Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1002

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 995

←

Archive 1000

Archive 1001

Archive 1002

Archive 1003

Archive 1004

Archive 1005

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

The question is how would wikipedia verify the information?

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

Any info on this matter will help greatly.

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

Hi Буддаа Батнаран. I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you want to write an article about someone in Mongolian or do you want to write an article about someone in English based upon sources written in Mongolian? If you want to do the former, then you should probably try doing so at Mongolian Wikipedia; if you want to the latter, then the following may help you.

Alhtough sources written in English are generally preferred over those which aren't, there's no requirement that states that only sources written in English can be used as explained in WP:NOENG. As long as you're able to establish that the subject is Wikipedia notable and the sources you want to use are considered to be reliable sources, it should be OK create the article and use the sources. Sources written in English are easier to verify which means that you should be prepared to explain the source, etc. if it's challenged. Regardless, you should be able to understand the source yourself so as to at least be able to self-assess its reliablity and WP:RSCONTEXT; if you can't read it, do not just assume it is automatically OK to use, but instead try and find someone who can either at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mongols or at Wikipedia:Translators available.

One last thing, if you want to translate an article found on Mongolian Wikipedia into English for English Wikipedia, please take a close look at WP:TRANSLATE. There are certain things you need to be careful about in order to make sure that your translation is not considered to be a WP:COPYVIO. You should also be aware that non-English Wikipedias don't always have the same standards when it comes to sourcing and notability as English Wikipedia; so, simply because an article exists on Mongolian Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean that the same article should exist on English Wikipedia, and simply because a source is cited on Mongolian Wikipedia doesn't mean the same source is OK to cite on English Wikipedia. On English Wikipedia, articles, sources, etc. need to comply with English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

When looking at an article on mobile there is a list of three Related Articles at the bottom. For example, when looking at Barack Obama on mobile, Wikipedia lists the following as Related Articles: United States Senate career of Barack Obama, 2000 Illinois's 1st congressional district election, and Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet. These Related Articles don't show up when viewing the article on the computer. Are Related Articles something that can be edited? And if so, how can I edit the list? BadHombres (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

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

1987 Mecca incident#Demonstrations has had a factual accuracy section tag since 2011 with discussion on the talk page ending in 2011. Is it appropriate to remove the tag or is there a way to draw attention to it to encourage resolution? should the multiple problems tags be replaced with a single tag like {{Rip}}? There doesn't seem to have been any constructive discussion on the topic. The article doesnt seem to meet quality standards WP:MOS so maybe a {{Cleanup rewrite}} tag is more appropriate?

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

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

There are indeed numerous references to Karen Offutt recieving said medal. However, it appears the referenced article List of Soldier's Medal recipients only lists individuals who have Wikipedia biography articles that have won it. Winning that medal doesn't qualify an individual to have a Wikipedia biography article, so unless you meet some notability standard to have a biography for some other reason, sorry, no, we won't be adding your name to that list.John from Idegon (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It should read something more like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank You!!!!!!

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

Hi there,

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

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

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

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

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

I am a fully disclosed paid editor represeenting Richard Wayne Lewis I have requested that the page be moved from Richard Wayne Lewis to Ric Lewis as this is what he is referred to by the RS. I have built a small consensus on the talk page, what I would like to know is, can I move the page myself now a consensus has been reached?Essayist1 (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Essayist1: No objections, so I say you can go ahead and do it, but I would wait for confirmation as I’m not 100% sure. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict):@Essayist1: normally, per Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#When_to_close_discussions it's rare to close a discussion until it's been open for a week, which this one hasn't yet. Per WP:PAY, as a paid editor you a 'very strongly discouraged' from editing articles directly (which would include a move) but not outright banned from doing so. So, given that, I guess it's down to you, and we can't tell you whether you can or can't. The best outcome is probably if someone else makes the move for you, but I realise it can be frustrating getting attention on a low-traffic article, and you may end up wanting to just do it yourself. Now that you've come here, I suspect someone from the Teahouse might be happy enough to do it and if no one else jumps in first, I'll happily do so once the discussion has been open for a full week and no objections have been raised. Hug^syrup 11:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It would be really nice if the talk-page of said article had a bit more participation for the consensus-building process....and I would keep the discussion there open at least until the 22nd of this month. Afterwards, you should be ok to move it yourself. Lectonar (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thanks for all of your advice. I will leave the page be uuntil the 22nd. If someone could move the page for me after the 22nd that would be greatly appreciated as I don't want to violate WP:paidEssayist1 (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, it's been 7 days now, could someone move the page for me please? Essayist1 (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The 7 days doesn't expire until later this afternoon. Leave it until then. Why the hurry? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

You can request deletion of your draft by tagging it with {{db-g7}}. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 12:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Hi Hamidkhatri, welcome to the Teahouse. Just adding to what Dbfirs said, you can find some particular guidelines at WP:BLOGS and, just below it, WP:TWITTER. All the best › Mortee _talk 14:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Hello,

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

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

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

Thanks,--Pierrot2007 (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Pierrot2007 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not possible to combine the edit histories of two accounts, nor is it possible to delete accounts. You can identify your current account as a successor to your other account and abandon the account you don't want to use anymore.

Regarding your other question, creating an article about your employer is highly discouraged as a conflict of interest. Please review conflict of interest and paid editing regarding some required disclosures you need to make and information about contributing in an area where you have a conflict of interest(COI). 331dot (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to know if there is a simpler way to create an article for Wikipedia, as I find the sandbox confusing.

Also, how do you get templates into the sandbox?

Thanks, The Raging Bull 180 — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Raging Bull 180 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey The Raging Bull 180. You may want to review our tutorial on writing your first article or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. Wikipedia can have a bit of a learning curve, especially if you're not familiar with certain types of common markup used on the internet, but these should help you get a bit more acquainted with the way things work. GMG^talk 20:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

331dot - even with my limited internet skills and preference of face-to-face human interaction much more so than though cyberspace, I believe your apology is sincere, that your comments we not intended to be disrespectful, therefore your apology is accepted and I too am sorry for my harsh response. But I think its best that we sever ties at this point and say farewell. Good luck, God bless and Goodbye. ×××× — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCIBBInventor (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia!

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Henrypentest: When you need to discuss issues with a particular article, it's generally best to do so by adding a new section to the article's talk page (in this case, Talk:Coinbase), using {{Ping}} within it (as I've done here) to notify the user(s) that are involved (see the edit history of the article to see the usernames and read the edit summaries for info on what the problem is). I've restored your content and edited it to add the cites you provided and for the other issues the users mentioned – it should be OK now as far as those things are concerned. However, it may still be considered by some to be too trivial to mention (WP:UNDUE/WP:NOTDIARY/WP:INDISCRIMINATE) – I don't know how common this sort of thing is with them, other crypto exchanges, or the net in general. Please sign any posts to talk pages (not articles) with four tildes (~~~~) at the end. This lets people easily see who wrote it and is necessary for the ping template to work. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. A Wikipedia article written about your organization is not the property of your organization as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content; so, in other words, it's not your organization's page and nobody connected to your organization has any final editorial control over article content. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause.
2. Since you state you're a member of your organization and editing on it's behalf, you most certainly would be considered to have a conflict of interest about anything written about your organization on Wikipedia. Please refer to Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to learn about ways you can let other editors know about problems you might find in the article. You should also review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure to make sure neither you nor any other members of your organization are also required to comply with it.
3. Please try to remember to be civil when discussing others on Wikipedia. If you notice other editors are editing pages in an inappropriate way, then try and focus on how their edits are not in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In some cases, the edits made might actually have been OK and even necessary per relevant policies and guidelines; so, instead of immediately labeling others as this or that, try to discuss the reasons why you feel the edit was incorrect on the relevant article's talk page and see what others think. Most content disputes can be resolved through discussion per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but administrator assistance can be sought out when things go beyond a simple dispute over content and start becoming disruptive. Just from looking at the page history of International Crisis Group, I don't really see any of the disruption you're describing (at least not at the moment) and also can see that the page is no longer protected; so, it can currently be edited by anyone. As long as their edits are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, there should be no problem.

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

Hi Maproom and Marchjuly,

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

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

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

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

Hi Nick Moyes ,

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

@Sidsa: Yes, either ask here where anyone can quickly reply to you, or on my own talk page (just follow the link in my signature), though you might not get such a speedy reply as here. Either way, it really hekps if you remember to add your signature at the end on every talk page post. Just type four keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~). Meanwhile, why not look at some related pages that interest you which need improving. It's a good way to gain editing practice without having any WP:COI. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Sidsa: I suggest that further discussion specific to that article should be on it's "talk page" – Talk:International Crisis Group. Also, I don't know if you've seen it, but your own talk page (User talk:Sidsa) has a nice welcome message with links to many articles that are useful to newcomers. Thanks again for your attention to all this. It's encouraging when we see newcomers that have your level of concern for what we're trying to do here, and I look forward to your future contributions. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I am a fully disclosed paid editor representing Richard Wayne Lewis I put in a page move request 7 days ago which can be found on the article's talk page. There have been no objections to the move and one user has supported the move. The request has now been live for 7 days, is it ok if I go ahead and move the page myself as I am having difficulty finding someone to move it for me. Essayist1 (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Essayist1: After the previous discussion at the Teahouse, I think it is safe to say you can. I will take full responsibility in the case that others disagree. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

@Essayist1: That's the nature of a volunteer project like this without a specific central authority. I would agree with David, though. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done (moved) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Humanengr: The convention for special sort keys is at WP:SORTKEY. This is certainly one of those areas that could be more user-friendly. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Can an experienced editor see my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SL2Connect/sandbox

If you can Phase II has only been added and not edited. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by SL2Connect (talk • contribs) 23:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Major problem is that most of the references are to the OUR website. What an organization says about itself is not considered a reliable source. What is required are references to content written about OUR Ecovillage by people with no connection to the organization. David notMD (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

How can I upload photos please ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.5.51.26 (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, 185.5.51.26. Welcome to the Teahouse! I think that this information page might be what you're looking for. If you have any more questions, I'll try my best to help. Clovermoss (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Does wikipedia host any contest on editing materials? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suklav (talk • contribs) 05:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Suklav, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, there are innumerable editing events held around the world each year, both in real life and/or online. Some are just meetups, others are 'editathons' and a few are target focussed, occasionally with prizes. However, I really think Wikipedians are rubbish at gathering all these events details into one place so as to promote them properly. I would first take a look at Wikipedia:Meetup/Calendar and the (sadly rarely updated) programme at the bottom of this page: WP:EDITATHON. Our Women in Red project runs monthly themed events to improve articles on women (women are very poorly represented on Wikipedia, both in terms of content and makeup of editors). Anyone can join up to these events, and add their contributions to the event page. Usually 'prizes' are nominal to non-existent - it's the taking part and doing well that counts here. Sometimes you may find more regional information if you visit a relevant wikiproject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject India where events may be promoted. I hope this helps. I'll send you a welcome message to your talk page which includes information on Women in Red. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

How can I edit semi protected page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbinaJ (talk • contribs) 09:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@AlbinaJ: Click on the page you want to edit. Then click on "Submit an edit request" then type what changes you want to make, then click on publish changes. After your request, an editor will shortly review your request.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 09:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I've spent a while looking at how to edit properly and use tools, etc, but I cannot figure out how to put a language template on my userpage. Could anybody help? MayodKOR (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@MayodKOR: Do you mean a userbox saying what languages you speak and to what level? You seem to have successfully placed a couple on your userpage, so I'm not sure what else you're after. Can you give a bit more info, or point me to an example of someone else's page that has the template you want? Hug^syrup 08:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup: My question was already answered at the help desk, sorry. Should have blanked or removed this section. What I haven't had answered is how to make a collapsible holding box for userboxes in general. Thanks, -MayodKOR (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries. For future reference, this is one reason why we ask people not to post the same question in multiple places at once. You can use {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} but that seems only to work across the full width of the page, not the tidy little userbox container that I use, and that you are using right now. There may not be an easy way to achieve what you're after, and I can't remember seeing anyone else who has done this, but if you can point me to any examples it should be fairly easy to work out how it's done. Hug^syrup 09:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@MayodKOR:, And again, you had asked the follow-up at both places, and had already got an answer there. This is why it's a bad idea to ask the same question at different venues concurrently, it wastes volunteer effort needlessly. The helpdesk answer is more specific but to add to the general answer provided here, you can find a list of related templates at Template:Collapsible templates. The easiest way still is to copy code from a userpage that implements what you want and adapt it for your own. Regards! Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 09:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. I'll try to refrain from doing it again. MayodKOR (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

How many references or external links are needed to create a new Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahendrasalvi (talk • contribs) 09:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mahendrasalvi: There is no set number. References are really needed for two reasons (and these overlap). Firstly, you need enough to show the overall notability of the subject. In some cases, a single really good source could be enough for that, for example one source that says someone has won an Oscar will be sufficient because we generally accept that anyone who has won an Oscar is notable. Equally, for a company, notability might be established with just a couple of really good, in-depth articles in well-respected publications like the New York Times or The Guardian. For other companies, it might be a case of lots of articles that reference the company but where it isn't the main topic, so it might take ten to establish notability. Hence why it is impossible to give a fixed number.

And then there is the second reason for sources, which is that every major claim in the article must be backed up with a source. That probably means at least one per paragraph, but sometimes a lot more. Therefore, longer articles will inevitably need lots of references, while shorter ones might need fewer. Hug^syrup 09:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Mahendrasalvi I would note that if you are associated with the company you want to write about, you will need to read and comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID, two important policies. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there,

I am trying to write my first wikipedia article. Its been rejected twice. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AFC_submission/draft/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Andrew_Evans_(travel_writer)

The reason provided is a copy and paste reads like an advert with no substantive advice on how to improve the article. As a professional editor, I find this frustrating and disrespectful. I am trying to make a contribution because I frankly feel that this personality whom I personally know. He has a ton of TV shows and books and a huge following, and I've followed him from day 1 on his bus ride to antarctica, there are a lot of articles written about him. I believe he is much more notable than many of the other Andrew Evans' on wikipedia, yet there is nothing here on probably the best known one. I havn't spoken to him, about what I'm doing, but I am concerned about the apparent request to eliminate primary sources all together from the article.

I respectfully request some constructive input on how to get this past the gate keepers here, so I don't have to waste a bunch more time on this.

Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biologyfishman (talk • contribs) 10:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Biologyfishman: - it's not really the place of the reviewers to give lots of advice on how to improve the article, but you will find that the notes they have left include links to a number of policies, which include lots of advice. Have you read all of these? They leave copy-paste replies because they are volunteers giving up their time to review the huge number of articles that people submit. I am sure they find it frustrating and disrespectful when they leave a note giving lots of links to policies and information pages, and then an article is re-submitted that looks as if the author has not read the information given.

One of the points that the reviewer makes is that there is a lack of reliable sources. I agree with that assessment. There are currently a lot that are either: non-reliable blogs, the subject's own work, author bio pages on publications he writes for, etc. I think there is a good chance that the subject is notable, but you need to demonstrate this. Trying to pack the article with as many references as possible, when many are poor quality, actually makes it more likely to be rejected. Instead, read WP:RS and strip out everything that is not a really top-quality reliable source. Everything that is by Evans and not about him, everything that is a blog/website and not a reliable publication, and everything that is a biography or summary and not a journalistic article or book. Then see what you have left, and if it doesn't seem like enough, go and hunt down a couple more sources.

Finally, if you are getting frustrated with the process or feel like you are wasting time then you are, of course, free to simply stop or take a break. No one needs a Wikipedia article, and there is no rush to create one for Evans or anyone else. Hug^syrup 10:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Firstly you have what we call a conflict of interest if you know him. Also there is a problem with the tone, content like "Evans works with destinations to weave a larger epic travel narrative" 'Evans also shares his love of travel" "an avid following on social media through instagram, twitter and Facebook" "landed his first book deal" "establish 'digital travel influencer' as a career path" " built an audience of thousands of twitter fans" " developed a taste for international travel at the age of 16" is not neutral, we just need the dry facts with no embellishment. Theroadislong (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I left a more detailed draft-specific answer at AfC Help Desk (before I noticed the double discussion). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I fancy myself quite good at political sciences do you have any articles you need expanded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IIndia (talk • contribs) 02:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi IIndia, welcome to the Teahouse. I've split your question into a section of its own because it seems separate from the photo question above. Thanks for wanting to help Wikipedia! I've added a template with some general links to your talk page that you might find useful. For politics in particular, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. They have a to do list and an automated list of politics-related articles that have been tagged for cleanup. Hope this helps, › Mortee _talk 12:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

However, here's an invite [1] to a new user with five (5) edits, as far as I can tell.

What's up? CapnZapp (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@RudolfRed: can you point me to the example of someone with one edit being invited? Can't see any traces of that in my logging table. J-Mo 23:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jtmorgan: See User_talk:Basheed_Shaik. RudolfRed (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Can I ask for a bit more context of how the bot's parameters have progressed since it was approved? When was the edit threshold lowered? What was the reason? Who was in on the decision? Just changing the "10" to a "5" in the documentation does not really answer anything. If this is better discussed elsewhere (than here in Teahouse Q&A), I would appreciate a pointer where I can learn more. Thx CapnZapp (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: it looks like I made that change about 5 years ago... July 21 2014 according to my logging table. I make small changes to sampling criteria all the time, in order to maintain a steady level of traffic to the Teahouse (the number of good-faith newly registered editors who make at least N edits in their first 24 hours has trended downward over time), and in response to editors reporting problematic false positives. I also run experiments to learn what works best, as you can see from my many BAG approvals. If you want to learn more about HostBot invites, the best place to start is probably this academic paper. Cheers, J-Mo 23:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, my interest wasn't academic - just wanting to make sure some old approval didn't creep into bot spamming, that's all. If your bot approval was based on the number of invites sent out, rather than the specific criteria, then that's good enough for me (especially seeing your prompt documentation upgrades). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I have created two pages about two new books which have been published. The pages have been uploaded as drafts. Since I joined Wikipedia community 4 days ago, the pages require approval before they are online. I would like to know how and when does that happen?

The two pages are "Tata Vs Mistry" and "Mind Without Fear" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonononononoon (talk • contribs) 05:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi and welcome Nonononononoon! Typically, it does not take more than 8-12 weeks for an article to be reviewed by an Articles for Creation reviewer, though some articles get reviewed more quickly. Assuming the article is free of any issues, it will then be published. Otherwise it will be declined and you'll be given feedback on areas for improvement and invited to resubmit it. Note that the preceding are all generalities and individual timelines may vary. Chetsford (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Nonononononoon, a draft needs to be submitted for review before it can be reviewed by volunteers at Articles for Creation. You can do so by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of your page. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 08:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Your draft here User:Nonononononoon/sandbox has no sources, please add reliable sources first or it will be declined immediately. Theroadislong (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

My apologies I see you have a draft here Draft:Mind Without Fear also. Theroadislong (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2019

In MWF, large portions of text, including people being quoted, are without references. David notMD (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi I am wondering if I could be of any help with draft review? I have been on Wikipedia several years and although my account is recently created I would like to help. could anyone tell me how to review them perhaps? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:10 23 August 2019 (GMT)

Just FYI, you typed a username in, but the edit history indicates that a IP made this edit. Please remember to log in before posting so your edits are properly attributed to you. Regarding your question, you can find more information about reviewing drafts at the WikiProject for Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on the draft review and sorry about the username I will remember to sign in next time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9616:2800:DE6:88C4:8FFB:9810 (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, you will need to place a request here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants, but given how new your account is I suspect they may be unlikely to approve you as it will be very difficult for them to assess your previous edits and whether you have a solid understanding of the necessary policies. You might find you need to edit under your new account for a couple of months first, and they will probably want to see some participation in WP:AFD and maybe WP:CSD as a way to show that you understand what makes an article suitable for approval. Hug^syrup 15:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)