Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 807

This is an current talk page .

I want to make sure I understand what just happened here. I edited this inactive article, someone was notified and removed two images? The ImageBot is triggered and removes the links to these images? If there was a reason for removing the images, where would I find that? Shushugah (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The files were deleted by an administrator (not a bot) and the reason is given in the deletion log at

NFCC#1. The bot then removed the links to the files which no longer exist. --David Biddulph (talk

) 03:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shushugah. Both files were nominated for deletion 21 July. Nominations are usually reviewed after seven days. It was not caused by your edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

On a film page, where does the theatrical poster is taken from? Because there are so many posters are there for any film. So how it is decided? Thank youDCEU (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi DCEU. Template:Infobox film#Image says: "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded". Another poster is often added first and later replaced when the theatrical release poster is published. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer. But you didn't understand my question. I mean that, look there is so many posters released for a film in which it is written opening on this date or take example like 'opening on may 4' etc. So how it is decided which individual poster is theatrical release poster, which get added on wikipedia page. Thank you DCEU (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@DCEU: In my experience, https://www.imdb.com usually shows the theatrical release poster. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

At least for American films. For foreign films it may display an American poster where Wikipedia prefers the original poster. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a first-time user and I wanted to talk about something I found in this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II).

The sentence starting with "Extraneous details..." is repeated twice, once in the lead section, then again under the "Production" heading.
I find the exact 1:1 repetition a bit excessive and undesirable, as I would say it is technically against the guidelines and annoyingly noticeable.
I looked up for some sources on Wikipedia about repetition, but what I saw so far only refers to the overuse of citation markers (the blue numbers enclosed in brackets).

So, what would an expert editor do in this case?

1. Delete the sentence in the lead;
2. delete the sentence in the "Production" section;
3. leave both of them be.

Thanks in advance and apologies for any eventual grammatical errors. I would also be glad if someone directed me to an official page (if it exists) made by Wikipedia staff which addresses this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recury-hub (talk • contribs) 22:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Recury-hub: Welcome to the Teahouse.

If it bothered an experienced editor, they would probably rephrase one or the other. If it was felt that one mention should be deleted, then it should almost always be the sentence in the lead that should be removed. The lead is meant to summarize the rest of the article, and there shouldn't be anything in the lead which isn't represented in the body of the article (hence, we shouldn't remove material from the body so that it is only in the lead). You can read more about the lead at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.

For the article you mention, like most short articles, it had earlier been a single block of text. At some point an editor added sections and summarized what were felt to be the key points in the lead, and it looks like they copied that sentence exactly instead of summarizing it. You can read more about summarizing material at Wikipedia:Summary style.

If that sentence communicated something that was important enough to be included in the lead at the same level of detail, it should probably be rephrased (especially in such a short article). The closest I found for a help file on that was Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Some additional advice on writing at Wikipedia can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to and User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises.

I hope this helps! Please feel free to contact me if you have other questions. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello I recently found that my name Yvette Dudley-Neuman and information was listed on the French Wikipedia site but doesn’t appear on the English site.

how can I link these two things together or have the French translated and available on the English Wikipedia site?

Thanks, Yvette — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.179.54 (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, for starters, it's not "your" page. It's Wikipedia's article about you.

If the French article cites sources (meeting

else) could write the article. Ian.thomson (talk

) 23:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at fr:Yvette Dudley-Neuman, it seems that there are no sources cited at all. It seems to fail their standards for notability as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The

IMDB does vouch for all the films listed, that said it likely fails notability. I did a news search and only found 6 articles that passingly mention or reference promo statements made by Neuman. Not being notable does not mean your work is insignificant, but Wikipedia cannot cover you neutrally and authoritatively. Shushugah (talk

) 16:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

But I do see that some pages in Wikipedia ask to add some more content to it. So, should I first read it on the internet and other sources and then write it on Wikipedia or should not touch that article if I don't know much about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukeshwarsingh (talk • contribs) 13:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@

this tutorial helpful. 331dot (talk

) 13:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello

verifiable; that it must not infringe copyright; and that it must be written from a neutral point of view. The first means that it has been published in a reliable source: there are plenty of reliable sources on the internet, for example the websites of major newspapers and government bodies; but there are far more which are not regarded as reliable: almost all blogs, wikis, social media, answer sites, and even sites like iMDB (and Wikipedia itself) are not acceptable as sources. The second policy means that the text in an article must not be copied from somewhere else: it is acceptable to quote a sentence or two, openly acknowledging the source; but otherwise the article should be say in new words what the sources say about the subject. The third policy means that no article must ever say anything in Wikipedia's voice that is either approving or disapproving of the subject. An article can certainly say that such-and-such a writer praised or attacked the subject in a (cited) reliable source; and if there are far more sources attacking the subject than praising it, the article can say this. But it should never use evaluative terms directly about the subject (or anybody else). --ColinFine (talk

) 18:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

What if there was a global teahouse that would answer questions of Wikipedia in all different languages? You are noot (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You are noot Hello and welcome. I wonder if this would be more appropriate for the Teahouse talk page or some other forum; that said, such a page sounds like it would be very chaotic with different languages attempting to communicate at the same time. Other language versions of Wikipedia probably just haven't developed a Teahouse, for various reasons. If you participate in other language versions of Wikipedia, you could certainly propose on those projects establishing such a forum using whatever processes they have for such a proposal. 331dot (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

331dot But how can I? Can you teach me how? You are noot (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@You are noot: The English Wikipedia is the most active and has an unusually large number of features. We also have Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia:Village pump for asking questions. Many languages have one or both of those and may not want a third page considering their lower activity. Each Wikipedia language makes its own rules and processes, including for how to make proposals. English-speaking editors cannot answer questions about Wikipedia policies in a language they don't know but we try to answer technical questions. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

PrimeHunter quite adequately stated pretty much what I was going to say. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I am a non-native English writer contributing to EN Wikipedia regularly since years. I was recently reverted because my english was too poor... But I don't think my writing is so bad as to warrant such rejections.

I would like more opinions on my writing, and what I could enhance if necessary: [1]

Thank you very much in advance, --Signimu (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You should first ask user:Zefr why they think that your writing is poor. In fact, the user did not say that your English was poor but rather your writing was poor which may not be related to English but to how you presented medical information. Ruslik_Zero 19:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Thank you very much, you're right, I misunderstood. I have now asked the user for clarification. --Signimu (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked and the user specifically mentioned "Please practice English in your sandbox"... --Signimu (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The user's answer is that indeed the root cause is my English... I wrote this piece as a first draft so there were some redundant words and inelegant phrasing, I am rewriting that, I hope this is a misunderstanding. But honestly if my English is not considered adequate enough, I wonder the level of qualification needed is for WP EN... --Signimu (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I am going to agree with Zefr about your first attempt to add to this article. I found it overly wordy. See example below of what you wrote and how it could be more clear and concise. I have not looked at your subsequent revisions to the article in question, but do hope that you worked on it in your Sandbox first.

Your words: "Intermittent fasting, and more precisely alternate day fasting, was shown to be the most efficient method for weight loss method, with comparable results obtained with calorie restriction, in obese and normal weight people alike. Improvements in all biomarkers, such cardiovascular and metabolic variables,

LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and C-reactive protein

, were recorded in obese and non-obese individuals have been recorded, comparably to calorie restriction. Intermittent fasting was also shown to reduce inflammation and reduce the risks of cancer."

My suggestion: Alternate day fasting, was shown to be the most efficient method for weight loss, with comparable results obtained in both obese and normal weight people. Improvements in all biomarkers, such cardiovascular and metabolic variables,

LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and C-reactive protein, were reported. Intermittent fasting was also shown to reduce inflammation and reduce the risks of cancer. David notMD (talk

) 22:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: Thank you very much for the example, I see what you mean :-) I am trying to rewrite one last time with conciseness in mind. I would just like to mention that the first two sentences were clearly indigestible but were a (quick and admittedly dirty) attempt to merge various redundant sentences in the section, but indeed it would be better to first rewrite in a sandbox next time (and I did here after I was called on the bad writing :-) ). --Signimu (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

hello there! today, i am trying to learn how to upload and link image to an article. i browsed Wiki's backlogs and saw a category named 'Logos that should be in SVG format'. Step 1 - convert logo to svg - DONE. Step 2 - upload - TRIED but FAILED. Upload warning message popped out: "File extension ".png" does not match the detected MIME type of the file (image/svg+xml)". I think it is because of the destination filename under file description which has png file extension and I can't edit this part. pls advise. thanks LS2018 (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Template:Di-orphaned fair use. Before doing that you may want to copy the fair-use rationale to the new file. See also Wikipedia:Logos. It's a bit complicated due to copyright concerns but if you try it once and post back here then we can check your work before you possibly make a series of problematic uploads. PrimeHunter (talk

) 12:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

thanks PrimeHunter! please check my work in 2 Sisters Food Group if I was able to follow your instructions correctly. LS2018 (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@LS2018: It looks good. File:2 sisters food group logo.svg got an extra "Summary" heading you can remove. File pages can be edited like other pages. Some files like File:JustAnExample.JPG are stored at Wikimedia Commons. In that case, click the Commons logo at the top right to get to the real file page. Non-free logos are not allowed at Commons so you did right by uploading it to the English Wikipedia. When replacing File:2 sisters food group logo.png you could have used the opportunity to capitalize "2 Sisters Food Group". File moving requires a special user right and the name is acceptable so don't try to change it now. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

all points noted. thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LS2018 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

What are the guidelines around tone and consideration of a living subject's reputation and prospects? I see one particular person returning to a biographical page and consistently re-imposing the harshest slant on facts. These are not inaccurate in themselves, but they are uncalled for, given the subject is still working and has acknowledged the truth of the events in question. The suspicion is that this is motivated by more than a concern for the truth, rather a sense of ill will towards the subject. IainCam — Preceding unsigned comment added by IainCam (talk • contribs) 03:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi

article talk page post further explaining why. If the violation is particulary harmful in your opinion, you might also want to message the Oversite Team so that they can decide whether any record of it needs to be completely removed from the page's history. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 04:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

dispute resolution available to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

05:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Since

Wikipedia community will support your position regardless. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 05:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Regards, --Deshapnayen (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Deshapnayen, and welcome to the Teahouse. The following may come across as unkind and negative, but it is realistic.

It may or may not be possible to write an article about Desh Apnayen Sahayog Foundation in such a way that it will be allowed to remain on en-WP. Start by reading

Wikipedia:Your first article

. Writing an acceptable WP-article without any WP-experience is hard, but can be done with time, a lot of reading and trial and error.

However, based on your username, you should also take the time to read

WP:ISU. Good luck, and keep asking questions as necessary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 09:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

In case this question is too general to answer precisely and concisely, I 'll provide some context.
The context is "notices on pages that describe a work of art" (on commons or elsewhere), for instance on this page on Vermeer's milkmaid.

The critique/request I'd like to put forward is the following:
It is convenient for me as a wikipedia user, when visiting an artwork page, to have both the picture links for different sizes and the summary information below it in (browser) view at the same time. This is usually so. But not on that particular page, due to the presence of a billboard-like notice (and more page elements like it) between the picture and the artwork info. This notice reveals that the picture is a featured picture, in both the english and the spanish wikipedias, and then proceeds to list a host of other languages that the notice can be translated into. It would not be so bad if it were just a small notice, but it covers half my screen. As such, it constitutes a waste of screen estate with data that I do not care about.

I reckon that I am not the only user with this viewpoint. In fact, I expect that the large majority of wikipedia users who click on an artwork picture will share my view, because most of them do so either to inspect some detail on the photo, or to gather meta-information on the artwork, such as its location or size. In the case of artworks, few users will seek information on the photo of the artwork (eg, shutter time, ...) and even fewer will be looking for meta-information on the photo (such as on which wikipedias it 's a featured picture). And having to scroll past a lot of data that you are not interested in is annoying.
OTOH, some system of honorable mention for excellent pictures is important for an organisation that depends on volunteers to supply pictures.
So I guess that a compromise is called for.

My proposal (for File: pages that concern works of art):
Either move the rating notice(s) further down, below the summary info on the artwork, or move them up (above the picture). And also change the large notice(s) into small, expandable page elements, similar to the institution block ("Rijksmuseum") further down on the page. If it is deemed necessary for a notice to stick out, bright coloration can do that. If that is really not enough, then even a flashing animation (yes, i know; yuck...) is less obnoxious than the current IYF display.

You may personally disagree with me on this matter, of course. But in any case, I would like to hear from you where I can voice my opinion, so that it reaches the right people.

Thank you very much!

--Obbart (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Obbart, welcome to the Teahouse. Your example is at Wikimedia Commons so the page layout is governed by Commons and not the English Wikipedia. commons:Commons:Image pages and commons:Commons:Guide to layout#File description pages already recommend that awards like featured picture are placed last. This is followed in most of my samplings of commons:Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Assessments. You can edit commons:File:Johannes Vermeer - Het melkmeisje - Google Art Project.jpg. I suggest an edit summary like Place assessment last per [[Commons:Guide to layout#File description pages]]. The software automatically displays the image at top. It is currently not possible to place information above the image. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Obbart and welcome to the Teahouse.

These layout features that you are commenting on are controlled by the Wikimedia software and there is, in general, nothing we editors can do to fix it directly.

But there is a place were these sorts of changes can be proposed and, in some cases, acted on:

the Village Pump - Technical. One of the considerations that always must be kept in mind is how pages appear on a wide variety of screen sizes. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)}

01:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I think Primehunter has this more right than I did. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The image and links to different sizes are automatically placed at top. The sections "File history", "File usage on Commons", "File usage on other wikis" and "Metadata" are automatically appended at the end. Most other content like Summary, Licensing and assessments (e.g. featured picture) is controlled by the source text of the file page and can be edited. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Can we submit our daily post [food] here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpranita583 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Dpranita583, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "daily post [food]", the Teahouse is for asking questions about editing. Did you have a particular question about how to edit? Just so you know, Wikipedia is not a social media website, but there is a newsletter put out by Wikipedia editors called the Signpost but I'm guessing that's not what you mean. Also, please don't forget to sign your posts at the Teahouse and on talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~. Coryphantha Talk 12:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello

here

. We also don't normally add links to blogs within articles - though these may be on the same topic as the article, we try to make sure the articles themselves contain the useful information rather than having lots of links outside of Wikipedia. This is why your links have been removed.

Finding that your editing has come up against Wikipedia's rules is a frustrating, but fairly common, experience for new users. However there is lots of help available and lots of people willing to help out. You have already found one such source of help (this page) and I have added some other helpful links to your talk page. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Are links to paywall content allowed in Wikipedia

For example, the scorecard links on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_cricket_team_in_Australia_in_1985%E2%80%9386 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkrish67 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are asking if you can use a source that is behind a paywall, yes you can. See

reliable; it does not need to be free or easy to access. 331dot (talk

) 14:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

These links and others do not enlighten on how to make border padding around left flush image. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Border

This code does not make left flush with a padding. Text goes right up to the image itelf.

Professionalism is essential for quality output. Thanks!

User: Kermit7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kermit7 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kermit7 and welcome back to the Teahouse.

I answered on your talk page with the suggestion that {{flowlist}} may help with the formatting problem you were looking at. I don't see a way to directly add padding in the extended image syntax...you could edit the image off-wiki to add padding perhaps. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I will try. User: Kermit7

Hi. I am Addust. I think citations and post signings should be added automatically. This is to prevent people getting annoyed. Addust (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)@Addust

Hello Addust and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's an interesting question whether the software could reliably judge when to automatically add signatures. There is a bot that adds signatures with some delay. I misses a few, but when it does add a signature, I haven't seen it be mistaken. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I've already reported this and got a suggestion of reporting it, but I'm not sure how to do it properly and well...this seems a good place to ask.

I subscribed a few days ago, after discovering the aforementioned page is extremely biased and reports accusations as facts, with several other problems:

• all citations are in Italian
• some citations are used instrumentally i.e. they don't contain what's written on wikipedia
• some citations are old and information which is now "wrong" (i.e. reporting trial results which then changed)
• all citations have a negative perspective on the issue
• there's talk like "many workers in Italy" and related which shouldn't appear on wikipedia

It really is low quality, just look at the page.

I made these (and more detailed) observations on the talk page and started working on the page. I found many sources in English, tried to do my best with keeping a balanced perspective etc.

Yesterday evening a user reverted all changes (including the warnings about POV and factual accuracy I put and one about citation some more experienced user put) and stated my changes were not at wiki standards level. Now, I would be fine with that observation, had it not been about the whole page with such generic statements.

In the talk section I asked again for explanations: which citations are not good and why. He never addressed any of the points I made, just used generic statements (some of them not really kind) about the work I made and restored.

For comparison here's the current page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communion_and_Liberation ) here's my last edit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communion_and_Liberation&oldid=851445699 ).

I honestly don't know what to do: I would be fine talking with someone who takes into consideration my observations, but I feel like hitting a wall, like everything I say it's water flowing away (just look at the talk page).

What should I do?

Thanks, best, GioA90 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GioA90 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi

WP:DRN

.

One small point, though: the language of sources is not something to worry about. Our

policy is that English sources are preferred all other things being equal, but if there are better sources in Italian, it is fine to use them. – Joe (talk

) 10:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I've posted a message on

WP:CATHOLICISM

, let's see what happens (I'm not too hopeful and think this sort of methods won't work, but at least let's try).

Thank you for your point on the language: I also used Italian sources, but not if two "comparable" sources are present in both languages (i.e. article on an online newspaper). Thank you again! Best, GioA90GioA90 (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

This case was also discussed in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lzzy303 reported by User:Jasmir54 (Result: ) Matthew_hk tc 01:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

This story is going on and I'm always more tired. Now the user accused me of socket puppetry (I am ok about this, as I am not doing it and surely the administrators will be able to verify). He's going on to ignore everything I say/ask. He's remarkable in this and I am growing tired of this story: he's not trying to be reasonable and anyone reading the talk page can clearly see how his only questions are "Please use better sources" (I tried asking which and why were not reliable, receiving a generic answer to read the wiki standards which I did) or "Go to the tea house" to appear kind (I had already posted this discussion at the time, so I am sure the invitation was instrumental), "avoid wall of words" (the list of problems the page has). Why is no one taking action on the guy? Had he only once replied with something that made me suspect he had read my points...it never happened! Let alone understand them. If wiki is really a collaboration, then it is necessary for those working at it to be at least trying to collaborate! I really don't know what more to do...GioA90 (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

TO EVERYONE PLEASE HELP!!!

Hi everyone, I really believe this page needs attention!

The user reverted all the changes, never (truly) addressing anything in the talk page. Here are some changes:

• He is deliberately citing "old" stuff which changed later. For instance an investigation and trial to the Meeting foundation which later resulted in the absolution of people involved. But he's ignoring the end part of it. Similarly for another case in Padua of an trial which, in the definitive sentence, absolved the people involved.
• He's citing sketchy websites (such as http://www.bastaitalia.org/ which to me looks borderline fakenews, starting from the name which roughly translates to "stop Italy") while removing all references to official bibliography of the founder and such
• He's deliberately mis-citing things, for instance now for the sentence " illegal distribution of public contracts" he's citing an interview to the founder who condemns such things, if happened, and is saddened that people who are supposed to follow something good failed so badly and how the teaching of the movement are diametrically opposed to stealing (that's actually the article's title). Similarly he's reporting numbers not present in the articles cited and reporting accusations as facts.
• He's not using the talk page. He never answered any of the points I made (trying to be as reasonable as possible), he's only writing "robot sentences" using them as excuses to change the page again without addressing me.
• He's removing "POV/disputed/citations" (again and again), while not saying anything (except robot sentences) in the talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by GioA90 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I know nobody outside Italy cares much about the movement, as it has few members outside, but this clearly shows some limitations to the wiki project, as this guy has been rampaging for a couple of weeks after single handedly modifying the hole page to his own POV ( in origin it was like this, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communion_and_Liberation&oldid=730246284 ) and has been able to put borderline-defamatory stuff without anybody saying "please, at least try to answer properly in the talk page before making changes, as you're clearly not even attempting to collaborate".

He also writes he invited me to the teahouse, can you see some of his posts answering my questions around here?

Bottom line: I am fed up with this. I use a lot wiki and I believe it is a beautiful project, I wanted to help trying at least to improve a bit the POV of the page (I really have no problems with proper criticisms and a long criticism section...but currently the page is quite different...), but as far as I can see I am wasting my time: there can't be a collaboration if someone does not want to collaborate and this has been more of a test on who has more time to waste and cares less about correctness (the only changes I did lately were to add the small box with synthetic information, other users did other changes while he's rampaging free, I was expecting him to try to use the wiki page).

Honestly, wikipedia, you should be quicker against vandals as it disheartens people who are trying to build something for you...GioA90 (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I just took a deeper look at the page bastaitalia: apparently it is a website who aims at the independence of various regions in Italy. Most articles are old, and it accepts anonymous articles (as is the one cited, which is written in a very colloquial language and uses sexually related insults among others)...as far as I know it might be Jasmir54 who sent that article years ago (or one of his friends)...GioA90 (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

If you add new posts to the top of the section it makes the discussion a bit confusing. I have moved your most recent posts to the bottom of the discussion - this makes them more visible. --bonadea contributions talk 15:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC).

Hi, I'm Parotrore!

I just started with Wikipedia and wanted to contribute on some pages.

I noticed that Rookie (EP by Red Velvet) had an external link to the music video in the infobox. Most of the other albums/EPs from Red Velvet did not, so I decided to add them.

For

I also wanted to know if adding these Music video sections to the Infoboxes is okay to do.

My last question is about the page

lollipop83380 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipop83380 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:ORG

).

I would also ask you if you are associated with this organization; if you are, you must read and comply with

WP:PAID. 331dot (talk

) 15:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I have tagged your draft Draft:Digital For The Planet for speedy deletion because it is a copyright violation. Theroadislong (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you so much for your help I appreciate ! I'm am currently reading the articles you shared and I would appreciate if you could help me to get my article ready for the approval. Besides, I am currently not linked to the Digital For The Planet thought I highly value their initiative and work and that's why I decided to help them to create this wiki page. I must admit that for a specific par related to the sources of digital pollution I got to inspire myself (maybe too much) of one of their Medium article, though I did not do any copy paste. I understand it is anyway unacceptable and I'm going to write it again in my own words. Many thanks,

lollipop83380

Hello,

Thank you so much for your help I appreciate ! I'm am currently reading the articles you shared and I would appreciate if you could help me to get my article ready for the approval. Besides, I am currently not linked to the Digital For The Planet thought I highly value their initiative and work and that's why I decided to help them to create this wiki page. I must admit that for a specific par related to the sources of digital pollution I got to inspire myself (maybe too much) of one of their Medium article, though I did not do any copy paste. I understand it is anyway unacceptable and I'm going to write it again in my own words. Many thanks,

lollipop83380

How to submit drafts for re-review? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi

talk

) 13:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind help!

Hi

talk

) 15:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

That means I just to let go a draft and check after six months to see whether it is deleted? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 15:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi

talk

) 15:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that the subject is notable but there are two editors who are against it and one said that he would start an AfD. Therefore I moved it to draft. Due to lack of other editors' comment, It was clear that I was going to lose in AfD. All they are accusing it for is that it has just a few passing by reviews and the other reason is that they don't think it is notable. Do WikiPedia work merely on its editors' thinking? All I need is wider input. I have no support. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 15:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi

talk

) 18:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Why I remove indentations? The answer is fairly simple because such type of practice is redundant to a mobile web view. I'm a frequent mobile web editor and majorly experience this problem. It creates difficulty reading on mobile web. This is the last time I'm reverting indentations. While I've also seen many ego-centered editors who revert this back no matter what and I've to face the circumstances. I know what is the deletion process here on WikiPedia, I need no explanation for that. I've taken part in many AfD(s). I already know that it is required that not only content needs to be supported by

What template should I use to be able to put pictures on the left side of the page? As of now, the images automatically upload to the right side of the page and I can only make them bigger or smaller but cannot move them to the left side. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prkkinsella (talk • contribs) 19:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Prkkinsella: - insert the word left into the image template before the directions regarding size, as so - [[File:Skullclose.jpg|left|thumb|100px]]. This code produces the following image (apologies for the morbid nature). Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC).

Hello! I was wondering whether I am allowed to create a songwriting credits section for

@

sourced, and if you feel confident you can do this, fire ahead. Stormy clouds (talk

) 20:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Will copy and pasting content from our company's website onto our Wikipedia page affect our company matrix/views from our website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.160.216.130 (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP user, I don't understand your question as I don't know what a "matrix" is in this context, but I can tell you that you are not allowed to copy and paste content from anywhere to Wikipedia unless the content is explicitly released from copyright (which is very uncommon on company websites). More information

conflict of interest. If there are errors in the article, or if it is missing important information, you can post to the article's talk page and ask that it be updated. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk

14:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

One thing to remember, IP user, is that Wikipedia has very little interest in what your company says about itself - anywhere - and no interest at all in how your company wishes to be portrayed. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with your company have chosen to says about it, and been published in reliable places - and that will include material critical of the company, if this happens to exist. If there is enough such independent material, then an article can be written, but the company and its associates will have no control over the content of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you so much for your help I appreciate ! I'm am currently reading the articles you shared and I would appreciate if you could help me to get my article ready for the approval. Besides, I am currently not linked to the Digital For The Planet thought I highly value their initiative and work and that's why I decided to help them to create this wiki page. I must admit that for a specific par related to the sources of digital pollution I got to inspire myself (maybe too much) of one of their Medium article, though I did not do any copy paste. I understand it is anyway unacceptable and I'm going to write it again in my own words. Many thanks,

lollipop83380

Bold text''''Title of Book. PAKISTAN DREAMS of conquering india

manuscript almost ready, need to do EPILOGUEm based on Jinnah's inaugural speech, august 11 1947, to remind adversaries that the father of the nation was not warlike ans wanted peace with neihbours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chander perkash (talk • contribs) 13:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Chander perkash and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid I don't see that you've asked a question here about how to edit Wikipedia. Just be aware that the area where you are proposing to edit may be covered by a

discretionary sanctions policy. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)}

16:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

Wikipedia Reference Desk can be helpful. Or simply choose a distinctive string of words from the speech and do a web search for those words. This leads to sources like this: [5]. (I don't know enough to recommend the appropriate way to confirm that a quote is indeed free from copyright.) Good luck. - Egmonster (talk

) 00:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I want to create a page for actor Robert Coffie Hello Im new to this editing and at time gives me a headache so much to lean, But my question is I need lots of help to not edit something the wrong way , So that Im not kicked off. kinda scared to edit something. Can someone help me without reporting me I want to lean. and help me out step by step ? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm193 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Storm193 and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you look at older entries in the Teahouse, you should come across some instances of Ian.thomson's generic advice on editing. You start by finding sources that establish notability for your subject and work from them.

Editors who are editing in good faith will not be kicked off for making a few mistakes. We all need a chance to make mistakes as part of the learning process. And mistakes are easily corrected (well, unless you unleash a rogue robot). The most important things to observe are: don't violate copyright by copying into Wikipedia material that appears elsewhere, don't fight with other editors - instead, work with them on discussion pages to figure out what the best outcome for the encyclopedia is. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

In view of certain circumstances to do with this subject, @

Wikipedia:BLP very carefully. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.102.16 (talk

) 23:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Strongly suggest you start in on Wikipedia by editing existing articles about subjects you have good knowledge about. David notMD (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

In Wikipedia articles, most statements should of course be accompanied by a supporting reference (in the < ref >< /ref > format) to a reliable source, for example to a published study in a medical journal, that supports the particular statement being made in the article.

But as a medical study can be 10,000 words or more in length, if the reader wants to check that the source does support the statement, it is not always that easy to find the relevant section (sentence or paragraph) in the source.

Thus a solution to to this would be to quote the relevant supporting sentence(s) of the source within the < ref >< /ref > citation itself. That way, the reader can either read that quoted sentence(s) directly from the < ref >< /ref > citation on the page, or should be able to easily locate the appropriate section of the study by using the browser find on page function on some of the words in the quoted sentence.

So my question: is there field within the < ref >< /ref > citation template that allows for this quotation of a sentence or two from the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.89.101 (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2018‎ (UTC)

You haven't told us which citation template you are using, but most of them tell you with parameters are available. For example, for {{citation}} look at Template:Citation#Quote, or for {{cite journal}} see Template:Cite journal#Quote. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It's mostly journal articles that I tend to use as references, and sometimes books. I did have a look in the Wikipedia journal citation template, but could not find any field that could be used to contain the quotation I am talking about. If it is not currently possible to include such a quotation, then I'd like to suggest it as a future functionality that Wikipedia could consider providing (is there an appropriate place for such suggestions?). 91.125.89.101 (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You still haven't told us which template you are using which doesn't have such a field. Have you looked at Template:Cite journal#Quote (to which I linked above) or at Template:Cite book#Quote? --David Biddulph (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be going blind or stupid, because what I was looking for you provided in you first link above: the quote parameter, but I missed it earlier. Thank you very much for helping me. 91.125.89.101 (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)