshitter.

Which of the sources do you consider as independent? Maproom (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

How to identify is the song a single or not? What if the song has released on Spotify, YouTUbe, Shazam and SoundCloud but not iTunes, is that still consider as a single and put in the "Single" category? Or just put it in another category that's not in the "single" section? Thanks :) JustofiedT147AG (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me. I used wikipedia a few years ago but forgot everything even my login and password lol. I am now back. I will create new articles soon and clean Wikipedia and contribute to making a change. I love this portal. I would like to get templates and codes please suggest where do I find them Prof.Marlin (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

WP:CHEATSHEET to be a good place to start. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

17:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Philippelemm (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Philippelemm. I'm afraid that the best advice for you is, Don't! Autobiography - and, by extension, writing about your own group, band, company, organisation, etc - is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. If there are substantial materials about your group, written by people unconnected with the group, and published in reliable places such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers, then there could be an article based on these sources; but you should not be the one to write it. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything which the subject of an article has said, or wants to say: it is only interested in what independent people have publishd about the subject. If there are such sources, your best bet is to post a request as requested articles: there are no guarantees about when, or whether, a volunteer will pick up your request: but if you find some solid sources, this will make it more attractive. --ColinFine (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

WP:COI). Those policies are considered very important by Wikipedians' community, so please stick to them, or you risk your contribution will be deleted and your account blocked from editing Wikipedia. --CiaPan (talk

) 13:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

articles for creation project, try to work with one or more experienced editors, and listen to their advice if they are willing to give it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

18:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

AvatarofPride (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WP:ENGVAR for the more specific detail. Roger (Dodger67) (talk

) 18:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It is often said -ize is American and -ise British but note that -ize is generally an acceptable, if slightly unusual, spelling in Britain as well, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling#International organizations. Also, even in America, some words are -ise such as revise. Thincat (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if it is possible to make an image which cannot be clicked (which leads to the page file). Thanks. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Nikolaiho, but this should generally not be done in article space. Also, this may not be done anywhere with images that are licensed anything other than public domain, because clicking on the image will take you to the license terms. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop:, can you please tell me how it can be done? I am not planning to use it in an article but simply for knowledge. Thanks. NikolaiHo^☎️ 01:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nikolaiho: I don't actually know how to do that. I know some templates do that (those based on {{ombox}}, and {{portal}}, for instance). It's not in Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Extended image syntax#Link. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am looking for pre prepared templates for info box of companies. Where I can get that?

{{

Join WP Japan

! 19:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)