Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 437

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page.

Archive 430

←

Archive 435

hey teahouse.

is there some way, once I have identified a vandal I can keep an eye on what vandal are doing (real time).? If I put them in my watch-list there contribution does not seem to come up. what would you suggest I do?Hot Pork Pie (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hot Pork Pie, I suggest you read the Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding policy to ensure that you are not doing the wrong thing yourself; and that you report any vandalism at WP:AIV. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Hello can you please tell me if examiner.com is a reliable source, also is www.encyclopedia.com?Atlantic306 (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Atlantic306. Examiner.com is a hyper-local blog platform without professional editorial control, and therefore is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Encyclopedia.com aggregates content from a wide range of sources. The reliability of anything you find there needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

ThanksAtlantic306 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Aimankyuichi/sandbox

I reviewed User:Aimankyuichi/sandbox and declined it, saying that I wasn’t sure whether the draft was about the league, or the season in the league. I received the following from User:Aimankyuichi: “Hello Robert, firstly, thank you for leaving a comment to clarify whether the article was about a league, or about a season in a league. Secondly, there is already an existing article on the league itself here So I wrote the article meant to reflect the current season of the V-league (the 2015-2016 season) and would like to link it to the league page if my article was accepted. I'm sorry the title is confusing so I hope you can assist me to make the correction you see appropriate. Thank you ”

The link to the league wasn’t there at the time of the review, and was then added by the author. I would like to stress for other new editors the importance of having proper wikilinks to related articles. Some new editors don’t know this. I would also like to stress the importance of a proper lede sentence explaining the subject of the article. The current draft is a major improvement. Do other experienced editors have comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

More about Three Drafts

NAC: Posted three separate requests Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I created a heading called "Three Drafts" three days ago, with subsections for each of three articles that I had declined. There have been no answers. Did I make a mistake in putting the three declined articles into one draft, in which case I can repost the three separately, or did no one have any comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Though you didn't say so, there was maybe a hint of an expectation that a host would comment on all three. That may have deterred others from taking a closer look. It may have had that effect on me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blacklisted website

Hello respected Sir, I am delighted to be a part of the most famous encyclopedia of the world. I have question. I want to add a citation and some content from the website but it was listed in the blacklist of the wikipedia, so kindly tell me how can I remove it from the blacklist and add it to the whitelist of wikipedia, as I found the content on that website relevant and helpful. Kindly tell me a solution. If you can help me then here is the blacklisted website domain: currencyliquidator.com

Sir, please tell me a way or help me to remove it from the blacklist.

Thank you and regards, --Peterwoodwilson (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Peterwood Wilson

Hello, Peterwoodwilson, and welcome to the Teahouse. What exactly do you want to cite from that website? It appears to be a commercial cite, and I'm not sure what its value as a source would be (apart from about itself). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Respected Sir, I know it is a commercial site, I have gone through it too. But Sir, it is having a extremely good collection of latest blog articles, images and videos. I was enjoying the media it possesses. Even when I talk with the original creator of the media on that site he told me that his creations are even available on the Britannica.com, which I found was true. So, we can say that this website possesses information that is educative and knowledgeable. So, please I request you to make this website domain whitelisted. I will be glad to contribute from this website.

I look forward to hear from you soon.

Regards. Peterwoodwilson (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Peterwoodwilson

Thanks for your reply, Peterwoodwilson. Can you give us an example of something you want to add to a specific Wikipedia article based on material on the site? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I admire your response, sir. I want to contribute an image of Iraqi dinar in the article Iraqi Dinar and Modern gold dinar. The image is of the latest Iraqi dinar, which I want to contribute. Sir, kindly help me and lift the block from the website so that I can contribute the image to the articles. I will be delighted to hear from you soon. Thanks and Regards, --Peterwoodwilson (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You can't include an image by linking to it, Peterwoodwilson. Images have to be uploaded (subject to copyright) either here or to Wikimedia Commons to be included in articles. See Wikipedia:Images for more on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

And the copyright laws for images of currency vary from country to country. You'll need to check those. Maproom (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Tumblr?

Hi, my name is Zucat. I recently created a page for a foreign Cartoon and the article so far has two references. I later soon came across a piece of information on the website Tumblr that I think would be perfect for it, but I'm afraid to adding it to the article because I don't know weather or not Tumblr is considered a reliable source or not. Can someone please let me know if I can use it or not. Zucat (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't personally say that a blogging website is a reliable source. Please search elsewhere. Chesnaught555 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Zucat. Generally, such a site is considered unreliable, as material on there is self-published. There might be an exception if the Tumblr account concerned is that of the cartoonist or the publisher, and the claim being sourced is about themselves. See WP:ABOUTSELF on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

How do I note that there is an error in the headline of a cited article?

One of the pages featured on "In the News" cites an Australian article whose headline lists Sweden among the nations involved, but whose content indicates Switzerland instead.

I've fixed the content of the article to indicate Switzerland and not Sweden, but the headline of the article is misleading and could lead to confusion (and users who only read the headline might choose to revert back to incorrectly identifying Sweden).

The article in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany

Chachilongbow (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Please raise the issue here: Talk:Main Page#Errors in In the news.--ukexpat (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's appropriate, since the error isn't in the article itself, but rather the headline of one of the citations of the article. I imagine there are existing articles with a similar issue (headline/title belies the content). For now, I just corrected the headline using square brackets. Chachilongbow (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood your question. I think your first way of handing it using [sic] is the best way.--ukexpat (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Liedewij Hawke

I reviewed Draft:Liedewij Hawke and declined it. I received the following from User:Translator-reviser: “Dear Robert, I am the author of the page dedicated to Liedewij Hawke, a Canadian literary translator. My draft was decline for the following reason: "This draft is unsourced. Please provide multiple independent reliable sources." I understand that the issue is that much of the biographical information is not cited. However, there are no independent public source of such information as Liedewij's birth town, schools that she had attended, diplomas that she received, year she moved to Canada from Netherlands, etc. All of this information comes from Liedewij herself (I personally got this information from her when working on this assignment for my theory of translation class at York University). I would hate to delete this information as doing so will rob the profile of depth and detail. I would appreciate if you could get back to me so that we could discuss what can be done to preserve this valuable information. Yours truly, Irina”

I would like the comments of other experienced editors. Unfortunately, if there are no independent third-party sources, the article will not meet our general notability guidelines or biographical notability guidelines. Personal interview data is not acceptable unless the interview has been published in a fact-checked source. (An interview with the author that has in the meantime been published in a peer-reviewed journal or fact-checked popular monthly is a secondary source.) It is a common situation that an author has personal information about the subject. Unfortunately, if they can’t provide impersonal information about the subject, she may not be notable, or we cannot accept word that she is notable. Do other experienced editors have advice on how the author can get more information? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There are two distinct issues here: unsourced personal information, and notability. Including unsourced personal information, which is uncontroversial, not defamatory, and not disputed by the subject, is not ideal, but is probably acceptable. But if no-one can find acceptable references to establish notability, the article cannot be accepted anyway. Maproom (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

We generally tell people that these articles are not "profiles".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

To ask a question about editing

Hi I'm Sarthak Sharma. Please tell me that how can we provide a source to a line in the article. Thank You From Sarthak Sharma sattu 13:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarthakniar hello and welcome to The Teahouse. First of all, your signature should link to your user page and talk page. You do that using ~~~~ As for the answer to your question, use <ref> and </ref> after what you are writing about, and put your source in between the two refs. WP:CITE explains how, or you can just use a URL and a title and someone can fill in the rest.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

How to create a climate section for an article about a location

Hi. I'm filling out an article about a foreign city that's missing climate information and was wondering if there are tutorials or bots or auto-assists to help fill out the wikipedia templates such as {{weather box}} and {{climate chart}}, or whether each data point would have to be entered manually (a real deterrent). I've found the Köppen-Geiger climate classification for the city via web search, so that will help flesh out the article with text, and have also found a few sources of raw data to fill the templates from the nearest weather station. My goals with this are to minimize my key-entry work and to provide complete information on par with other wikipedia articles. —Boruch Baum (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Boruch Baum hello and welcome to The Teahouse. The people who would know the answer to your question might be found at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

tagging wikiproject templates in other language using eng: counterpart as ref

is there such bot that does the following:

checks all members of a specific project in eng:, if versions in another language exists(for example zh)

if zh version exists tag it with corresponding template(zh)

I am planning to tag zhwp:pharmacology using this method Panintelize (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Panintelize hello and welcome to The Teahouse. The people who might know the answer to your question can probably be found at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

How do you respond when you feel someone is being unfairly biased on a topic? 03:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This isn't anything that I've actually taken on myself, but it's something I'd like to edit to show alternate viewpoints and use less opinionated language (the article in question is currently semi-protected and I'm assuming this is why). It concerns a very sensitive topic, Sexism, but the editor in question seems to be using biased articles to assume that the piece is objectively sexist without acknowledging other view points. I also feel his own opinion is put forth in his generalizations, assuming that a majority of the audience see this particular piece as sexist. And instead of titling the section something objective such as "controversy", he has entitled it, quite bluntly, "sexism". I'm not saying this should be removed, quite the opposite, I think it's important to acknowledge, but I also think alternate viewpoints should be given outside of biased articles and critics.

I'm leaving the article in question out because I'm not sure this is the place for it (frankly, I don't know, sorry) and I don't want this to turn into a sort of situation where I'm 'taddling' on someone.

My question really boils down to how would you go about trying to change this? Should you change this? What do you do if the original author reverts your changes after the fact?JPXzn (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It's very hard to comment without looking at the article in question but the first step to resolve differences is to engage with the the other editor on the article's talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

JPXzn, I agree with ukexpat that it is impossible to answer your question without knowing what article you are talking about. I've looked at your edits and you are clearly not talking about an article that you have already edited. Without specifics, it's difficult to address questions about bias. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on the position of liberals with respect to neoliberalism and it's various meanings

I am exploring different ideologies by chatting with people of various backgrounds.

In this respect, the average person that has adopted liberal views does not sound happy with being associated with neoliberalism or at least the mainstream pejorative use of the word in the media and by respectable sources.

It's not clear what is actually being presented on the page. Is it according to the definition of the word and relevant theories? Or is it according to everything that has been labelled as neoliberalism as well as criticism of the current economic system in place? Perhaps these two view points or more should be presented in parallel to avoid conflation and provide an unbiased source of information.

Also, there is apparent confusion in the use of the term "liberal" in itself. In the United States it is associated with what would constitute the left wing when there are apparently liberals that lean towards the right and left.

Out of curiosity, I had a search around. Here's an extract from this link (Google translation) which is a wiki maintained by liberal thinkers.

Wrong uses of the term
Other times, the neoliberal label describes the monetarists of the Chicago School, while many monetarist theories go through a state intervention and central banks; this is therefore nonsense.
Finally, some liberal critics include the "neo-liberalism" the school of thought of the supply economy that was notably driven by Arthur Laffer and George Gilder, both members of the University of Southern California, seeking to show that contemporary economic difficulties come from a production factors of failure due to government intervention.
Note also, to put a stop to ghost hunting, the term "neo-liberal" is often attached to the neoconservatives, who are as liberal as the sky is green.
What is generally understood by those who use the term neo-liberal as an insult (which is the most common case), is that, unlike the "good" liberals of the Enlightenment who were concerned with defending the rights of man, the neo-liberals only care about defending an alleged "market power". It seems that for them to implicitly participate in the market, creating a company, make profit, etc. isn't part of human rights. On this subject, Alain Laurent denies that what is called "neoliberalism" is fundamentally different from classical liberalism:
Neoliberalism (if by that we mean what was professed by Hayek, Mises and Milton Friedman) has never done but actualize, adapt to contemporary circumstances, classical liberalism. Someone like Smith simultaneously defended economic freedom and political freedom. (...) The so-called neo-liberals do not say anything else, they merely adapt what Smith, Turgot, Say, Bastiat, Benjamin Constant and even Tocqueville have said. (...) Freedom is not divided.

-- JamesPoulson (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JamesPoulson. Perhaps you do not understand the purpose of the Teahouse. This is a place to ask questions about the procedures for editing Wikipedia. It is not a place for discussing the connotations of various terms used to describe political philosophies, or to express our own opinions about those philosophies. So, I will recast your comments into an appropriate Teahouse question: How should the Wikipedia article about "neoliberalism" describe that concept? My answer is that our article ought to summarize, neutrally, what the full range of the highest quality reliable sources say about the topic. In this case, a truly high quality source would be something written by a highly regarded academic political scientist, in a book published by a respected university press, or an award winning book published by a mainstream publishing house, or an article published in a respected and reputable academic journal. Low quality polemical sources, including blogs and opinion pieces and editorials and stuff written by opinionated amateurs should be excluded from the article. Our job as Wikipedia editors is only to accurately summarize what the full range of the highest quality sources say. It is not to provide our own personal interpretation in any way, shape or form. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. Sorry, I wasn't clear about why I posted here. The thing is that I don't have a clue on how to modify the article properly and need advice. For example in terms of possible additional sources. I would rather avoid any disruptive editing :p . If this is better suited to the Talk page I will copy-paste it over later. If you or someone else feels this is a touchy subject I'd rather leave it.

Having read through the article it seems that it not entirely neutral and things being lumped together. It is obviously heavily sourced but that would not prevent a narrative. In objective terms, what stands out is the mention of the Austrian school. To the casual reader the association made with neoliberalism would give the implicit impression that Austrian policies have been applied AND are responsible for some of the problems mentioned. That's all for now and I will mention this on the talk page.

I have nothing to defend as I'm not liberal in the philosophical sense but I am sensitive to populism of any form. My concern is that a bias could turn the population against (modest) individuals that practice liberalism if the economy gets really bad because of an apparent (neo)liberal policy. Unfortunately, politics and philosophy are mostly layman's concerns as they are directly affected by the organization of a society. The thing is that in an economic context the form may be neoliberal but the intent and outcome might not. It would be very convenient to blame an ideology and evade responsibility for actions. --JamesPoulson (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Back to the mention of sources, I would be very interested to read some simplified explanation of how Wikipedia evaluates sources, or weighs them if there is any weighing. It may prove useful for a political fact checking project a contact had in mind. --JamesPoulson (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Further discussion can be on the talk page of an appropriate article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon will do. --JamesPoulson (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Correction removed by a bot

Hi ! I'm not used to submit contributions in the English version of Wikipedia as I'm a native French speaker and not enough comfortable en English to do valuable addings. Anyway, I often read English version of articles as they are subject to be more detailed than French ones. Few days ago, I read an article about Lonomia and found that the LD50 of its venom was given without unit (0.19). This is very embarrassing as it hence have no signification at all. 0.19lonomia to kill an elephant or 0.19kg to kill a mouse ? I tried to highlight this lack of accuracy on the article, hopping that a lonomia expert would once read this article and give the appropriate correction I wasn't able to provide. Unfortunately, it does'nt seem to comply with Wikipedia rules. How can I add something like "unit needed" as it's often found with unsourced affirmations tagged "reference needed" ?

Thanks in advance for your help. Cheers from France Mayonaise (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mayonaise: Hello. There is no tag to do this per se but you could try <!- - and close with - -> (take away the gaps). This puts hidden information in for editors; you could put "please add units", possibly. As for your level of English, I'm quite comfortable with French so if you need anything translating on here let me know. Did you know there is a French Wikipedia? You could try editing there; I reckon your contributions would be valued. Chesnaught555 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a template that can be used for this type of question and this is {{clarify}} where the reason e.g. units can be expanded on in the template. Nthep (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome Mayonaise to English Wikipedia! Your edit to the Talk page was the correct thing to do (with the minor exception that a section heading is entered as ==New heading==, not =New heading=). As my colleague has said, you could also have used the Clarify template. Apart from this and other such "inline templates", it is not encouraged to insert text directly into articles just to point out defects, so a human would probably have reverted that as well. If it helps, this paper states that The LD50 of Lonomia bristle extract following i.v. injection was 0.19 mg LBE/18–20 g mouse.: Noyster (talk), 18:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Chesnaught555, Mayonaise did say the French articles aren't as good as the English ones, so I assume he/she is referring to French Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for pointing that one out. My apologies for the mistake. Chesnaught555 (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well-meaning but confused edits

There is a user who is editing the Great Pyrenees article and is adding a lot of hard to read material. I think that English is their second language and they are not doing this on purpose, but it is very tough to understand their contributions. They write using many commas in one sentence, make lots of typos and are spelling words wrong. I don't want to revert all their work because it seems well-intentioned, but it needs major rewriting. Should I suggest they contribute on another language Wikipedia? White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It is permitted to advise an editor who is acting in good faith but is clearly challenged by English to edit a Wikipedia that is in their native language. Usually we should be welcoming to editors for whom English is a second language, but if the editor causes the regular editors more work than their contributions, we can advise them to edit a different Wikipedia. I see that there is an editor there who has difficulty with English grammar. (English grammar, being analytical rather than inflectional, may be difficult for editors who are accustomed to a more highly inflected language.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to jut in but is there any space on Wikipedia that discusses how to manage problems like this? Perhaps invite the user to write to a section to a user page until it's good? If the contributor really wants to put effort in then maybe they can improve the text themselves by getting advice from some sub-sites at Stackexchange.com and learn some good English along the way. From memory there are sites dedicated to the English language and writing as well as some translation sites I think. --JamesPoulson (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The article's talk page might be a good place for this, JamesPoulson. If they post their proposed change as a suggestion to the talk pages then (especially if they include references) somebody may be willing to improve the English and add it to the article. By the way, "proofreading" is specifically not on topic for either English Language & Usage or English Language Learners at Stackechange. --ColinFine (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

article on refpredictor

Hello, i have been notified on a new refpredictor article for deletion. please enlighten me on the likely reason for this and how's best to go about it. refpredictor is a revolutionary gaming model that promotes social and responsible gaming and it had been up since 2009. It deserves to be shared. Dee.lawanson (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dee.lawanson articles generally have to meet the WP:Golden rule and pass WP:Notability. In this case you only have a reference of the site itself. Unless you find and adding more references its likely to be deleted. If you want more time to work on the article you can post the articles talk page asking for it to be moved to your user area or the draft area - you can then work on it and submit it for an WP:AFC review once it has better sources. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi again Dee.lawanson, also as it has a [[WP:|copyright violation]] that content will have to be removed/re-writen before the article could be accepted. KylieTastic (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Dee.lawanson. The reasons are explained on your talk page. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and will not allow material to be used which is copyright, unless it has been specifically released by the copyright owner under a suitable licence such as WP:CC-BY-SA. Furthermore, material from an organisation's own website, even if the copyright owner has specifically released it, is usually not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, because it will almost certainly be promotional in its language and viewpoint - entirely appropriately for their own website, but entirely inappropriately for Wikipedia. Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a person or organisation wishes to say about themselves, their work, their products: Wikipedia articles should be based nearly 100% on what other people, unrelated to the topic of the article, have published about it in reliable places. Whether a subject is revolutionary or conservative, well-intentioned or evil, and what it may deserve, are all of no consequence for Wikipedia, which is only interested in topics which people unconnected with the topic have already published substantial material about (the Wikipedia jargon for this is that the topic is notable) Searching for Refpredictor on Google news gives me precisely two hits, both from this week, and both apparently from interviews, so neither of them independent. This suggests to me that the product is not (yet) notable, and so an article about it however that article may be written will not currently be acceptable to Wikipedia. I also notice that one of the people involved is called Dare Lawanson. If that is you, you should also be aware that you are strongly discouraged from editing any article about RefPredictor because of your Conflict of interest.

What this boils down to is that you appear to be here for the purpose of promoting your own product. That is never acceptable in Wikipedia. If you are here to help us improve Wikipedia, you are very welcome. If you are here solely to promote a product, then you are not. --ColinFine (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

How much of my info is seen by public?

If I correct and update the Brad Crandall bio, how much of my personal info will be seen by the public? I am his former wife, friend for life and mother of his only son, Mark. I see mistakes not made by Mark or me. And I know specs of his prof career. Ellie Crandall 50.108.174.236 (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ellie. Everything put into a Wikipedia article (or other page) is seen by the public; but nothing that you do not put into a page is seen. While we wish to have accurate information, especially about living people, you are strongly discouraged from editing an article about your former husband because of your conflict of interest, and all information in Wikipedia should come from reliable published sources, not from personal or unpublished knowledge. If there is information in the article which is not referenced and you believe it to be wrong, you may remove it (make sure you explain in your edit summary why you are doing so, so that it does not appear to be vandalism). For any other changes, you are strongly advised to post on the article's talk page Talk:Brad Crandall, suggesting specific changes to the article, and preferably citing reliable published sources for any information you are adding. Since that talk page does not get much traffic, if you also add {{edit request}} (with the double curly brackets) to your submission on the talk page, that will bring your suggestion to more people's notice. --ColinFine (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that if you edit without registering an account and logging in, your IP address will be made public when you edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Noted.

I like to contribute to wikipedia indeed. However, i just got a hang on being able to edit. i will review other works and leave an associated product to be reviewed by others. Thanks. Dee.lawanson (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dee.lawanson if you want to learn the basics that try the The Wikipedia Adventure. Also if you want to create new articles I suggest Wikipedia:Articles for creation is the best place to start. Also I'd recommend to start with small edits on existing pages to learn some of the basics. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Trying to write an article

Trying to write an article about the changes that have been made to the bible over the thousands of years it has been around, concerning editing by the Roman Catholic Church, misinterpretation and mistranslations from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into English..... and so on. I have done my research on this subject and gathered the evidence from serveral universities and people re translating the dead sea scrolls... and so on. It's not a religious debate or my personal option, it is based on historical fact. Is there any REAL reason I will not be allowed to write this article. User: R.J.Rowell R.J.Rowell (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@R.J.Rowell: Hello, R.J.Rowell, and Welcome to the Teahouse!

From what I can see, that information is already present in the Bible article. In your position, I would add any extra information I would have regarding the topic to the already-present article, instead of creating a new one.

Happy Editing!

PigeonOfTheNight (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

What sort of changes are you planning to write about? (I naively thought that biblical scholars tried to keep the text as close to the "original" as possible.) If you are planning to cite reputable sources for the changes you list, this might be an interesting article. But it sounds more as if you would be describing the results of your own research: original research is not accepted in Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, R.J.Rowell. There are some words in your question above that are probably ringing warning bells for people - they certainly are for me. First, there are the evaluative words "misinterpretation and mistranslations". Nobody denies that these exist, and if you cite a reliable source that describes something in that way, that is fine. What is forbidden is to use such words in Wikipedia's voice. Secondly, you say it is based on historical fact. Paradoxically, Wikipedia is not (in a sense) based on historical fact, because historical facts are not always possible to determine for sure and may not be free of interpretation. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources: see the essay Verifiability, not truth.

It may be that you are aware of all this, and the text you propose to add will follow all the policies; in which case I apologise for doubting you. But if not, please also read original research and neutral point of view. --ColinFine (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Very odd behavior

It is funny that I keep hearing "it sounds like this is original research" or that it is my option I'm writing about with my article in the first stages of development. Sure I get that the format needs to change, but what I was writing about IS historical fact ! My information comes from many sources. These facts have been proven by Bill Warren New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Thomas Linacre an Oxford professor, Emanuel Tov Dead Seas Scrolls Publication Project, Israel Antiquities Authority, Judith H. Newman Society of Biblical Literature and 6 other university professors and resources that I have gathered together.I have decided to take my information somewhere else. Some people here on Wiki try to help others while others just discourage, and repress people to invest in this site for whatever reasons, those people seem to be very closed minded and quick to judge. So Wiki and it's admin doesn't need to worry about me writing or donating anything.R.J.Rowell (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

what does it mean by the article has been moved (renamed)

hi, i was wondering what does it mean when it says "This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed)" i wrote and article in my sandbox and tried to submit it twice but was declined both times. So I made changes to the title of the article as per the reviewer's comment so that the title do not confuse people and I submit it for the third time. But after submitting it for the third time, when i click my sandbox, the message above appear. Maybe it's not such a big deal but I just want to know what cause it to happen.

And another thing, I wanted to ask normally how long does it take for the reviewer to review the article we submit? I know the reviewer are busy too with their own stuff but just want to know roughly how long it does take them to review? Because for the first two time I submit the article, it only take less than 48 hours before I got the message that my submission has been declined. But for this 3rd time, it's been 4 days. Maybe I was lucky to get the quick review for the first two submissions but because of that I'm kinda anxious now for this third one.

Thank you ^.^Aimankyuichi (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Aimankyuichi. Your sandbox User:Aimankyuichi/sandbox was moved to Draft:2015-2016 V-League (South Korea) - Men's, so that is where the draft now is. But moving a page normally leaves a redirect behind, so if you go to your sandbox it will automatically send you on to the Draft page. At the top, in small letters it will say "(Redirected from User:Aimankyuichi/sandbox)", and you can pick that link to go to the actual sandbox page. You can edit that page normally; so if you want to use it again for a preparing a differnt draft, you can simply remove the redirect code; or you can add {{db-user}} to it, which request that an administrator delete the page.

As for you other question: there is no way to predict how long it will take. But I can tell you that if I reviewed it I would reject it because it does not contain one single reference to an independent source - every reference is to KOVO; and therefore the draft article does not establish that the subject is notable. You need independent reliable published material about the subject (and not just about the association, or the individual teams, but about the subject of the article). --ColinFine (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Italics in article titles

I'm proposing a new article and using the Article Wizard. The article title contains one italic letter (Origins of algebraic x). The Wizard finds double apostrophes to be wrong format. What's the alternative? Kotabatubara (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at the {{italic title}} template and its documentation.--ukexpat (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kotabatubara: You need to create the title with no formatting, as "Origins of algebraic x"; then somewhere within the article insert {{DISPLAYTITLE:Origins of algebraic ''x''}}, which will make the title display the way you want. Deor (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Pages in Non English Wikipedia

For Example: An article which has notability exists in French or German or Spanish Wikipedia. How can I create an English version of it directly? Marvel Hero (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey Marvel Hero. You would create the page just like any other one (or you could use the articles for creation process) and provide there a translation of the subject. You might find a read of Wikipedia:Translation useful as well as Wikipedia:Your first article.

Please be sure to provide copyright attribution, as provided at Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects.

Please understand, however, that each Wikipedia project has its own policies and guidelines, and some have ones that are less restrictive than the English Wikipedia's (though the German Wikipedia is approximately on par). So please be sure to first assess whether the topic meets our notability standards—that is, being the subject of substantive treatment in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the topic (and that an article with only verifiable content can be written). Also, just because an article here or anywhere has not been deleted or had its notability questioned yet, does not mean it is notable – the simple fact it exists at another project means little.

If the article is well sourced and uses citation templates, you can often reuse them in place, by doing various search and replaces of the template name and its parameters. While we have a preference for English sources, where ones to draw from are truly equal, it is perfectly acceptable to use foreign language sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Good evening Fuhghettaboutit and Marvel Hero, this advice was very helpful. I have had our translators redo the text of a German Wikipedia page for an English page. Then, based on some earlier good advice here in the Tea Room (for first timers), I set to work in my sandbox creating a facsimile of an executive's English Wikipedia version (I hope this is the right method too). My next question is; "Do I need to attribute/reference the German version,and could you please advise as to the proper method?" Thanks for your help and consideration, I feel like changing my name to Wikiunawake, or something. Philbutler (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

correct indication of license tag

Can you advice me how to indicate correctly the licence tags for 3 images which I would like to add. All these images were drawn about 200 years ago. Thanks! AlexanderBelousov1 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

{{PD-art}} would probably cover it.--ukexpat (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I want to contribute by providing images to some relevant topics. What should I do ?

Hello everyone, I am new to this Wiki World and would like to contribute by providing self clicked pictures on relevant topics. Where to begin with ? Kindly guide. Yours truly, Shailenguleria3 (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Shailenguleria3 if you want to contribute your own images then the best place to do that is on Wikimedia Commons Wikipedias sister project. Images uploaded to commons can be used on any language Wikipedia. They also have a Welcome page that should give you a start. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello Shailenguleria3, welcome to the Teahouse. Help:Files gives an overview of how to upload and use pictures. If you took them yourself (and they are not pictures of someone else's work), you upload them to Commons and license them under a license like CC-BY-SA. —teb728 t c 13:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Shailenguleria3 I am delighted you want to add images. I am not a teahouse host but just follow what is posted here and could not resist replying to your query. You do not say where you are based; it would be helpful to know as some areas are better covered than others. Useful subjects to consider are: portraits of notable people, historic buildings, settlements, museum objects, transport, but what interests you personally may be most important. Impeccable quality is not essential but with improving cameras competent quality would save someone from doing the job again. Best wishes. SovalValtos (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you teb728 for your guidance. I will follow it and return back with further queries if any.Shailenguleria3 (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@SovalValtos Thank you for your warm gesture. I belong to The Himalayan state of India and I can provide with pretty good pictures of local sights and historic buildings. Keep in touch.Shailenguleria3 (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I know from New Page Patrol that there are many India related articles being created every day and most of them are not illustrated. Your help would be incredibly useful. To start with, there is an (incomplete) list of India-related articles needing pictures at . Happy picture taking! Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Carlos Miranda

I reviewed Draft:Carlos Miranda and declined it as not having adequate in-line citations for a biography of a living person. User:95.210.108.58 then posted to my talk page: "Please be so kind to be more specific on your objections and I'll be too willing to comply when you illuminate me more on what is missing, what is not good enough, etc." I had mentioned that the first three paragraphs of the draft have no footnotes. Can some other experienced editor either explain to the author in more detail about the strict rules for footnotes in BLPs or explain to me why I am being too strict? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Personally, I would have accepted that draft in its current state (or at least not declined it for failing WP:MINREF, I haven't looked closely at the sourcing). In my opinion, the purpose of that decline template is to see if there are any moderate or serious WP:BLP violations or unsourced quotes that could pose copyright problems. A general rule I use in AfC is, "If it can remain in mainspace without any significant, immediate changes and I would be willing to defend it in a deletion discussion, I will accept it. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Marcoartnyc/sandbox

I reviewed User:Marcoartnyc/sandbox and declined because it is a duplicate of Draft: Marcoart, and commented that the author had apparently created two copies. I also commented that the submission of autobiographies is discouraged due to conflict of interest. User:Marcoartnyc then replied on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=699036039&oldid=698977702

In particular, he wrote: “Hi Robert I just read your comment: Comment: This draft is an autobiography, and the submission of autobiographies is strongly discouraged due to conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC) what I don't understand is how this article differs from innumerable other Wikipedia Pages about individuals. So my question is what specific criteria does my article fail to meet, or said another way what attributes would my submission need to possess so that it would be, in form, structure, tone, and content equivalent to other neutral articles about notable individuals on Wikipedia, and as a part B to the question what specific types of corrections or modifications do I need to make to my submission in order to make it qualify as an acceptable article about an individual?”” How your draft differs from innumerable other Wikipedia pages about individuals is that it is an autobiography, and so is not written from a neutral point of view. When a reviewer includes a blue-linked phrase in a review, it is likely to be a link to a policy or guideline. Please read the policies and guidelines that are included in reviews. In particular, please read the autobiography policy and the conflict of interest policy. I am not ready to give specific advice on how to improve your draft. First, I am not certain that you meet biographic notability guidelines, but, second, most individuals, even if they are notable, are not likely to be capable of writing a neutral article about themselves (or a family member or their business). Maybe other experienced editors can also comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I read the draft, and it's not very good but still not as bad as some of the submissions I've seen. I think the main issue here is notability. A person who is traveling around New York City in a "Marcoart-mobile" is not likey to meet notability standards for living persons. When and if they are given broader coverage, somebody can help them mainspace the draft. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 22:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Marcoartnyc. You should be aware that Wikipedia has a specific notability guideline for artists, which says that an artist is presumed notable only if at least one of these standards is met:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

In all honesty, I do not think that you meet any of those standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation clean up.

Is there a nice and succinct way to clean up the disambiguations and distinctions at the top of the Karait page? YuHuw (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've made the first step with this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see now! Thank you David Biddulph :D YuHuw (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser

What special edits can I do with AutoWikiBrowser, that can't be done manually? Marvel Hero (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Marvel Hero (what a great name!), and welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer to your question is - nothing. The longer answer is - it can allow you to make some types of bulk changes more quickly, easily and accurately than if you did them by hand. As an example, where I live in Australia many places have aboriginal-based names, and some of them are frequently mis-spelled. I have used AWB to find and fix some of the common mis-spellings I have come across, in whole categories or sometimes across all articles. So like many things, it's a matter of choosing the right tool for the job you are doing.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Marvel Hero and welcome back to the Teahouse. WP:AWB is a semi-automated tool to make repetitious editing less painful. Last night I set it loose on my Watchlist and it went to work on nearly 6000 pages to look for common spelling errors like e before i and double words like 'the the' and 'at at', etc. About every 10th page had a mistake which AWB fixed and highlighted and I was given the option to save, skip, or edit the page. Mostly I just hit save. Sometimes I edited. It had an 'alert' section but on this round it did not highlight the alerts, so I could not easily find the source of the alert, so I just skipped over dealing with the alerts. AWB wanted to change somebody's last name and I sensed that might be a mistake so I left it be. I set up AWB to make a sound when it was ready for me to review a page. Every 45 seconds it would beep and I would hit save mostly. This spell check feature is a simple checkbox within the AWB dashboard.

A couple of weeks ago JoeHebda used AWB to set up a list of all the tips in the WP:Tip of the day library (366 of them) and he configured AWB to insert a new template within each tip called totd nav. It was actually a find-and-replace task as Joe set AWB up to remove some old code before inserting the new template code.

The following week I used AWB to insert a new WP:category in to each tip. I want to learn to use AWB for performing regular expression (regex) searches.

Here is a tip of the day about AWB: Wikipedia:Tip of the day/February 24 Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 14:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Any limit to the number of articles I can submit

I just joinned and want to have a feel of the teahouse (haven't seen any choco here though. lols). So I want to use the opportunity to find out if any limit exists as to the number of articles to submit per day; per week; per month, etc. I expect to have a nice contributing time here. Feels good.NigEditor (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no limit, NigEditor; but writing an acceptable article is not easy and takes considerable work, so you're probably going to be limited by your own time. Submitting a large number of very poor articles might be taken as disruptive. --ColinFine (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Any limit to the number of articles I can submit

I just joinned and want to have a feel of the teahouse (haven't seen any choco here though. lols). So I want to use the opportunity to find out if any limit exists as to the number of articles to submit per day; per week; per month, etc. I expect to have a nice contributing time here. Feels good.NigEditor (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NigEditor. Unless you are planning to use an automated software bot to create new articles at industrial speeds, there is no practical limit to how many articles you can create. However, please keep in mind that quality is much more important than quantity. Even a brief but well-referenced article on a notable topic takes time to research, write, cite and illustrate. Please read Your first article for a detailed description of how to write an article that is useful to the encyclopedia, and won't get deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Sources

What do you do if a source is cited in an article, but the source is deleted when traced back (i.e it does not exist anymore)? Does the statement said by the source become irrelevant as it is not backed up by a source? Thanks for the help and thank you for doing this :) Rabt man (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rabt man. Reliable sources need not be available online so just because a source is not readily available at an old URL does not mean that it should be removed or that it no longer exists. Often, simply googling the title of the source will yield a copy at an updated URL. Our guideline says "Dead links should be repaired or replaced if possible. Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working today." For complete details and other ways to repair broken links, please read WP:DEADREF. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you :) Rabt man (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rabt man: Try https://archive.org/web/ aka "The Wayback Machine". Paste the dead URL into the big address field you'll see there, over the "Browse Web" button, then click the button.--Thnidu (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding an English language version of a German Wikipedia page?

Hello Teahouse. I have had our translators create the texts for an existing Wikipedia page about a notable technology innovator. I have been involved many times promoting Wikipedia etc. but have never officially rendered a page, either for myself, or an associate.

I would deeply appreciate any help or suggestions for putting up the English version of this page with updates. Thanks so much, and Happy New Year too. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Tweraser

Philbutler (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Does WP:TRANSLATE help?--ukexpat (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is very helpful ukexpat, thanks very much. I already have the certified translation, but am (sadly) inexperienced at editing Wikipedia. I have denoted that you guys have made it much easier than when I joined years ago. I hope you will forgive if I revert back again with questions. TY very much. Philbutler (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Philbutler: Comments on English in your paragraph just above:

denoted should be noted or noticed or observed.
revert does not mean return, and in fact has a very specific technical meaning on Wikipedia.

(By and large, your English is quite good.) --Thnidu (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Melville Electronic Library

The Melville Electronic Library (MEL) is an NEH-funded critical archive that, when completed, will include a scholarly, "fluid text" edition of all versions of Melville's works. A fluid text is any written work that exists in multiple versions: for instance, Moby-Dick first appeared in an American and an expurgated British edition. MEL is hosted on Hofstra University's server, and I am its director. I am wondering if a Wikipedia article on MEL, fluid text editing, our editing tool TextLab, and MEL's other projects would be acceptable.173.56.30.69 (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeaHouse. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, as such it is built on secondary sources. So the answer to your question hinges on the availability of secondary sources on the Melville Electronic Library. We're looking for in depth coverage in independent secondary sources, as per our general notability guideline. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

And as director of MEL you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which means that you and your staff should not be writing articles on the subject. —teb728 t c 01:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've read the guidelines and COI section and figured I would not be the writer. We should have plenty of secondary sources to validate notability of the project, and then there's Melville. I've always admired Wikipedia, and I've been even more impressed looking through the guidelines and understanding the editorial process.173.56.30.69 (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Need an editor to edit my article

Hi the reviewer of my article has suggested that to request an editor to rework on it. How can i get help from other editor? Thanks MelitaFernandes (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello MelitaFernandes and welcome to the Teahouse. You may not have noticed that the reviewer included the following link in their recommendation: WP:REQUEST. If you click on that blue link it will take you to the page which describes the process for requesting an editor help out. If you have any questions which it does not answer, then please feel free to come back here and ask.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

How Am I Doing So Far? My very first article (HELP)

Good day Wikipedia teahouse patrons! I have begun creating an English version of a German article about a noted technology CEO. I know everybody is swamped like I am, but could Vanamonde93 or another expert please take a look at User:Philbutler/sandbox and give me some feedback? Being new to editing is exciting, and humbling. TYSVM. Philbutler (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, Philbutler! I'm no expert on first articles, but I've been editing for a long time and I'm a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. I've just visited your sandbox and done some editing on your draft there. Some of it is typo fixes, some of it is adjustments of what seems to be fairly literal translation from German into more idiomatic English, and some is more general copyediting.

One piece of advice that I seem to give to a number of novice editors is that you don't need to mention the subject's name every time; in fact, it gets pretty tedious to read if you do. So I've changed many of your users of the subject's name to simple pronouns. This doesn't mean that I'm yelling at you for not noticing that. It is very hard to proofread your own work as if you had never seen it before.

In "Early Life and Education" I've piped a couple of links to educational institutions to condense, e.g.,

Higher Technical Institute HTL (Höhere Technische Lehranstalt)

to

Higher Technical Institute HTL

which provides the same information without cluttering the page with a title useless to the non-German-speaking reader, who after all is the main audience.

--Thnidu (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Thnidu , I so appreciate the feedback and advice. I also appreciate you taking your valuable time too. The point about repetitive use of the man's name is well taken. I noticed it in the translation I got back from our translator. The typos, I only have myself to blame for (always a blight on my writing work). Again, I so appreciate the help, really. Philbutler (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

- Philbutler, welcome. This is a very creditable effort for your first article. I would make a couple of minor points. First, try to clean up the reference formatting a little bit; the "Cite" option at the top of the editing window can be very helpful. Second, you've made a good start on the sources, but a couple more from newspapers/magazine articles will be helpful. I would also pay attention to the tone of your writing, which is at times more appropriate to a magazine; but this is a very minor concern, and will improve as you stick around here. On the whole, good job! Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow Vanamonde93, I'll take this as praise to make my week. Thank you a million for your help. I am finding the experience both fun, and challenging too, to be honest. As you suggest, I will read and try and emulate some of the better articles for tone etc. 20 something thousand magazine or news articles must have left an indelible mark (as did the typos propensity Thnidu alluded to). Thank you both again, I know you have better things to do, and probably zero time. Philbutler (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia 15

Hello guys, It is good to know to know that Wikipedia is turning 15 years old this Friday, to celebrate I have created a GIF but I do not know where to post it? Can anyone tell me? Komchi^✉_☆ 16:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd sugegst uploading the image to Commons, then discussing it as meta:Talk:Wikipedia_15. --LukeSurl^{t c} 12:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)