Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 629

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 625

←

Archive 627

→

I wrote my first article and I named it wrong. How do I change its name?

Dear All,

Well like a dork I wrote my first article "Thymoma associated multiorgan" and I named it wrong. The correct name should be named "Thymoma-associated multiorgan autoimmunity (TAMA)." This disease appears in Up-To-Date (major medical reference) so I thought it should have its own Wikipedia page.

Can someone help me rename this article? Your help will be much appreciated.

Sincerely,

Waldo Is Here

Waldo is here (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Done Mduvekot (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! I really appreciate it!

I will work on the article more over the next few weeks and make it much nicer. Thanks again!!

Waldo is here (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Waldo is here and Mduvekot: Please rename the article again to remove the acronym from its title:

Thymoma-associated multiorgan autoimmunity (TAMA) → Thymoma-associated multiorgan autoimmunity

See for example ALS, COPD or PMDS. --CiaPan (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Also

Done Mduvekot (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

publishing help?

I uploaded an article to the commons. I see a requirement for "4 days and 10 edits". I fixed the English and uploaded this article [1] for a German friend, and neither of us has any interest in further uploads or edits. Can it be published without my making further edits?Mjolsen (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Mjolsen. I think you are a bit confused. Wikimedia commons is a repository for freely licensed materials to be used in other Wikimedia projects, such as Wikipedia. Most of its content is images, and some other visual and auditory media. It is unusual for PDFs to be uploaded to Commons, as doing usually serves no useful purpose - I rather expect that commons:DHARMA_RAP.pdf will get deleted soon as inappropriate to that project (though I am not an expert on Commons).

If you want to create an article, you need to create it within Wikipedia: please study your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Can I request an archive bot?

I have a page with many many dead links, is there a way to request an archive bot to come look at the page and search for archived versions of the links. The page is English Apocalypse manuscripts and all the deadlinks lead to the same website, but the deadlinks are formatted as single square bracket external links and not as cites. Thanks in advance. Mramoeba (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Mramoeba, you can indeed ask User:InternetArchiveBot to check a page (or up to 5000 pages) for you, by submitting the page title(s) here. Since I'd never used the tool, I submitted English Apocalypse manuscripts out of curiosity. The job ran almost immediately; the bot checked 31 links, and changed none. Sorry! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It sometimes takes a while before IABot is ready to declare links as dead. It does this to make sure it's not just marking a site that is temporarily down as dead. If it's just one page, your better off just using the single page analysis tool. https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=runbotsingle. There you have the option to add archives to all non-dead references, and proactively archive live URLs not yet in the Wayback Machine. I'm going to be adding configuration options to the bot job submitter.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all for responding. It looks like IAB didn't pick up on any of the deadlinks, I waited a while to check but no. I'm now going to take a look at the run single version, I have made a start by manually updating the British Library citations, so if nothing else it should allow me to archive the ones I have added from the BL didital database. Thanks again. Mramoeba (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: still nothing. It can only be because they are single square bracket external links and not cites. If anyone else has any thoughts I would be glad to hear them, otherwise it looks like a manual job Mramoeba (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

haven't heard back...

I submitted a question and haven't heard back... suggestions? 32.208.83.241 (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Good afternoon. If you scroll up a bit, you'll see an entire conversation above, plus I'm presuming some on your talk page as well. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 19:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

References and sources

Please let me know if I am sufficiently including "References and Sources" to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Coleman_(sailor).

I just want to make sure we have reliable references sources added within a seven-day grace period for this article.

Thank you.

Peter PeterColemanUSA (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see ~~two sections up the page~~#References and sources., where your question has received multiple responses. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Question has been archived and, while it still appears on this page, it is in a different place.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

html <-> wacky wiki: eclipsians and wikipedians ...

I tried to arrange what I believed would be an easy love affair between eclipsians and wikipedians: https://www.eclipse.org/forums/index.php/t/1085970/ (Is there such a thing as a Wikipedia local editor/compiler?), but after 18k views and not a single reply since May 4th, I would say I wasn't successful. Now, I may succeed if I provide at least a SAX HTMLContentHandler to that project, for which I would need the official html <-> wacky wiki map. I can't quite understand why wikipedia uses its own markup for editing, but all cultures come with their own quirks. Albretch Mueller (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Albretch Mueller. I share your interest in eclipses, recently expanded Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017, and will travel to Oregon to view that eclipse. But Wikipedia is not a social networking site. It is a project to build an encyclopedia. So anyone interested in eclipses is welcome to help improve our encyclopedic coverage of eclipses. I do not understand the technical aspects of your question. Perhaps the volunteers at Village Pump/Technical can help you with that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It is virtually impossible to tell if you are being humorous or if you are just confused. I am not talking about the article on eclipses, but the java editor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_%28software%29). I would like for an HTML component which "save as" wiki wacky source to be implemented Albretch Mueller (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think Cullen can be forgiven for not having the slightest idea what you were talking about, Albretch Mueller, when you gave hardly a hint what you were talking about, used jargon known to very few, and peppered your question with meaningless and rather disparaging jingles like wacky wiki. I get that you don't want to sully your hands with learning how to write Wiki markup and want to autogenerate it from some other markup. I don't know whether or not this is technically possible, but I agree with Cullen that VPT is the place to ask. --ColinFine (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I included in my initial post a link to exactly what I was talking about and why. Had you read that post, you may had had a better idea about your "sullying my hands" insinuation and done a better mind reading job. Albretch Mueller (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Albretch Mueller, I did look at the link you provided and the logo at Eclipse.org depicts a stylized solar eclipse and the heading is "Eclipse community" so I went by the ordinary meaning of the word "eclipse" and answered accordingly, directing you to the proper place to ask technical questions. So I was being helpful rather than humorous or confused. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I also read the link and it doesn't say what eclipse is. It's written lowercase in both the logo and the post here so it's a natural assumption that it refers to the common word and not a proper name. People at "Eclipse Community Forums" of course know what eclipse means in their context but Wikipedia editors should not be assumed to know it. And I'm still trying to figure out whether "wacky wiki" is the name of something (many Google hits but no common meaning) or an expression made up by the poster for Wikipedia's markup language. I guess it's the latter but when you ask for help it would be a good idea to say what you are asking about without using made up names, or common words with unexplained uncommon meanings. Eclipse (disambiguation) lists numerous meanings including many in computing. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the topic at hand is getting eclipsed by off-topic remarks. If you take Cullen's advice and post at VPT, you might have more success, instead of trying to walk around in the dark. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 19:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Article in Sandbox Moved to Mainspace

Hello, I am a new Wiki user. I wrote an article (Salma Okonkwo) in my Sandbox over the past week and moved it to Mainspace on yesterday. First, did I follow proper procedure? I am now reading that I should have submitted the article for review. Secondly, when will the page be accessible by searching the internet? Currently, it can only be accessed in the Wikipedia Search box.

SHerron 197.148.231.207 (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no rule that forbids moving an article to mainspace without review. But doing so runs the risk that the article will be deleted, as not meeting Wikipedia's standards. In this case (indeed in many such cases), the article provides no evidence that its subject is notable, and it is likely to be deleted for that reason. Maproom (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't myself proposed Salma Okonkwo for deletion, because I think it possible that evidence of notability may be found, for instance https://buzzghana.com/unraveled-checkout-over-30-big-nigerian-businessmen-holding-the-pillars-of-ghanas-economy/ . Maproom (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SHerron, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved your article to Draft:Salma Okonkwo, because as Maproom notes, it was liable to being deleted where it was. I have also added a template with a button that allows you to submit the draft for review when you think it's ready to be published. You need to make sure that the draft is fully sourced and does not contain promotional language before submitting it though. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all!

I will get better...

SHerron (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Are "in good order" ?

Please let me know what I can do to help.

I received a nice email from OTRS at Wikidpia and he suggested that I contact the Teahouse to discuss and ensure that things are "in good order". I am more than happy to provide you with additional information, just let me know what I can do to help.

Yours sincerely,

Peter 32.208.83.241 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Peter, I was trying to direct you to the section where you asked your original question above, #References and sources.. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

list 2016 presidential electorate college

name all 2016 presidential electorate college50.38.79.126 (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. General knowledge questions belong at the Reference Desk, and you can use the Teahouse for asking about how to use Wikipedia. For your question, start at Electoral_College_(United_States) RudolfRed (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Submitted Page for Review - Received the Warning

Hello,

I submitted Salma Okonkwo page for review< I received a the following warning:

Warning: The page Salma Okonkwo already exists. Please verify that it is not a copy of this submission and that this page does not need to be moved to a different title.

I moved the page before submitting it for review. Could this be the issue? How do I correct to prevent any further hindrances?

SHerron (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

That's just because Salma Okonkwo still exists from where you moved the draft into mainspace, SHerron. It will be deleted shortly. The main problem with the draft as it stands is the lack of sources, and I expect it will be declined because of this if you don't act to ensure that all of the main points are supported by references to reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Got it.

Thank you.

SHerron (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

What else?

Wondering what other content would make this article better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryphon_Investors. Still feels a little thin. Any ideas?

Also, lately whenever I google the article only the talk page of it shows up. I have to go to Wikipedia then search it. Any ideas on that?

Thanks. Arsenl2017 (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

YouTube and External Links

Hi TeaHouse!

re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Patricia_Matthews_(politician)

I have removed all of the YouTube references from but I am unsure what to do with your comment "Secondly, there is too many external links..." I tried to provide as many external references as possible. Is that a mistake and can you provide some suggestions as to which references you think are unnecessary?

Thanks and have a great day. Calgarytech (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Calgarytech. References aren't the same as external links. The former are used to note sources that directly support something that's written in the article. The latter are supplementary in nature, and the question of whether to include a given one should be determined by consulting this guideline: Wikipedia:External links. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 04:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Trying to submit article for review/assessment please

Hi,

I'm trying to submit my article for review/assessment - I've looked through the help pages, but I'm unable to find a way to change it from draft to submit - could you please let me know where the relevant page is? My apologies, I always seem to stumble on how to do this. Thank you

Draft:Wear_it_Purple_Day SunnyBoi (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, SunnyBoi. Simply insert {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top of your draft. --ColinFine (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SunnyBoi. I have added the AfC tremplate, so you can submit just by clicking the blue button near the top. I have also fixed yjr infobox in the draft, and many usages of the |website= parameter in {{cite web}} calls. This should be the name of the website, preferably as shown on screen, not the domain and particularly not the full url. the site name should not be included at the end of the |title= parameter, as some automated tools incorrectly do. If the site name is redundant with the |publisher= parameter, leave publisher out. For example if the site is |website=The New York Times it adds nothing to state |publisher=The New York Times Company. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Image for article.

I have clearly blundered twice. I am looking for an image (of the front page of Chess Today) for the article Chess Today. I found an image of the front page of Chess Today online, uploaded it to wikimedia commons, and linked/embedded it. It showed up fine and looked right. However, it was quickly pointed out that I'd got that wrong in terms of copyright and all that (big red boxes and things), so I requested it be deleted and it was. Then I took a low-res screen-capture of the front page of chess today myself and uploaded that. That's been deleted too. Fair enough, I'm clearly out of my depth here. Lots of Wikipedia articles about newspapers have images of their front pages above or in the info boxes of those articles. How can I put a 'Chess Today' front page in the article without making a complete mess of it again and it getting deleted? When I tried to mimic the way it had been done in other articles I had clearly got it wrong, and I'm not sure how to get it right. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks very much. Imnikrist (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Imnikrist. What you're missing is that Commons only accepts freely licensed images. You can indeed upload a low-res image of a cover, provided its use meets all the criteria of the non-free content criteria; but you must upload it to Wikipedia itself, not to Commons. --ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine! I'll look up how to do that now. Thanks again. I really appreciate your speediness too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imnikrist (talk • contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate pages for "Human", and a user page in the categories section

If you go to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cosmopolitan_vertebrates You will see this entry in the pages section: - User:Emphrase/Human I thought if I went to the page that this links to I could remove it, but it seems to be a link to the actual "Humans" wiki page too. How do I change this link so that it is just the "humans" wiki page and not this special user link?

Upon further investigation, I just realized that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human is only in 2 simple categories... while https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emphrase/Human is in many more categories that seem relevant.

Are these two distinct pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bortseb (talk • contribs) 14:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bortseb, they are indeed two distinct pages. The one at User:Emphrase/Human is in fact a copy of the mainspece article, however the copy was not properly attributed so it is in fact a violation of the copyright of all the editors who have contributed to the article throughout its history, thus I have tagged it to be deleted. The category situation is that the "extra" categories that appear in the userspace copy are actually all parent categories of Category:Humans thus they are redundant. However yet another complication is that article categories must only be used on articles in mainspace, drafts and (legitimate) copies of articles in other namespaces must not include "live" article categories. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

New wikipedia page/profile and deleting the old one

Hi, Want to know if an existing profile page can be disabled/deleted and a new one created. The profile of the person I'm referring to has her surname, but she would like it to show the name people call her by. Or is it possible that the name be edited please? Also, am unable to change her photo displayed on the current page, didn't understand the rule mentioned about it.

Thank you, ArathiArathibnarayan (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Arathibnarayan I have reverted your changes to Shivani Verma because they added overly promotional content. The nature of an encyclopedia is that we don't write about a given subject, we write about what is written about the subject in reliable sources. So in order to change any information a reliable source would be needed. Facebook and Youtube are not considered reliable sources. We don't host profiles we create articles from what the independent, reliable sources say about a topic. Theroadislong (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Translation

I tried to publish an article I translated, but it won't go. Why is that? Jtarvin (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jtarvin. I'm afraid you may have to give us a bit more information. Are you getting a particular error message? TimothyJosephWood 18:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You mean one that says something about an abuse filter? Then yes I am. Jtarvin (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Jtarvin, you're probably going to have to give us the details of that message. There are a few hundred edit filters that are in place currently. TimothyJosephWood 19:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

An error occurred while publishing the translation. Please try to publish the page again. Error: Hit AbuseFilter: Content Translation Edits

An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives" title="Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives">report this error</a>.

Jtarvin (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Well Jtarvin, it looks like the relevant history is here, and it looks like you have to be extended confirmed in order to avoid it when translating an article. Although I don't really understand why we're blocking new users from translating article to begin with. Then again, I'm not really tech savvy enough when it comes to the edit filter. Maybe someone who is can weigh in. Maybe User:Xaosflux, who it looks like was the one who put this setting in the filter. TimothyJosephWood 19:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: The translation tool is disabled at the English Wikipedia for users who are not extended confirmed, meaning they have at least 30 days and 500 edits. See Wikipedia:Content translation tool. You can submit an article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation but see Wikipedia:Notability. Articles from other languages are not necessarily acceptable at the English Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

im about to loose my article, please help

i have been warned that my article will be deleted due to the following reasons, 1. i am making a promotional rather than encyclopaedia article. 2. copyright infringement of a blog. so please i have included the blod as the reference what else should i do to salvage the situationFabregado (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Fabregado. If it is copy/pasted from elsewhere on the internet, and therefore a copyright violation, then it has to be deleted, and there's nothing we can really do about it. We're legally compelled to make a good faith effort to remove such content.

As to the promotional tone, maybe User:Alexf who deleted it can be more specific, but articles deleted under WP:G11 are usually so overtly promotional in tone that they would require a 100% rewrite. You may wan't to consider creating an article as a draft, which you can do by clicking on Draft:Godwin ezeemo, and then using your own words and reliable sources (i.e., not blogs) work on making an article that would be suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 18:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fabregado. Agreeing with what Timothyjosephwood said, I have taken a look at the article (as well as the draft which had the same content, which I have separately deleted as a copyright violation from the same website noted in the other deletion). It contains statements that you might expect to see in, for example, a resume posted to a LinkedIn page (where a person is touting their accomplishments) but which would never properly appear in a "just-the-facts", neutrally-written, encyclopedia article. To provide one example, this said that he "leaves bold and indelible footprints on the sand of time". That is evaluative, flowery, grandiose, non-neutral, promotional language. It's not "wrong" per se, but has no place in an encyclopedia. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

OK,so what exactly do I have to do now to ensure my article is posted? I Need a thorough guideline Fabregado (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Here: Wikipedia:Your first article Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

image upload wikimedia commons issue of copyright

I have uploaded two images both belongs to my client Kutty Padmini and it was her own images. I am her PR. Those two images got deleted. Kindly help me out Seetha raghavan (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Seetha raghavan. Wikimedia Commons accepts only freely-licensed material. If the copyright holder is willing to license the images under a licence such as CC-BY-SA (which means that anybody can reuse them for any purpose, as long as they attribute them properly) then they can be uploaded to Commons: see donating copyright materials. If not, then they may only be used as non-free images. They would have to be uploaded to Wikipedia (not Commons), and used in a way that met all the criteria in non-free content criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Howver, Seetha raghavan, if Kutty Padmini is your client, please read the policy on WP:Paid editing. You are strongly discouraged from editing the article Kutty Padmini, and it is mandatory for you to declare your status as a paid editor. --ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine. I am not being paid for this process. I am doing this upon her personal request. What should I do now? Seetha raghavan (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

How to make the side bar language option to show Okazaki, Aishi instead of Aishi.

So, how do I go and make it show/direct ms:Okazaki, Aishi instead of ms:Aishi for ms language. Hayate891 (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to mention. This is for english wiki Okazaki, Aichi, just in case. Hayate891 (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hayate891. None of the pages ms:Okazaki, Aishi and ms:Aishi exist. I assume you wanted to show ms:Okazaki, Aichi instead of ms:Aichi. I have removed [[ms:Aichi]] from the English article.[2] This means it will use ms:Okazaki, Aichi which you added to the Wikidata item Okazaki (Q242783). A local interlanguage link overrides a link in Wikidata. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks PrimeHunter :). Yeah sorry, I meant Okazaki, Aichi and Aichi. So, I look at the diff, and now I know why Aichi is there. Thanks a lot. Hayate891 (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Help! I don't want to loose my article again

Please,I saved my article while I was still typing to avoid loosing the entire write up. It happened that I have not included my reference. Now I have done it I want the article to be retained, please if there are other things I did wrong inform me to make amends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabregado (talk • contribs) 10:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Fabregado I´ll give you my opinion. The article is not perfect, but you have found what seems to be (at least partly) sources that discuss the subject in depth, which is essential, so I don´t think the article is in danger of speedy deletion. Next, you should look at Help:Referencing for beginners and add inline citations to the rest of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course, sometimes things happen very quickly: Godwin Ezeemo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Fabregado, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I take it this is about Godwin Ezeemo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), is that correct? I don't think that article is in danger of speedy deletion either. Expansion would be good, and there are some minor technical issues with the citation formats, but all that is just a matter of normal editing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe that´s correct, based on Fabregados contribs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Is fixing articles and grammar issues in them a COI?

Hi, I am having some issues, I am seeking help but the editors who are placing tags on my contributions are not helping me and not explaining why they are doing that and I think they don't even verify anything and just place tags/banners blindly. As an example, this page Ivan Olita, I fixed some categories and grammar section wise as a process of learning and the editor just seen the number of edits and placed COI banner. I don't care seriously, but I want to know the policies if fixing issues in the articles and fixing grammar and typos is a crime then what else I should do on Wikipedia. As per my understanding, the person who places banner should express in the talk page that why they have placed it, whereas, nobody writes and answers there, they place tags and disappear. Not even help when I ask and instead accuse me of being a paid or etc. I already planned that I shouldn't contribute anymore where people are getting personal. I was really happy to contribute that I am at least helping people in some way but I think I am not at the right place. I'll appreciate help and answers, and I would like someone to verify my changes on the page I said above and guide me what I did wrong, so I can avoid that in the future. Thanks HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi HeatherMPinchbeck, I see no problems at all with your edits to Ivan Olita except some overcategorization which has since been fixed. It seems to me that the editor who tagged your contributions as a possible COI, Bilby might possibly be a bit over-zealous and failing to assume good faith, however I have not examined your whole contribution history so there may be some other factors involved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

There are other factors involved. In this case, the tag was placed on the grounds that with two editors hired to edit the article in recent weeks, it is very likely that the article has long-term COI problems. However, I'm not overly worried as to whether or not it remains tagged. If you feel that the article is neutral, that's ok with me. - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) HeatherMPinchbeck: you have made numerous changes, most but not all of them improvements, to Ivan Olita. Since then several other editors have tried to make further improvements to the article. That's how Wikipedia gets improved: people deal with things they think are wrong, sometimes reversing what previous editors have done. Doing something which someone else thinks needs correcting is not "a crime". (Incidentally, I see that you wrote no edit summaries, while those other editors all did. Edit summaries aren't compulsory, but they do help with communicating with other editors.) Maproom (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much guys, I really appreciate your help. I was seeking replies and everything but every time I am accused of editing and fixing pages. I want to contribute much but I am just holding because when I see my talk page and what people say I feel like a criminal. I try my best to fix issues I see in the articles, but if my edit gets an article tagged, it's not good and I think it's my right to know what is wrong and what could be done to fix it. When I see people here say 'I' it makes me feel that they self-assuming things and see you guys checked the edits and guided me to add a description and it's nothing wrong, why not the people who tag, checks it before tagging blindly again and again. I am having issue with another article, I spent 3 days on research and when I published I discovered that page is with COI, but instead of removing problematic text that editor reverted everything, while he self-claimed some are useful but he never mentioned and removed them also, I kept asking for help he seldom replies. I am not saying he is totally wrong, but he simply ruined my efforts and I lost most of the things in it due to editing again and again. He himself said to keep an example article format but never accept changes. Anyway, I am scared of touching more articles lol. Well, thanks Dodger67 and Maproom I am really happy that you guys helped me HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Haha look at the page of Ivan Olita again, that's what I was saying and he is the guy just placing tags like a tagging machine HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)HeatherMPinchbeck, I think the problem is that, while you deny that you are editing for pay (and good faith demands that we accept that denial), your behaviour often suggests otherwise. Your creations such as Taehoon Oh, Mark Gottlieb (Literary Agent), Jasmine Directory or HK URBEX, additions such as those you made to SurveyGizmo and Mark Tedeschi, your repeated attempts to add a huge block of inappropriate material to Francesco Clemente (where at least three COI editors have been active in the last three months), are all fairly typical of the sort of editing we expect from paid/COI editors. You could perhaps try using the articles for creation process to get some feedback on what you are doing, using the Article wizard to start a page and submitting it for review when you think it's ready. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

See, that's what I am saying, this answer clearly shows you are getting personal with me for none, I explained you everything before, but you are on the same track. Obviously, I'll create and edit pages, that is what Wikipedia is for. I made myself very clear that I'll disclose my COI if any, ever. But you are taking all that personal, and it shows clearly that you intentionally tagging an article that I discussed here. You know all rules but what are the rules if you are doing things intentionally and getting personal? Instead of removing problematic text from Francesco Clemente you just reverted everything and forced me to edit I lost all format and efforts including references. If you are taking things up to that extent because of me I don't know what to say, because Wikipedia is not your property nor mine. You are not even valuing the opinion of your fellow editors. The purpose of Wikipedia is to add knowledge and information. If all my contributions are referenced and the people who reviewed them have no problem why you have issues? Please explain. I am really upset because of your attitude and how you are after me. You are harassing me at every step. When I ask you don't bother a reply and when I do something you jumps in like you did here and on Ivan Olita. You are now saying to use Article wizard where were you before? I learned Wikipedia and spent a lot of time in gathering codes and things, I feel easy in creating articles the way I do, so explain to me what's wrong in it. Should I swear to God or should I jump from a mountain to let you believe that I have no connection with anyone HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Everyone involved, please assume good faith, and even the assumption of good faith. And, btw, I ask myself if the Teahouse is really the right venue for that topic....how about moving to Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest? Lectonar (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

My behaviour is to learn and that's why I am asking questions and seeking help. Your behaviour clearly shows you are chasing me, threatening and harassing me again and again. Getting personal over my edits.

Dodger67 and Maproom I'll wait for your opinion, I just want to understand. As you can see that you removed a tag and that guy placed many, why? Because I am involved, I think they are hitting articles especially I contributed due to some personal grudge now. Maybe I am wrong but that's what is pretty much clear. He isn't valuing your edit and after placing that tags, he removed and fixed article but left the tag. Isn't it vandalising Wikipedia content? I mean if people visiting pages for knowledge and see such kind of tags isn't it wrong? And if they know issues, instead of fixing them they place tags and disappear. Who will fix Wikipedia articles with such issues, because if I do they place tags and threat and accuse me, if you do they place more tags. Is that how Wikipedia works? and is totally dependent on any person's own mindset? and he can do whatever he wants and never fix but only place tags and just remove edits and all. I am seeking answers, please. Or let me know any higher authority where I can ask this. Or just simply tell me that I cannot use Wikipedia because they owns it HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If a tag is warranted (which I don't know in this case, I still haven't figured out what tag in what article you've been referring to), then placing one is justified. An editor may notice that something needs attention, while lacking the knowledge or the time to fix it himself. Maproom (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Maproom Thanks, I am talking about the same page Ivan Olita you guys just fixed and then he placed more just because I raised the issue here and that's clear from his talk above. Well, I'll now try to fix that and please you also help me. I want things fixed in Wikipedia and I want to go to an extent of learning what issues they can create to a knowledge base by just getting personal and accusing me again and again while denying the policy of assume good faith, and even the assumption of good faith please help I see no bad in tone or anything HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

HeatherMPinchbeck An earnest word of advice: let go of this issue. Step away, go do something else, there are several million other articles that need improving. It seems you have (inadverently) stepped into what appears to be a rather contentious article that is giving even highly experienced editors significant difficulty. Please do not insist on stomping on every bomb in the minefield. This advice is for your benefit, you will be a much happier (and productive) Wikipedian if you simply walk away from this article. (Even with my 10 years and over 80,000 edits of experience on WP, I am reluctant to get involved with this article, the subject is simply too far outside my comfort zone.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dodger67, this is what I called a good advice in a better way. I was just learning, to be honest. I am unable to find issue regarding WP:PEACOCK that he placed. Anyway, I'll walk away, just tell them also to leave me alone, I expressed 100s of time that I have no COI, anyway, I'll probably not continue editing. I don't like being chased or accused. I joined Wikipedia to help people seeking info but if creating pages that do not exists and editing articles that have issues is undigestable, maybe it's better to quit. I thank you all, including Bilby, Justlettersandnumbers, it's nothing personal, it's just a part of learning and understanding Wikipedia, I did a small project while in college on Wikipedia but I never know about these situations. Well, thanks for all help and guidance HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

More than one quote in a citation?

Editing Carlos Núñez Muñoz just now, I noticed that while his latest album, Inter-Celtic, was listed with the date 2014, there was no citation for it. (Or the other albums, but this is the one that interested me.) I found evidence on his official website, on the page http://www.carlos-nunez.com/carlos/, where the top has a thumbnail of the cover and the text

NEW ALBUM

Inter-Celtic 2014

and the page text says, much further down,

All of that can be heard to great effect on his new CD, Inter-Celtic, released by Sony Music on February 10.

I thought the publisher info was worth adding as well as the citation, but two duplicate refs to the same page, differing only in the quote parameter, would be absurd. I could have just ref'ed the whole line

Inter-Celtic - 2014, Sony

without any quotation, but including the quotes from a long page seemed preferable.

There seems to be no way to include multiple quotes in a single citation. quote1, quote2, etc. seem like reasonable ways to do it. I wound up joining the quotations in their order on the page, with "..." to mark the (very long) ellipsis between them. Is there something I'm missing here?

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thnidu, and welcome to the Teahouse. Not all facts supported by a citation need to have a |quote= to support them. Indeed a quote= is never required. It helps people who cannot readily see the source understand how exactly the source supports a statement. This is particularly useful for offline sources and sources that require payment for access. A quote also helps locate the place in the source where support is given. There is significant resistance to overusing the quote= facility, lest a copyright issue arise, so i doubt that a quote1=, quote2= set of parameters will be added, although you could propose it. In this case I think the sentence All of that can be heard to great effect on his new CD, Inter-Celtic, released by Sony Music on February 10. provides petty nearly all the information, and would be sufficient to include in the quote= parameter. But what you did is in no way wrong. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, DESiegel. --Thnidu (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Use italics on the foreign language names of landmarks?

There's an article for a city in a Spanish-language country, and the names of some of the landmarks of that city are written in italics, whereas the English translations of those names are written in parenthesis with no italics. Is it necessary to use italics when writing the names of landmarks in another language? Lupine453 (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lupine453, and welcome to the Teahouse. According to MOS:ITAL: Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not common in everyday English. Proper names (such as place names) in other languages, however, are not usually italicized, nor are terms in non-Latin scripts. Whether the "names of landmarks" count as proper names might be debated. I would probably have used italics before reading this MOS section. If you decide to remove the italics, you might want to quote this MOS section on the talk page of the article to explain why you removed the italics. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh the MOS is Wikipedia's Manual of Style. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DES Lupine453 (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve my own article

Hello, Thank you so much for your attention. I'm trying to improve my own wiki page and my father's with infos and photos but wikipedia is deleting my media, saying I don't own my owm image and personal photos. this one: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_Mim

Also I tryed to create my dad'd article since it was erased, I don't know why, but since I live in Brasil and the article is in Spanish. I cannot make it work. I already edit that but is not published.

can anyone help me please! thanks a lot! Marianaeva (Marianaeva (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC))

Welcome to the Teahouse, Marianaeva. We answer questions about editing the English language Wikipedia here. Wikipedia is each language is administered separately. You will have to ask your questions on the Portugese and Spanish Wikipedias. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if you really want your article here in the English Wikipedia, you will need to translate Draft:Héctor Ricardo Leis into English before it is deleted. Dbfirs 17:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The language barrier aside, you are not the best person to edit your own article. I would suggest reading WP:COI extensively before proceeding. - Stormy clouds (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Does new article require review before it appears in searches - not appearing

I would appreciate someone's clarity - despite research, cannot find answer. A recent article I created does not show up in any search, Sheryl Nields. Is this because it needs a New Page Reviewer to approve it? Maybe I needed to tag it for review. Also, I extensively reworked my first attempt in order to remove any appearance of promotion - all content is kept to solid references. I dare not remove the "peacock" label myself. Does that get an assessment and hopefully removal by Reviewer? Marcomgirl (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Marcomgirl, by my admittedly limited understanding of this, you are correct. Unless an editor has autopatrolled rights, any new article they create will not be indexed by search engines until it is marked as reviewed by a New Page Patroller, or after 90 days, whichever is sooner. I am pinging Kudpung here for clarification, as he seems to have been leading the reform of NPP (New Page Patrol). Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Marcomgirl. The page in question has not been patrolled yet by WP:NPP. This process changed recently to make it more thorough and is currently severely backlogged. You are correct about that being the reason the page is not indexing to search engines. Unfortunately there is nothing you can do but wait. As far as the peacock tag goes, I would have removed it if it weren't for the phrase "award winning" in the lede. Whereas that is true, listing the awards as you have done is sufficient. John from Idegon (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon and Softlavender:. Marcomgirl is a paid editor whose only concern is that her clients' articles be referenced as quickly as possible in Google. I am reluctant to offer any of my unpaid time to help here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have left what I feel is an appropriate comment on Marcomgirl's talk page. If you think it's OTT, don't hesitate to let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I've PRODded the article. Maproom (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheryl Nields. Note that the discussion should be of the article and the topic, not of any individual editors. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I want to know about money policy

Dear Wikipedia. Please don't be offended, I wish to find out if it is against wikipeida policy to create a page for a personality and request he pays me for the services i offer to write articles on wikipedia?

while i wish to hear from you back and ready to learn and stay in the community in peace without any violet of the trems of use on wikipedia. Thanks Abanda bride (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally you can't, because the articles you write in Wikipedia are not yours (see Wikipedia:Ownership of content), so you can not guarantee any specific contents of the article (anybody can change them, both adding, removing and re-organizing their contents), hence you can't make any 'offer of a service'.
For more help you may want to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help and Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay).
Also, some of the pages at special:allpages/Wikipedia:Paid edit index may be of some use for you. --CiaPan (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Abanda bride If you charge a fee for editing Wikipedia, or do it as part of your job, you must disclose as described in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. But since, as CiaPan very correctly points out, anything you post can be changed or deleted at any point, your client can't count on getting what s/he paid for. Also, many editors are very hostile to paid editors, even when they disclose properly. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

References and sources.

Hello Cullen328. Teahouse host, Please let me know if I am sufficiently including "References and Sources" to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Coleman_(sailor).

I just want to make sure we have reliable references sources added within a seven-day grace period for this article.

Thank you.

Peter

PeterColemanUSA (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Haven't heard from anyone yet.

PeterColemanUSA (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, PeterColemanUSA and welcome to the Teahouse. Other wikipedia articles are never acceptable as sources for Wikipedia articles. This is partly because of the danger of circular sourcing (where A is a source for B, B is a source for C, and C is a source for A), and partly because anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, so they are not considered reliable sources. Peter Coleman (sailor) currently has no citations to sources other than Wikipedia articles, and is therefore in effect unsourced. It needs citations to independent published reliable sources. The format of citation you used is not the standard one for inline citation on Wikipedia, but that is less of a problem. If the information is there, we can help with its formatting. But do please read Referencing for Beginners.

Currently, this article does not demonstrate the "notability" of the subject. Please read our guideline on the notability of people. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

PeterColemanUSA, do please understand that everyone here is an unpaid volunteer, doing this in spare time. 24 hours is generally considered a prompt response. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, I think it's safe to warn you about Conflict of Interest editing, glancing at your username. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 15:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The page is already tagged as an Autobiography. Creating autobiographies is strongly discouraged, but if it is going to be done, it should be done properly. The curent version does not seem overly promotional, alhtoguh earlier versions seem on a quick look to be more so. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I had originally tagged it for deletion as an unsourced blp, which was correctly removed when a citation to United States Sailing Association page was added (although incorrectly formatted). The autobiography tags have been removed several times, and now an ip is editing the article. Would be so much easier if the editor simply declared his conflict of interest. As an fyi DESiegel - I removed the unsourced blp tag you had placed on the article, since the citation I mention above remains on the page, although it's been moved to the external links section. My understanding is that as long as there is a single reference, either in the reference section, the el section, or a link to a webpage in the infobox, than that counts as a reference. Feel free to revert if I've misinterpreted that. I also left links to WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:CIT on the editor's webpage, as well as letting him know it was a no-no to use other Wikipages as references. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, onel5969, and I have now formatted that as a proper inline citation. I hadn't realized it was a supporting ref when I placed the tag. I suspect the editor has logged out and not seen the comments here or on his talk page, but that is just a guess. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Please let me know how we make a minor edit of the below from "who has missed qualifying for the Olympics" to "who has just barely missed qualifying for the Olympics". Thank you.

Sailing Career[edit] Coleman has competed in many world class events such as the J/24, Soling and Etchells classes.[3] Coleman is a North American Champion who has missed qualifying for the Olympics five separate times with his brothers Paul Coleman and Gerard Coleman. PeterColemanUSA (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The correct section for this discussion is #References and sources., PeterColemanUSA. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Moved here from the section where it was asked. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

PeterColemanUSA, You don't. That change has now been reverted by at least two different experienced editors. More exactly, you don't unless you can find and cite an independent and reliable source that uses the words "just barely missed". Otherwise it is opinion in Wikipedia's voice, and puffery, and does not belong in the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I was referred by a nice Wikipedia person (Cordless Larry) to go to "References ans sources."

Please let me know how we make a minor edit of the below from "who has missed qualifying for the Olympics" to "who has just barely missed qualifying for the Olympics".

Sailing Career[edit] Coleman has competed in many world class events such as the J/24, Soling and Etchells classes.[3] Coleman is a North American Champion who has missed qualifying for the Olympics five separate times with his brothers Paul Coleman and Gerard Coleman.

Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule for this.

PeterColemanUSA (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I personally think the addition of "just barely" isn't a value to the statement, unless there is some source that validates the quantity. Whether it was missed by one point or twenty-two points, it was still missed. Now if a recognized reliable source states that "the group failed to qualify by a margin of X", then that could be included in the article and wouldn't be disputed. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 15:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

PeterColemanUSA, You don't. That change has now been reverted by at least two different experienced editors. More exactly, you don't unless you can find and cite an independent and reliable source that uses the words "just barely missed". Otherwise it is opinion in Wikipedia's voice, and puffery, and does not belong in the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Redundant/fork

There is an article already in Wikipedia that has been tagged as biased. I concluded that is partly from the periodic use of loaded language, and partly from the weight of content on one side only of a controversial issue. As someone with knowledge in the field, I thought I would make the effort to bring more balance, but my first effort contained too much that was not sufficiently referenced. I knew I was referencing published works, but I didn't have every sentence documented accordingly, so it all got reverted. I thought perhaps I could write another article and the two articles could be merged. Now I have been told I can't do that either because it duplicates what is already here. I have information on both sides of the issue, I am neutral and balanced, I am not pushing a particular point of view, I am just attempting to include the most recent scholarship with new views and information. The current article is based on 200 year old scholarship; that's a good foundation, but not adequate by itself to create a truly neutral posting. So I tried editing the current article, again, using what I have already written in my new draft (that isn't supposed to be a draft). I was careful just to do a small section this time and to be sure every sentence was referenced appropriately. It all got reverted again. The editor claimed it was opinion, but it is not. It is summary of published authorities in the field. I don't know what to do. I am feeling blocked at every turn. The article is Christianity and violence. Perhaps the title is enough to explain the controversy. But this is my field. I would like to make a contribution if someone could help me figure out what I am doing wrong. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You've made edits, they've been reverted, and you've discussed things on the article's talk page. That's the recommended, and most likely effective, way to achieve at least some of what you want. Either carry on, or give up on this article and find a better use for your talents. Your new plan of creating a rival version of the article will provoke hostility and achieve nothing – I've seen it tried before with other contentious articles. Maproom (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I strongly recommend that you move Draft:Violence and Christianity to your user space before it gets deleted. You've put a lot of work into it (misguided work, but some of it potentially usable), and it would be a shame to see it all vanish. Maproom (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)~

Maproom is correct, I think. You may be able to find more editors interested in your proposed changes at the talkpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity and Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay! I certainly had no intention of being hostile to anyone! Would you be willing to give me some advice on what is misguided? I am brand new here and still learning the rules and I do want to comply and cooperate. I will do as you say and move the article. Thank you for responding. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning

Hello, when I tried to mention myself from my second account @Shorouq2911:, I didn't recieve any notification, although I signed my edit! Same happened when I tried to mention my seconed account from this account! What is problem?--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Super ninja2. A signed edit means an edit containing ~~~~. I found no signed edits with mentions. [3] was unsigned. The account Super ninja2 has no recent edits before your question. If you think an edit should have caused a notification then plese post a diff to the edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

User:PrimeHunter I mean an edit I made on Arabic Wikipedia, you can see it here. I tried to ask help from Arabic Wikipedians but no one helped. And notice that I recieve no ntifications from a lot of mentions to me that other Wikipedians do.

How do I post a diff to the edit? Thanks--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide:

Find the page which contains the edit you want to refer to. Click on its history tab. Find the edit in the history list. (If that's a problem, clicking on the word prev in the list will let you read the edit.) Right-click on its "prev" button and select "Copy link location" or "Copy Shortcut". The diff you want is now in your clipboard.

Is that helpful, Super ninja2? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: This page is for the English Wikipedia. Always say if your post concerns an edit or page at another wiki. You already posted a diff on "here". mw:Manual:Echo#Technical details says:

The diff chunk must be recognised as an addition of new lines of text, not a change to existing lines.

It looks like the edit didn't satisfy that. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)