Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 699

Hello. I re-submitted a rejected page. How long does it usually take to be reviewed again? In addition, will the same reviewer look at it again, or someone new? Are there any steps I must take to ensure the second review, or does it take place automatically once I make edits and resubmit it? Thank you.Orual1963 (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey

WP:CONSENT. GMG^talk

17:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, GreenMeansGo, Orual1963 has already resubmitted it, and does not need to do so again. Orual, there's nothing you need to do while waiting for the re-review, but there is plenty that you could do - some that may not affect whether it is accepted, but would certainly improve the article. Some things worth looking at are:

• Either remove the bare URLs in the "Reference" section; or if they are useful as references (the articles by the subject are not) convert them into proper references.
• Review
  WP:SURNAME
  . The article title should probably be simply "George Flinn" , or perhaps "George S Flinn" (but don't worry about moving the draft - the reviewer will move it to the right title when they accept it) and after the first time, he should be referred to in the article simply as "Flinn", not "Dr Flinn".
• Some of the language is not neutral. Phrases like "has led to advancements in... " and "greatly increasing its effectiveness" are evaluative, and should never appear in Wikipedia's voice. If a published source wholly unconnected with Flinn and his company says these, then they can be quoted, with a citation; but not otherwise.
• Also, some of the language is just not encyclopaedic. "It was during this time that he became instilled with the desire to serve his community and nation" is puff. Again, if this were quoted from a published biography, it would be acceptable; or (since it is about his own motives) it would be OK to quote himself as saying this (provided it had been published somewhere). --ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware. Probably just didn't make the best choice of words to express that. GMG^talk 18:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine. About the photo release. I went to the WP /consent page and located the sample email. Do I send that to the owner of the photo? Meaning- the person who took the photo OR the person in the photo? Which person must sign and submit that form to the media wiki commons email address? I want to make sure I do this correctly the first time. Thank you. Orual1963 (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Once I get consent from the creator of this photo and the person in the photo, what should I do in order to legally upload the photo to my new page submission? Orual1963 (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that you focus on establishing that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria and removing the promotional content from the draft before you worry about an image, Orual1963. Images are useful to illustrate articles, but they have no bearing on whether a draft is accepted. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to enter a page for the local satirical magazine, Hampstead Village Voice, which celebrated 10 years of publication in September of 2017. The magazine reports on various important local, national and international issues and has contained interviews with Emma Thompson (actor), Martin Bell(Broadcaster/MP), Jon Moss, Lisa Stansfield (pop musicians), George Graham (football manager) and other well known locals.

  The Hampstead Village Voice was described as "required breakfast reading" and "Hampstead’s revered satirical rag" by The New York Times (26/09/2013). Yet still it has no Wikipedia page.

I previously attempted to write a page but, being it's satirist editor-publisher, found it difficult to write a story in an objective style acceptable to Wikipedia. Being a technophobe II also find the technical requests of Wikipedia somewhat prohibitive. Is there a way I could just send someone a story/facts/images/references and allow one of Wikipedia's experienced pro's to deal with the Wikipedia-fication of it? Kind regards, Sebastian Wocker Swocker1 (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Your best bet is probably to put in a request at

requested articles. If you know where solid references can be found, mentioning that certainly never hurts. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

19:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is the NYT coverage. It's only the briefest of mentions, so contributes little to establishing the subject's notability, I'm afraid. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@

publicize any entity or simply document its history. It is good that you recognize the conflict of interest that you have in writing about your own publication; I've posted some information about this on your user talk page. As is suggested, you may want to post at Requested Articles, though it is severely backlogged and it may be some time before someone writes an article about your publication. As Cordless Larry states you will need more sources that give in depth coverage of the publication, not just name drops or brief mentions. 331dot (talk

) 21:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

There are news reports stating that Mahindra and IBM are collaborating together to search Blockchain technology[1] for capturing supply chain and logistics. Moreover, in this year only |ICICI bank| started working to adopt Blockchain in order to further the motive of expanding the digital banking.

The Make in India initiative coupled with the digitization schemes is working to amalgamate Blockchain technology^[2] with the Indian market. Though the technology is still in its blooming days and needs time to mature, though young entrepreneurs are sensing opportunities in Blockchain supported startup ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunsingh905 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Arjunsingh905.

Reading through your post, it doesn't look like you've asked a question about editing Wikipedia. It looks like you may have the beginnings of an article, but I suggest you work up a draft in your userspace first, taking a look at

your first article for advice. There's a lot to learn, I'm afraid, so you may want to tackle some smaller edits first to get the hang of it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)}

07:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note,

Reliable Sources), or is sufficiently outside that article's scope as to merit a new article of its own {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.173 (talk

) 22:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC).

On Wikipedia pages such as Urheilupuisto metro station and Post-rock, I've noticed that they have infoboxes with stylized background colors in the infoboxes. I would like to know if there is any specific reason for this. EstablishedCalculus 21:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi EstablishedCalculus, welcome to the Teahouse. It varies. There may be an association with a color. There may a consistent set of otherwise arbitrary colors. A color may be chosen for a single use just because somebody likes it. The color of Urheilupuisto metro station is set in Template:HKL color. Orange was probably chosen to match File:Helsingin metro logo.svg which is displayed in the infobox. Post-rock uses the crimson for rock genres in Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Colours, like many others in Category:Alternative rock genres. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Much Thanks! EstablishedCalculus 00:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I am glad that PrimeHunter was able to help you EstablishedCalculus. If you have any more questions, please do let us know. The volunteers at the Teahouse will happily answer them/help you as soon as possible. I hope you enjoy your time on Wikipedia and decide to stay and help to improve the project. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I just made a Wikipedia page, and I can't find a way to access them and edit them. Uniifyyy (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Uniifyyy and welcome to Wikipedia/the Teahouse! This guide has helpful instruction on how to edit pages. Essentially, you click the "edit" button on the top right of the page (just above and to the right of the page title) (the button may appear as "edit source"), from there you make your edits and then write an edit summary in this box below the content of the page you are editing and click "save changes". Most pages allow for what is called the Visual Editor, it is a much nicer way to edit Wikipedia and is a lot more user-friendly (I find it to be at least) than editing the page source code. If you would like help on creating an article, a good place to start would be Help:Your first article. If you have any questions or would like me to explain further, please do feel free to let me know. You can click here to edit this section and leave a message (if you wish of course), I will be watching this page and should see if you write anything on here and, if you do, will get back to you as soon as possible. If there is something that you are unsure how to do and would like a hand doing, I would also be more than happy to assist with that if possible (I just obviously need to know what you would like help with). I know that Wikipedia can potentially be daunting when you first start out, but it does get easier as you gain experience and practice. A good place to practice would be your sandbox. I hope you like your time on Wikipedia and stick around. --All the best, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the good advice given above, I notice that you have created links to the article that you are intending to create. You don't seem to have put any text on the page yet. I would advise that you create your article in draft space (Draft:Egyptian Armed Forces (Roblox Clan)) so that you have time to get it right before submitting it for review. We already have an article on Egyptian Armed Forces, and if you have only a small amount of information then you might like to add a section there, but if you can find good references for your proposed article, then go ahead and create a draft, and ask again here if you need further help. Dbfirs 08:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Why am I always getting the Class not registered error when I open WPCleaner. Do you know what is wrong with opening this application and is other editors who are having problems opening it. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, I managed to load it up but it is working very slowly. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This query appears to have been answered on the questioner's own Talk Page.Nick Moyes (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there,

is there an easy way to place categories above all other texts on wikipedia-pages, like on Commons, via Preferences#Interface etc. ? I would be happy to know that. Thanks, --Dick Bos (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dick Bos, welcome to the Teahouse. The Commons feature is enabled with "Place categories above all other content" at commons:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. commons:Special:Gadgets shows it uses commons:MediaWiki:Gadget-CategoryAboveAll.js. The English Wikipedia has no such gadget but you can load the Commons version with this in your common JavaScript:

mw.loader.load('//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-CategoryAboveAll.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

PrimeHunter (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, User:PrimeHunter! That easy, and it's working! Thanks. --Dick Bos (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm feeling baffled, and hoping that some people might want to cast an eye on Children in emergencies and conflicts and share their impressions. I just stumbled on that as one of the oldest articles still stuck in the Unreviewed list, which I suppose indicates that other people didn't quite know what to make of it either (abortive PROD earlier this year). Marked it as reviewed for now, but it still strikes me as Not Quite A Suitable Article, and I don't quite know which aspect to pin it on. It seems to consist entirely of slightly adapted text from a UNESCO report [1] - which is correctly licensed, so no problem in itself. But still... is this an essay? Too broad a topic for an article, particularly when the selection of content and sources has been lifted wholesale from another aggregator? Is it just that it needs another title? A couple experienced opinions would be welcome. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A group of editors, who I think all work for UNESCO, have been creating these articles based very closed on UNESCO publications. I have come across a lot of them about science and technology subjects. In my opinion, the articles are a breach of

WP:NPOV since they only present UNESCO's view on the subjects concerned. I did try to raise this issue on a noticeboard somewhere. I'll try to find that post now. Cordless Larry (talk

) 13:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The archived discussion is at

WP:COIN. Cordless Larry (talk

) 13:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Francis Schonken, who had thoughts on this issue when I raised it at the village pump. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Moved a slight modification of the first paragraph of the article (with its references) and the "see also"s to Child#Children in emergencies and conflicts, and redirected the article to there. Without prejudice to make it an article in its own right again, but indeed, then not as a knock-off of a single organisation's sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, seems like a reasonable solution. Bit of a shame to lose so much well-referenced content, but the single-source POV would be troubling. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this,

talk

) 05:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

As seen at the article, Doc James and Jytdog had a look.

talk

) 10:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

IMO this feels like a placement and naming issue. The source is obviously full of good information that fits in an encyclopaedia, but it's a question of where it sits and how it's framed. It's essentially a section in a page about Early childhood education so I would argue that a broader article should be named "Early childhood care and education (ECCE)" ,merged with History of early childhood care and education, and then a section added specifically about the conflict aspects. It seems to be a term used by various U.N bodies (both UNESCO and UNICEF at a glance), the World Bank, other publications about the subject and at least one government (RoI) so I think it's notable. I will have a look at drafting a ECCE article myself using some of the existing sources as well as some of the others I've found. Battleofalma (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

BaniYas (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)My article (Al Marar) has been denied because i did give reliable sources , but i do have reliable sources, because im from the Al Marar Tribe and my father told me these information and his father told him these information, so why did my article get denied?BaniYas (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

verification for more information. --ColinFine (talk

) 10:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a referenced Wikipedia article Bani Yas, which includes mention of Al Marar as a branch tribe within. This can be a model for what you want to write, and some of the references may be useful for you to use. David notMD (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I wrote an article and it was declined. It is called Nikhiya Shamsher who a living person. I referenced with an article by the Times of India. Was it a good reference? I also know this girl and we go to the same high school. She has been honored with a Diana Legacy Award and a presidential medal Sitaphul (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

WP:COI and declare your relationship with the subject before resubmitting the draft. Cordless Larry (talk

) 11:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Sitaphul:, welcome to the Teahouse! Draft:Nikhiya Shamsher has no references that are visible in the article, but when looking at the article source I saw this reference. A city edition of Times of India can be used as one of the sources in the article (as long as it is formatted so that it shows up), but on its own it is not enough, because it counts as local/regional coverage, not national. The Diana Award may or may not be enough to make her notable, but there has to be more coverage of Nikhiya Shamsher in reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 11:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

bonadea One source may not be enough, but just to be clear to the submitter, there is no difference between regional and national sources when it comes to reliability.Many Wikipedia articles are of local interest and use local sources exclusively. Egaoblai (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Reliability was of course not the issue under discussion so your post is a bit of a non-sequitur, but that is actually another problem with the local editions of

Times of India. See the discussion here. --bonadea contributions talk

13:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the link, I will read it over now. I just sometimes feel the need to defend local publications as I sometimes see a bias here against them with some users tarnishing them all as "rags". But I'm still confused why you said that "on its own it is not enough, because it counts as local/regional coverage, not national". If local sources are reliable, the surely it is not because it is "local" that is the problem, but because at the current time, there is only one source? There is no rule on Wikipedia against having articles made up of only local sources, as sometimes notable things are only talked about in local sources.Egaoblai (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia Stub article about a Scottish seascape painter John Wilson. As his son John James Wilson was also a well known Victorian landscape and marine painter, I thought it would be useful to submit an article (stub? )for consideration as well.A draft is in my sandbox. How do I submit it for consideration either as a stub or standard articl? BFP1BFP1 (talk) 08:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

To submit your draft for review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

AFC yesterday and was amazed it had been approved just a few hours later. Regards from the UK.Nick Moyes (talk

) 09:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teachers,

stub "is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject". Perhaps stubs were useful in the early days of Wikipedia, but in my opinion, no editor should set out to write a stub 17 years into this project. Please write new articles that reach start status at least. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

09:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. I assume that I have submitted as I see the 'Review waitng' box. I presume that the 'Reviewer tools' section is not relevant to me. I will try to improve the article during the waitng period.BFP1BFP1 (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

One response to the advice from Nick Moyes. You can link to categories into which it will be appropriate for the article to be placed when publish, but while a draft it should not be placed into article categories; see

WP:DRAFTNOCAT. --David Biddulph (talk

) 09:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Oops, good advice from David; not so good from me (and something I will remember in future even if I'm confident the draft will get approved). Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk)

Thanks David. I was going to ask how to enter categories! BFP1BFP1 (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

i found several items at the bottom of external links which are old and mostly 404 links. I don't see them in edit mode. How do I delete or edit them? Thanks Chas MartinChas martin (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

To which page are you referring? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I've never edited a Wikipedia article before and am still unsure about some things after reading the conflict of interest entry. I am a contractor for a major North American company and have been tasked with figuring out how to get updated company information on its Wikipedia entry. Part of what I'm unsure about is whether I'll be able to make any of these limited updates myself after full disclosure of my COI. Another concern is that the best sources for much of this information are public disclosures hosted on the company's own website. Here's a quick rundown of the information I'd like to update: - Customer count; this information is currently significantly OVERstated. The source I have for this is my client's own public disclosure. - Employee count; this information is not currently included in the entry. - Markets served; my client serves all 50 states, but the current entry says it serves 46 states and lists them individually. Updating this would significantly shorten it. - Brands owned; some, but not all, of the brands and companies owned by my client are listed. We could make this information comprehensive with a single sentence that lists the remaining brands. Many of these are well-known brands, but it's less well-known that they're subsidiaries of my client, so I think there's an argument that inclusion of this information serves the public interest. I'm especially concerned about the citation for this, because the best single source for this information is a page on my client's website that lists their brands. - Charitable partnership; the current entry has a "community investment" section that describes company policies and programs related to charity and volunteerism. I'd like to add mention of one multi-million dollar partnership with a major national charity. Partnership details are on the charity's website and can be used as the citation. Since I'm a n00b, any warnings/insights about what I'm trying to accomplish would be a huge help. Thanks! Joshcrank (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, Joshcrank. From what you say, you fall under the (more stringent) category of "paid editors". See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure: your current COI disclosure is not enough because it does not mention your client/employer, in contradiction with the terms of service. Please correct this before making any edits.

You are strongly encouraged not to perform the edits yourself. Instead, please use the

WP:REFB

). This will put your request in a category patrolled by experienced editors to review whether they should be included or not in the article.

I realize this is quite a lot to read; if things are still unclear do not hesitate to come back and ask for clarification. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Simple COI request provides useful instructions on how to make an edit request. Cordless Larry (talk

) 17:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I created an article last month, and yesterday someone added several tags to it. That person claims that "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" (what the hell?) and that it "reads like an advertisement". All of the text that's on the article is backed up by sources. So I have no idea how that person yesterday came to the conclusion that article needed all those tags. When the article was created, it was reviewed like any other new article, and the person who reviewed it didn't see any issues with it. So my question here is, can I just go ahead and remove all those tags? Lupine453 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Point of information; this seems to refer to Huda Kattan. More in a moment 331dot (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lupine453: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would start by saying that one review by one editor does not mean that the article you created is 100% proper and needs no changes ever again. It is subject to review and editing as long as it exists. Different editors may be looking for different things and may see different things that others do not. Before simply removing the tags, you may wish to contact the user who put them there and request clarification, either by asking them on their user talk page or on the article talk page. At a cursory glance I don't see how it is blatantly promotional, and I'm not sure on what basis the user thinks you have a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The article is actually quite good for such a new article, but I think they were adding the tags on such phrases as "which were even famously worn by Kim Kardashian". I could see how someone would see the world "even" and think it was promotional. I removed that one, but I suggest more things like that, and keeping it down to 2 or 3 references for each statement, but other than that it's fine. I don't think the tags are warranted, and so I've deleted them and added a different, more generic one. A lad insane talk 17:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that this article was deleted some months ago. These problems may persist and a new deletion discussion might be in order. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

This user has been blocked indefinitely. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

ClueBot NG has reverted my helpful edit as vandalism. Can you help? Kubuś z Gimnazjum (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello there Kubuś z Gimnazjum and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you are talking of this edit. I understand what you were attempting to do with that, however, other examples (second and third paragraphs in the article) do exist on the page and more are not really needed in the form you put them in. With that said, I would not necessarily consider them vandalism in nature. If you wish to incorporate your examples into the form seen in other examples already in the article, I do not see any issues with that. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

This user has been blocked indefinitely. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I think odd, since 0.5 (insert modulo sign here) 2 = 0.5, which (insert NOT sign here)= 0. Kubuś z Gimnazjum (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse Kubuś z Gimnazjum. Googling an answer to that question would most likely be less time consuming than asking here. As stated by CiaPan in an above topic: "This is not a chat room for discussing trivial arithmetics. Please see the note at the top of the page.
It says this is

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

(emphasis mine). Shall you have any questions regarding Wikipedia editing, rules or policies, you're more than welcome to ask them here." --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

K very talented to go from first edit to being blocked in about one hour. David notMD (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

for the record, that's like asking whether a dog is evergreen or deciduous. The answer is "neither", because those categories don't describe that subject. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I recently made some simple edits of the sort I've done many times before without a problem but this time with embarrassingly disastrous effect: Using the old fashioned editor, which has no search and replace facility or anything like it, I did a search for minus sign, and wherever ndash was more appropriate manually and individually replaced each one. A fellow-editor noticed I had somehow deleted wads of text wherever there was a minus sign.

I wonder whether this has anything to do with a recent attempt to install AutoWikiBrowser, which I failed at the first hurdle then decided I could do without. Now the Move facility's drop-down selector (Article, User etc) is discontinuous and will not let me select (Article) in the usual way.

Do you have a fix for me? Doug butler (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome to the Teahouse Doug butler, I assume that you are talking of issues with AutoWikiBrowser, but just want to double check that it is not on the site itself (via a web browser). Is it indeed while using AutoWikiBrowser that you cannot select etc? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi TSD. No, I started installation but never succeeded and the need has passed (another Editor did the job for me), so the only item on the "More" dropdown is "Move". Doug butler (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Doug butler: Do you have Twinkle enabled? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No. Just the bog-standard editor. Doug butler (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Doug butler: Just logged onto my bot's account for a second so I could take a look at the standard editor (that account doesn't have any scripts etc on it), if you do not have Twinkle enabled, only having "move" under the more tab is normal. If you enable Twinkle in the gadgets section of your preferences (top right of page), then it will add more options under that drop down (some of which are very useful and I would recommend investigating it, if you want of course). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe later. For now I'm just worried about being an inadvertent vandal. I just mentioned the damaged drop-down options list and AWB as a possible symptom and cause.Doug butler (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Wikipedia typically works on a model of

assuming good faith

, so long as your account does not repeatedly remove content, you should be fine. As the guideline states "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such."

@Doug butler: It just comes down to being careful in your editing - sort of a measure twice, cut once approach. Another tip in the regular editor would be to click "show changes" before saving an edit, that way it will display to you what has been added and/or removed (added being on the right hand side in blue with a 'plus' sign, removed being on the left highlighted in a different yellow than the background with a subtraction sign). People make mistakes all of the time, if you aren't trying to be a vandal and are careful (i.e. reverting your own edits if you notice a mistake, double checking with "show preview" or "show changes") then you are probably okay. If you have any questions or would like something explained further, please do let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@

this and this. --TheSandDoctor (talk

) 00:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi can you tell me how I can allow friends to edit my draft? Thank you. Sbenegal (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello there

this is also a good page to read/skim - just keep in mind that account creation is not a "rule" and that that page is not a policy or guideline, just a potentially helpful resource). To enjoy the Wikipedia experience to its fullest, I would recommend that they create an account (although it is not necessary) as having an account has numerous benefits. If you have any questions or would like me to explain further, please do let me know. I hope that you and your friend enjoy your time on Wikipedia and decide to stay. Happy editing! --TheSandDoctor (talk

) 00:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. How do they find an article that is in "draft" phase? --Sbenegal (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sbenegal: You're welcome. Do you know what the draft is called? Is it Draft:The Mansfield Rule or another one? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, The Mansfield Rule. Thank you. --Sbenegal (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sbenegal: In that case, you can send them this URL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Mansfield_Rule) - that will take them to the draft. Hopefully that helps! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I've never created a page before and stumbled upon what I believe is important history. Rod Pack was the first skydiver without a parachute (by design). It was planned by Rod, Wolper Productions, and TIME magazine. Many photographs were taken, newspapers buzzed with excitement, but for some reason, his accomplishments have not been adequately memorialized.

I'm writing this in hopes there may be someone who can help me or take over the entire page and give the Pack family an indelible, accurate, and proper representation of his achievements. thanks, JayJfgottman (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If the subject has received significant coverage in published

references in your draft to demonstrate his notability. --David Biddulph (talk

) 01:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, any Wiki people have access to time.com archives? I'm a fan of what Mr. Pack has done and am willing to spend a little time on writing, but I'm not going to spend any money on it.Jfgottman (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@

Resource Request project RudolfRed (talk

) 02:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RudolfJfgottman (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Jfgottman:, I can't help with the Time article, but you might find the {{find sources}} template useful; for example, I found the following:

• "LIFE". books.google.com. Time Inc. 15 January 1965. Down He Goes — without a Chute
• "Stunt Man Dons Suit After Jump". Lawrence Journal-World. news.google.com. AP. January 2, 1965.
• Meyer, Jan. "Rod Pack's Chuteless Jump". www.parachutehistory.com. Reprint from Skydiver, January 1965.
• "A Year in TV Guide: March 13th, 1965". Television Obscurities. 13 March 2015.
• Newell, Bob. "The Arving Good Guys - Part 1". starcrestawards.com. Star Crest Skydiving Awards.

I hope this helps. —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:831:EE2:9FFB:76D0 (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure does! I have a paucity of research skills... This will keep me busy for a while. Thanks!Jfgottman (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy editing!   =)   —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:831:EE2:9FFB:76D0 (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm newbie in wikipedia i wanna know how to edit semi protected article since i have reference..Orangdepok 1 (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangdepok1 (talk • contribs)

Hello Orangdepok1 and welcome to the Teahouse.

You're not such a newbie! Your account is autoconfirmed and you should be able to edit a semi-protected article. If you don't want to add the reference yourself, you could post a message on the talk page of the article in question with a link to your reference and explain how you think the reference should be added to the article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Meaning?

The Teahouse, or a teahouse? Literally, metaphorically, ontologically, empirically, or existentially? The only one I can answer for certain is the second: teahouse. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

Optimistic Wikipedian. Since I am a simple fellow, I will give you a simple answer: The Teahouse is a place for new or less experienced editors to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia, and for experienced editors to offer friendly, informative answers. Feel free to ask questions in good faith here at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

06:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

See the link at the top of the page: Learn more about the Teahouse   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, In an article I am looking at all the sources in the entire section are poor in quality (blog posts and primary literature only). I would like to label the entire section as needing better sources. Though I know of the "Refimprove" template, the description says this is to be used when additional references are required. There are enough references, they are just poor choices. What template should I use? Many thanks EvilxFish (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome,

Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Verifiability and sources, and if you click on the links to individual templates, you'll see that many have a section setting that is activated by adding |section to the template code (for example, Template:Unreliable sources). Cordless Larry (talk

) 12:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that list existed, thanks for the help! Kind regards EvilxFish (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to change the title of the DxO OpticsPro's page, but I can't see where I can do it in the english version. Can you help me ?

For the information, DxO OpticsPro renammed to DxO PhotoLab, that is why I want to edit the title. It worked in the French version but not in English

Many thanks

Diana T (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Diana T: Hi look at the top banner (not in editing mode) next to the star for watch a page you will see a tab called "more", expand this and you will see "move" click that and then a menu will pop up. The rest should be intuitive however if you have any more issues with renaming the page please let us know. Kind regards EvilxFish (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@

autoconfirmed, and it doesn't look like your account is, yet. You can either wait until you have made a few more edits (ten edits are required, and it looks like you have made eight) or you can use Wikipedia:Requested moves to post a request to have it moved. (Or perhaps somebody who reads the request here will make it - I don't have the time to read up on the background and update the article, or I'd do so. It looks like a perfectly uncontroversial move, but it'll take a little time to do the necessary revision of the article text.) Regards, --bonadea contributions talk

12:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)