Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mimosheikh (talk | contribs) at 09:43, 9 January 2018 (→Adding picture to article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


This is the teahouse
Welcome to the Teahouse...                        
Shortcuts
A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

jmcgnh, a Teahouse host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

I fully understand why my article has been rejected. But I want to redouble my efforts to improve it! (Need guidance)

Primo, thanks to User:Kb.au for reviewing my article submission about "Stuart Candy". Your feedback is precious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stuart_Candy

Secundo, I really want to improve my references in order to make my article fit with wikipedia's policy. Any suggestions?

Tertio, I started to edit my article with adding a "awards" section (this is a living person case) with some extra references. Do you think it can help my article to be better referenced?

Thanks in advance for your help,

Bappyh (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bappyh: if you have some reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of the subject, then use them, they will establish that he is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article. If all you have are sources written by the subject, or based on interviews with him, or with bare mentions of him, you may as well give up. If you have some of each, try as far as possible only to use the former; if you use too many of the latter kind, reviewers may not notice the good ones, in among all the garbage. And your suspicion is right: adding references for the fact that he has won some non-notable awards won't help at all. Maproom (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bappyh: Looking that over, it does not presently stand a chance. This is a "Who's Who"-style résumé page of someone with a career who appears to be competent and got through university, and has some work and some ideas, some of which have received praise from other non-notable poeple/groups. And that's about it. If that were good enough, at least a billion more people would have bio articles here. If you're convinced this person's doing notable work and it's just that reliable sources simply haven't noticed yet, keep it in userspace and add sources as they appear, until you have multiple instances of in-depth coverage in major, reputably published, reliable sources with no connection to the subject. I have half a dozen professional pool player bios like this in my userspace, and that's just the way it goes. Some may slide fully into obscurity, some may get sufficient serious coverage after a particularly good year and some international tournament victories. Be warned that academics and "quasi-academics" like Stuart Candy are among the most difficult subjects for whom to establish notability; see Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) for related discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  12:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ::@Maproom:, dear ::@SMcCandlish:, Thank you so much for your precious guidance. That first submission experience taught me a lot. But I'm kind of frustrated when I look at Jeff Watson's page (a personality that I mentioned in my submission), specifically on its references that are quite poor and contains one I used. What's your opinion about it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Watson_(designer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bappyh (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft article strikes me as about someone who is on the edge of being 'notable'. For example, the Irish Times is clearly a reputable journalistic source that has written quite a lengthy article about Candy's work. With another article of similar reliability and depth I'd imagine the article being accepted from Articles for Creation. But as others have said, there's also a lot of tangential info, for example about a research lab he's involved with. The awards appear to be quite minor too. At the moment I agree the draft does sound like you're scrabbling around a bit for info about the subject. Sionk (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiholicism

I am extremely addicted to editing Wikipedia , how can i cure this? Thegooduser talk 20:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom and Cold Turkey are two programs that will block domains you select at times you select. Good luck! --Thnidu (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Wikipediholic. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegooduser, I would ask for help from those around you in the "real" world if possible. --Malerooster (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegooduser: I'm so sorry for not replying earlier. Your question didn't seem important enough for me to stop editing Wikipedia to give you my time. I regret that now.
First you have to confront the reality of your addiction, my friend. Do you nip to the loo in the middle of a church service/friends party/romantic night in/football match/TV dinner, and quickly check for wiki-notifications? Do you hide your addiction from friends and family, having prepared an innocent-looking page which you can show on your monitor with a crafty Alt-Tab whenever they come in? Do you find it incredulous that there are actually people out there that don't understand the things you say or who don't seem interested in asking you to demonstrate WP:RS in the middle of a conversation? I feel your pain, my friend. Do come join us, be open, and share your story at Wikipedia:Clinic for Wikipediholics. A wise person once said (I think it was OlEnglish): Denial is a river in Egypt. I can quit whenever I want to. I just don't want to yet (yes it was!). (Rather sadly, I note that I signed the Wikipediholics register under my old account name back in 2016.) We clearly both need help. But maybe we're imagining a problem. After all, were Wikipediholism a real problem, wouldn't there be mainspace article on it? (If someone'll pay me, I'll write it!) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: Thanks for helping me out. What do i do after i sign in to the clinic? Thegooduser talk 02:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you create a user's talk page?

Suppose you need to message a user about something and the user has not created his talk page yet, so is it appropriate to create their talk page and message them? Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hagoromo's Susanoo: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. User talk pages are meant for communicating with users; if a user's user talk page hasn't been created yet, it only means that no one has attempted to communicate with them yet. If you wish to do so, then you can. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hagoromo's Susanoo, if an editor doesn't have a talk page, I usually use the template subst:welcome or subst:welcomeip, to create their talk page AND welcome them all in one fell swoop :). Hope this helps. --Malerooster (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should one create their own user page if it doesn't exist. I tried and it was promptly rejected fro not being notable....am I missing something? Shawn M. Kent (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you submitted your user page for review for acceptance as an article, Shawn M. Kent. User pages are different from articles, and are supposed to give information about you as an editor. You do not need to be notable to have a user page, and user pages shouldn't be submitted for review. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese Letters

I am editing an article which includes Japanese writing. I don't know how I can write Japanese (I am not a Japanese)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zayyam123 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zayyam123, welcome back to the Teahouse, and Happy New Year. You do like to pick a challenge, don't you? I cannot tell from your edit history which page you actually want to edit, but my advice would always be to only address elements of the topic that you can understand and enhance using availabe, independent sources. Anything else, you should leave well alone, and let others add Japanese characters (presumably for equivalent names?), or you could discuss what extra input you need on the article's talk page. Does this help? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. The article was in Simple English Wikipedia called Kyotohttps://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zayyam123 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a article with non-wiki?

I want to create a article with non-wiki but if i create then he say "Your non-wiki article dosen't exist". zixuan (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Zixuan86, I have no idea what you are asking. What do you mean by "non-wiki"? --ColinFine (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Zixuan86, you have tried to create User:Hambright, a user page for a user who does not exist. It was quite properly deleted. I don't know if this is relevant to your question. I have never seen any warning or error message referring to "non-wiki". Maproom (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you are trying to do. We really do not understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zixuan75 - We still do not understand what you are trying to do. Please stop submitting blank pages and test edits to Articles for Creation. If you are trying to do something, please tell us what it is that you are trying to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citations For My Page?

Goof Afternoon, Our company page, which is titled Meridian (private aviation company) was denied earlier this week. The reason for that was because our citations proved to be inadequate and reverted back to our actual company page. The problem is, all of our historical and factual information comes directly from the site. No other site has that type of information. Seeing that BY LAW, you cannot fabricate your company's history, information, and accomplishments, I don't see why it would be a problem that we used our website as a source. Sure there are other news articles that have reported on us before but none include the type of historical data that we want on our WIKI page. Is there a way I can by-pass the disapproval by the WIKI commons? Or a way I can create acceptable citations? Please let me know ASAP, for I am an intern trying to impress my boss by getting this up and running.

Sorry for the inconvenience and Thank You in advance!

Meridian (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Meridianteb - You have been given a very unfortunate assignment by your boss. Wikipedia has articles on various subjects, more than five million of them in English, including on companies that satisfy corporate notability, which is based on what third parties have written about the company. The fact that a company exists does not mean that the company is notable in the peculiar Wikipedia sense. If third parties have not written about the company, it does not satisfy corporate notability. Also, you have a conflict of interest because you have been asked to create a "company page" for your company, but Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. It appears that your boss has asked you to do something that Wikipedia policies and guidelines strongly discourage. There is no way to bypass the requirement for corporate notability or the policies on conflict of interest editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, Meridian, is that any laws aside, companies falsify such histories, accomplishments and information all the time, and indeed have a powerful incentive to make themselves look good. (The same, of course, applies to individuals.) This is why we require that notability be established through reliable, third-party, independent sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Your company's website would only be a valid source for completely uncontroversial information such as its address or the identity of its CEO. For anything else, we'd need to see substantial coverage in multiple sources from places like the print or business media. Ravenswing 23:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The draft in question is Draft:Meridian (private aviation company). I see that the Original Poster (OP) did follow the proper route for an editor who has a conflict of interest and submitted the draft via Articles for Creation. I will comment that, in addition to the issue about independent sources, the draft contains promotional language that is intended to present the company positively. The OP did what an employee should have done, but that isn't what Wikipedia is looking for. If the draft is to be accepted, it will need to be very substantially rewritten to change its tone, as well as to add third-party references such as business reviews, if it has them, although the author did what he was being paid to do. Also, the tone reads so much like a marketing brochure that I have to ask whether it has been copied from a marketing brochure or from the corporate web site. That is not permitted, because Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously (even if almost no one else does.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Meridian, you and your company have a very common misconception, that Wikipedia has anything whatever to do with your company's self-presentation or online presence. It does not. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a business directory, and if we have an article about your company it will be based on what independent writers have published about it, not on what you and the company say; and you will have no control over the content. --ColinFine (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One further thing, Meridianteb. I would strongly suggest you go over to Wikipedia Commons and request your upload of your company's logo be deleted. First, I highly doubt it is actually YOUR work, which is what you attested in your licensing template. Second, I doubt the business you work for has empowered an intern to dispose of the company's assets, which its logo is. As it stands right now, a competitor, or even a strip club, could open across the street from you, plaster your company's logo all over the business, and there is absolutely nothing that your company could do about it. All they have to do is stick a small note on it anywhere, saying it came from Wikimedia Commons, where it was uploaded and released for reuse for any purpose by Meridianteb. John from Idegon (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:John from Idegon - I doubt that User:Meridianteb has any idea what the legal significance of uploading the logo to Wikipedia Commons was, which is that they were granting a copyleft for the free use of the logo by anyone in the world. I would advise the Original Poster to read Wikipedia's copyright policies twice. As I said above, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and the way that we take it seriously has some surprising implications. For instance, merely copying text from a web site for a company's own use in their "own" "company page" violates copyright, unless the company releases the copyright, and, if they do release the copyright, they can't subsequently enforce it. In short, creating a "company page" for your company sounds messy after you look at it twice, but it is even worse after you look at it four times. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One other point for the OP. This place here, where you created your draft, where you want an article in the encyclopedia, and where this here Teahouse is located, is English Wikipedia, or en.wiki. Wikimedia Commons, where you uploaded your logo, and the other image (is that one actually your own work, ie did you take the photo? If not, you've falsely licensed it too) is a totally separate website also owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. They have nothing to do with your article getting approved. Robert McClenon, that was kind of my point. Frankly, I'd like to smack his boss oer the noggin with Webster's Unabridged. This isn't the first time we've heard this (or even the first hundredth). Too bad WMF won't put any effort into dissuading executives of that notion. John from Idegon (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:John from Idegon - Why would the WMF care about details? They are interested in their contribution stream, and so in monotonically increasing metrics. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite aside from that the WMF has better things to do with its time than to go all out to seek to educate business executives in what they're going to ignore in any event. (And let's face it, how, short of turning COI into a blanket prohibition?) That being said, I expect we're wandering from the purpose of the Teahouse here ... Ravenswing 02:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good Afternoon,
       Thank you for all of your concerns with the proposed draft. All of these red flags were not taken into account before actually submitting the article. The goal of this submission was simply to create a Meridian Wiki. Several of Meridian’s competitors have done this already. For example, a noted competitor named, “Jet Aviation” has a public Wikipedia page with a similar format, same info-box including a company logo, yet only 1 unrelated citation.
         In regards to the page’s shortcomings. There are several 3rd party articles written about Meridian and its impact on the private-aviation industry which will be included in the next submission. The work that has been submitted already will be re-worded to comply with Wikipedia’s paraphrasing policies. Also, as suggested by one of the users, it has been requested to remove all of Meridians logo photos from the Wikipedia Commons.  
        Thank you all for your suggestions and concerns with the article. This was a simple mistake of not understanding the full-scope of Wikipedia’s policies. The red-flags are noted and will be corrected. The page will be restructured in a way that conforms to Wikipedia’s guidelines based on your feedback. Please share any further information that could be useful for the re submission of this article. Thank You!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meridianteb (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with my first wikipedia page

Hi Everyone,

I am new to creating articles in Wikipedia and I noted there are a lot of things I need to consider in doing so this is the first draft I made about the article I am writing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carlosdanna/sandbox/Cynthia_MacAdams

There are several changes I need to make for example I couldn't find a way to set text before the table of contents, and I don't know how much references should use for this kind of articles.

Any kind of help is welcome, thanks.

Carlos Carlosdanna (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carlosdanna. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia. Unfortunately you have done what many new editors do, and plunged straight in to one of the more difficult tasks on Wikipedia: creating a new article. I would urge you to set that aside for a while, and get some pracice editing and understanding how Wikipedia works.
In any case, have your read your first article? that will guide on many matters. To answer your specific questions, you create a lead section simply by starting a section without a heading: that link indicates what should go in the lead. For referencing, see WP:references for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ColinFine. Thanks for the quick response sorry I've been making a lot of changes to the article. I see how overwhelming it is to create a new article, the article is a biography of a photographer/artist. I got the main source for this article because one of the sources is a biographical dictionary and is the only source I have complete with all the information in the article. I am guessing as long as I use that as main source for most of the content we put there and support it with other secondary sources it will be okay to publish, also I would appreciate if you can give me some comments about the current content and changes you will suggest. Thanks Carlosdanna (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Carlosdanna. Your draft currently includes a lot of promotional language that violates the neutral point of view. Examples include "fiercely honest black and white portraiture" and "she rejected the false images of women in Hollywood film" and "Her portraits of women, unclothed as in Rising Goddess and clothed, as in Emergence, seek to capture an individual’s truth and to restore woman as empowered goddess" and "In her quest for peace and transcendence, MacAdams’ work extends to the sacred in architecture and human artifact as well". I am sorry, but we simply do not allow that type of language in Wikipedia's voice. You could quote a photography critic making such assessments but your own writing must be factual and scrupulously neutral. This is a core content policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mendoza, Texas and paraphrasing

Dear fellow Wikipedians.... I haven't edited on here in a while, but I want some help with a few edits I want to make. First, a part of the Geography section in the article of Mendoza, Texas was unsourced, causing it to be removed from the article. Will someone please look at this edit and tell me what part I did not source, and how I can fully source it?

Second, I want to add the history section to the article of Blackfoot, Texas, and I will paraphrase what I want to add. I read WP:Close paraphrasing, but I'm not real sure how to do this. I will not copy anything on Wikipedia word for word, nor do I even plan on doing that, because I know that this is called plagiarism, and plagiarism is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please do not think I will write this word for word on the article, because I will not do so. How can I paraphrase the following:

Around 1850 a member of the family of Cynthia Anne Parker preached in a Primitive Baptist church located at the site. The first settlers came from South Carolina and Mississippi. They included Abe Hoff, Isaac Brown, and D.M. Crisp. The name of the community supposedly originated in 1870 when Uncle Hamp Hanks, Sr., was told that he was in the "Blackfoot nation." The oldest church, Friendship Baptist, organized in 1860, was located on the line between Ward and Blackfoot. Land was donated by Josh Taylor in 1890 for the construction of the First Christian church in Blackfoot, although the church had been organized a few years earlier. The post office was established in 1886 with William U. Stafford as postmaster. In February 1907 it closed, and the community's mail was routed through Montalba. Hogs, corn, cattle, and cotton were raised in the Blackfoot area. About 1880 Obe Childress and A.M. Kay built the first cotton gin, which operated for over sixty years. In 1941 the REA New Area Co-op was formed, and Blackfoot received electricity. Telephone service began in 1959. During the East Texas oilfield strike in 1930, a field was discovered at Blackfoot; it still had producing wells in the late 1950's. At the beginning of the 20th century, Blackfoot had a justice of the peace courthouse that was used until about 1935 for precinct court. The building remained standing on the Isabell farm until 1973, when a windstorm blew it down. The population of Blackfoot before the Civil War was an estimated forty. In 1896 it had decreased to thirty but by 1936, had increased to 200. In 1988, Blackfoot had a cemetery, the Friendship Baptist Church, and two dairies. The population in 1990 and 2000 was thirty-three.

Thank you for taking the time to read this message. I can't wait to hear from someone, and I really appreciate it! Colman2000 (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. On the first part there, I see you DO have a source in there. The sentence in there that's unsourced is the one discussing how far Austin, Houston and San Antonio are from the town, and honestly, I don't see the problem. Inline sources are required for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged -- they are not, as some people erroneously think, mandatory for every assertion of fact -- and I'm at a bit of a loss to figure out what's objectionable about that statement and why the other editors think an inline citation is necessary. I've asked them both on the article talk page to enlighten us. (Later edit: One did, and directed me to numerous warnings on your talk page over several months for failure to provide sources for information you inserted into various articles, the Mendoza article being one. I also see more than one attempt to show you how to properly cite, and recommend you devote attention to following their instructions before adding more material.)

The second bit is more complicated; you have a number of bits in there that might call for inline citations (and certainly for a general one) and other bits that can be separated out. For one thing, the elements there referencing the town's population are often set aside in a table (take a look at Montague, Massachusetts for an example); this needs to be sourced. Other elements might be seen as trivial ... for instance, how significant in the grand course of things is the identity of the person who donated land for the church, or that the town has a cemetery (how many don't?)? Ravenswing 07:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, your copying that paragraph to this talk page qualifies as "publishing" it, is a copyright violation, and may result in its being redacted from this page. Maproom (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of paraphrasing. Yes, many facts (names, etc.) were left out. The object of a town history should be to touch on salient information. I also combined and condensed all of the Education section into this history. David notMD (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The name supposedly dates to 1870, when in answer to a question of where the settlement was located was that it was in “Blackfoot nation.” Friendship Baptist Church was organized in 1860, and First Christian Church in 1890. A post office existed from 1886 to 1907. Blackfoot was a farm community, with cotton, corn, cattle and hogs. Blackfoot had a justice of the peace courthouse that was used until about 1935 for precinct court. Electrical power reached Blackfoot in 1941, and telephone service in 1959. Oil was discovered in 1930 and oil wells existed into the 1950s. The population exceeded 200 early in the oil well years, but has since decreased to under 50. Education is provided by the Cayuga Independent School District.

I hate maintenance templates?

Oh really, this article could benefit from more citations? Aww geez this very technical article is too technical? There's not enough inline citations in this article? Oh, and this one has multiple issues!?

Seriously though, these boxes are an eyesore. Almost every article I visit has one or more maintenance templates at the top. I want to argue they serve no purpose; particularly at the top of the article. Maybe they trigger some bot or flip-over a number on some ticker-counter somewhere on village pump. They could do so at the bottom, or as teensy collapsed boxes in the corner of the page.

Why they serve little or no purpose...

First, this is Wikipedia; it's Don't Panic written by volunteers in their spare time. My 6-year-old knows Wikipedia articles are not perfect representations of world information, and can have mistakes. So whenever I see a random maintenance box like Needs more references at the top of an article, I quietly whisper to myself, Thank you... Captain.... Obvious.

Second, almost every one of these declarations can be checked by the reader, in real time.

  • "hmmm, did that sentence I just read end with a reference?"
  • "hmmm, that paragraph seemed like it would be a bit too technical for a layman"
  • "hmmm, this article was pretty crappy, it has by my estimate, multiple issues"

Third, they make a call for a quantitative or qualitative change by some arbitrary amount. Due to this, nobody knows when to remove them. So they just sit up there, stacking up, festering, forever.

Lastly, I love helping improve the quality of Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia. Never once -- not once -- have a seen a maintenance box and gone "boy, ohhh boy... MULTIPLE ISSUES!, I can't wait to get to fixin these"


I just needed to get that off my chest. Carry on my good fellows Niubrad (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Niubrad: This is not the forum to gripe or complain about aspects of Wikipedia; this is a place for new users to ask questions. Not everyone is like you, and many people find the templates helpful in pointing out issues. What is obvious to you may be totally unseen by others, especially new users. If you want to work to eliminate maintenance templates from Wikipedia, you are free to do so, though I think it unlikely to succeed- but this isn't the place to do it. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, see, I knew this would be helpful... I was looking all over for the right place to gripe about this, and now maybe you can help me. Where is the appropriate place to voice this opinion? Also, note that not everyone is like you, and many people already understand these very basic things about Wikipedia articles. Aaaand, I'm not proposing their removal - just that they be collapsed, out of the way somewhere. So people like you who want to know the article needs more citations, can expando it at your leisure. Niubrad (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the templates are hidden then they can't be seen by people who might not be aware of them. Moving them to article talk pages is a perennial proposal as described here and I think the reasons listed there for not doing so are still valid. There are also previous discussions linked to there that you may wish to review. The question you seem to be asking is if Wikipedia should be designed for people like you or more occasional, inexperienced users(who potentially could be experienced users). However, I would say that the correct place to discuss changes in this area would be the Village Pump. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the maintenance templates populate an appropriate category. There are editors who gnome away working through them, but perhaps not as many as could be wished for. Nobody is obliged to do anything, but with ACTRIAL up and running there should be fewer maintenance templates going on new articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Niubrad many of them are (or were) added by new page reviewers who are working through a back log of unreviewed new pages. Your help would be much more welcome than your sarcasm. Lots of the templates are quite easy to remove, but with a huge backlog it is simply better and more efficient to inform the page authors of the need for improvement than to ask the reviewers to check and fix every mistake or omission made by the contributors to the page. Conscientious page creators and editors respond to these tags by fixing things, but as you can see - many editors do not. You can check WP:NPP for further details. After reading you might be more inclined to see the merits of maintenance templates than to complain about them.Edaham (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Niubrad, I agree with you that maintenance templates are counterproductive, many are inaccurate or outdated and I'd add that their introduction may be a major cause of the shift from the sofixit culture of our early growth phase to the sotemplateitforhypotheticalotherstofix phase. Unfortunately for reasons inexplicable to me there are others who think they are useful and who resist proposals to turn them into maintenance categories. But such talk is probably more productive at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals) than here. ϢereSpielChequers 11:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
succinctly highlighting the difference between a Pre-2010 Wikipedia with a few thousand (maybe in the tens of) active editors creating keystone pages on core subjects and a modern Wikipedia where millions of active editors create pages on anything and everything that takes their fancy. Maintenance templates are a great idea and part of a process. Get over it. If it helps you sleep at night, Wikipedia will outlive you [citation needed] by innumerable generations, during which time most of the backlogged templates will be resolved - (wp:deadline). Happy editing Edaham (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines about controversial subject

Hello, I wrote a biography about Vanessa Beeley. This is a very complicated article, because it is about propaganda, and powerful misinformation networks behind, so many people would have interests in deleting this article. So I fear it will soon be deleted, edited, etc. So far, one user added 3 warning headlines. One of them seems justified as it says some sources may not be reliable, which I can understand. The other 2 headlines, i'm not sure they are justified or not, it is concerning the notability of Vanessa Beeley, and as she regularly appears on Russian media, is invited in conferences with some main media, had an article about her is several main media, I think she fulfils Wikipedia article. How can I have advice concerning my article, the headlines, etc. I'd like to have the advice of administrators, to avoid people with to much conflict of interest. Thanks ! M.A. Martin (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, M.A. Martin, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can certainly understand the warning headline (or maintenance template, as we habitually call them) that says "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification." You should cite a source inline for every single fact that you bring up; for instance, what source says that she is the daughter of Harold Beeley and was born June 17, 1964? As the other maintenance template already points out, use reliable sources only.
As for the notability tag, it is much harder to judge. In my opinion, feel free to remove the maintenance tag. If someone disagrees, they have the option of using one of the formal processes pursuant to deleting an article outlined at the deletion policy.
I am not an administrator, as the issues you raise do not require immediate administrator action. Administrators have special tools, that allow tasks such as performing the deletion of an article (first nominated for deletion by someone else), or blocking users (after reports of misconduct). You are simply asking for an opinion of experienced editors and no such actions are required as of now. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Finnusertop ! I'll try to add sources, fo the example you gave me, it's easy, on her blog, she says she is the daughter of Beeley, so I gues I just need to add the reference at the end of my sentence ? And do I need to try to do this for almost every sentence ? (is citation the same as reference ?) But my fear is : if I lil to her blog, this may say sources are not reliable, no ? Thanks in advance for furthur answer. And yes, in fact, I'd like editors advice, thank you for explaining the difference from administrator ! M.A. Martin (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it will be edited by others. You do not "own" Vanessa Beeley even though you created it. If someone deletes content or adds content you disagree with, you can start a discussion in Talk. You can also undo edits by others, but should then explain why in an Edit summary. If editing gets contentious, or if a vandalism problem develops an administrator can help. But it is premature to ask for that until the article starts to show activity of that nature. David notMD (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, M.A. Martin, please add references to the end of every sentence (or paragraph, if multiple sentences in contain information that come from the same reference). Doing that is especially important here because the article is about a living person (the biographies of living people policy explains why), and because, as you admit, it's a controversial topic. The number one thing to prevent disagreements over such articles is to add referenced content only and remove unreferenced content.
Whether her blog is acceptable here or not is not clear-cut. You can cite people's own works (autobiographies, their blogs etc.) for claims that are fairly trivial; what the person has said, how they've felt; or maybe to fill in the blanks such as an exact date of birth. References written by unaffiliated people are always better, though.
As for "citation" and "reference", these words are interchangeable. I also second what David notMD said in the post above mine: everyone is free, and in fact encouraged, to edit the article you have created, as long as those edits are improvements. Edits that don't appear to improve it should be discussed, because individual editors often disagree on what counts as an improvement. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
M.A. Martin, it seems to me that this article has serious problems regarding WP:Biographies of living persons, which is much more of a minefield on WP than say, an article about a metal or something. I asked for more input at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Vanessa_Beeley. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you very much but several of the wikilinks and sources you offered to add link directly to not reliable content defending Beeley, telling she is an Independent Journalist and claiming she does not "say" that she supports Bashar al Assad. I'm not sure this will help Wikipedia to see what is the reality about this person. I know it's controversial, but when reliable sources are needed while it is in The Guardian... I'm sorry but I sometime have to doubt the good faith of anyone involved around that subject.M.A. Martin (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) M.A. Martin Almost all the sources in the article are primary sources (not all of them, but most). That means that the maintenance tag flagging this fact should not be removed. Until and unless there are actual claims of notability in the article, supported by secondary sources, there is no reason to remove the notability tag either - after all, these tags serve only one purpose, and that is to improve the article. --bonadea contributions talk

16:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I already add all these secondary sources : The Guardian Olivia Solon & George Monbiot The Syria Campaign Vanessa Beeley's own statements Reporter without borders Orient News L'obs Le Temps Snopes PulseMedia... and I was tryng to add more sources to improve the article, but I was just stoped in that, because I received this message, while my article was being removed :

" Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Vanessa Beeley. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC) "

What do I have to think about that ?M.A. Martin (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


talk Thank you for your help, but anyway, I won't have time to be welcomed and try to improve my articles with reliabale sources, as I've been erased, and threatened of blocking, while I was trying to add reliable sources as Reporter Without Borders, and oher reliable second sources from main media.

I don't know why... Maybe now I need the help of an administrator ?M.A. Martin (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"@ Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Vanessa Beeley. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)"

Article now deleted per WP:G10. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, in the end, appears to have been deleted not because of lack of citations, but because entire article was negative toward the topic - a living person - rather than presented in a neutral point of view. David notMD (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@M.A. Martin: The reason why is our biographies of living persons policy. We don't tolerate attack pages or hit pieces. If an article is to contain negative material about a living person, we do sometimes permit that (articles aren't meant to be whitewashed either), but the material must be relevant, presented neutrally, and sourced to impeccably reliable sources. Blogs, conspiracy theories, interpretation of primary sources, etc., are not sufficient. Since most of the article consisted of that type of material, I deleted it and warned you not to do that again. I would strongly advise you get a lot more experience editing Wikipedia before you try creating an article on a controversial, politically charged living person, as that's a very difficult thing to do and you clearly don't have the experience to know how to undertake that yet. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Seraphimblade, thank you very much for your answer.

My article was not an "attack page". I don't know if you've read it all, but I'm not sure you had the time to read all the articles, studies and reports that were secondary and reliable sources. Primary sources are mostly the one of the person I'm writing about, coming from her blogs and articles. Other primarily sources were from well-known journalists, as George Monbiot, or Olivia Solon, from the Guardian, who agreed that I shared her linkedin article where she tells she is "victim of a barrage of harassment", question her credibility and that of the Guardian. This is how propaganda works.

And I was just trying to comply with advices I was given, to add sources. But I didn't have time to do so, because you did not warn me and deleted while I was editing, I had asked questions to several editors here to improve the article. And even if I ha to add sources or modify or erase some elements, you know it was sourced with reliable sources for large parts of it, unless The Guardian, BBC, the Lancet, Channel 4, Snopes, Reporters without broders are all wrong...

For experience on controversial subjects, I have some (not on English Wikipedia), and it is not only my work, we are several (most of us have been blocked, threatened, harassed, insulted, without having even given false information or attacking anyone... and as I am not blocked, I'm the one who tries to publish our work here). I'm just the one who published similar article on an other Wikipedia languages, which has been approved, improved, and not judged as an attack by administrators.

I've read English Wikipedia policies : "When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject. "

If I wanted to attack, and not to be neutral, we wouldn't have tried to choose neutral vocabulary, we would have written "she claims" and not "she asserts", I would have quoted newspapers who says "she's not a journalist and never studied journalism", "she's a propagandists", "she's a Russian troll", "Queen of desinforation"...

So I'll just have to say I desagree on the "attack" page, because if there were negative things, it's merely because we're dealing with a person who fights against a "no-fly zone" in Syria to protect civilians, who denied crimes against humnity, who incite to heathread, violence, and crimes agaisnt humanity, who acknowledges in private that she'll never tell about tortures she knows about... And usually, people who share such points of views are quite with negative articles in Encyclopedies, not becasue they are being under attack. If the Guardian did not receive any complaint for this article : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories , it's because there is only truth and facts in it, that's why the journalist who wrote it is threatened since it was published. And this is only an example. If I didn't quote her twitt that is condemned for incitement of crimes against humanity which says "White Helmet are legitimate target", it's because our aim is not that people attack her (as she did to several of us, and as her bodyguards also did), because this is nothing with revenge or attack, this is information, factual informationaout something really important, vital ! We want that people know who they are reading, who they are hearing on TV, and understand she is not an independent journalist. If you really look for encyclopedic and factual information, with reliable secondary sources, you can look for information in the sources I gave (and I had some more to add), and delete only what was not good for English Wikipedia policy. I think Wikipedia is about building together reliable information and not about censor what does not seem convenient. And I think helping to improve my article would have been far much better than deleting it. SO, what do swe do, now ? Will you write yourself an article about Vanessa Beeley ? Because we have some dozens of hours of researches, contacts with researchers and journalists, some information that are important, even if you wrote me "as that's a very difficult thing to do and you clearly don't have the experience to know how to undertake that yet", I think I can tell you the same about powerful propoganda networks (except if I'm talking to someone who knows better than myself how it works, but I really don't hope so !)... Will you help us giving reliable information in free access for people on a crucial subject ? M.A. Martin (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. Our purpose is not to "get the word out" about anything. Rather, we should be collecting information that has already been verified by reliable sources, and putting it together in a neutral way. We also don't allow personal interpretation by editors, we just summarize what good sources say on the subject. If sources are in substantial disagreement, we note that there exists such disagreement, but we don't "take a side" or argue for or against any given position. As just one example of the issues (far from being the only issue, mind you), the article at one point claims she stated something about "Zionist media", sourced to this piece here [1] which does not once use the word "Zionist" or "Zionism". We don't allow your personal interpretation of what someone said. We don't allow use of your own research and journalism (unless it's published in a source that would already meet the standards of being reliable, such as a high reputation for accuracy, fact checking, and editorial control.) We collect and reflect what reliable sources have already said; we are not and do not aim to be the first publisher of any new information. In fact, we should be one of the last. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I read the article Vanessa Beeley before it was deleted. It was biased, and inadequately referenced, like many new articles. And more seriously, as Seraphimblade has pointed out, it misrepresented its sources. But I judged that the subject was notable, and hoped that the article would be improved to an acceptable state. I hope that Seraphimblade will be willing to restore it (to draft or to sandbox, not to article space) if requested. Maproom (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maproom: I'm afraid that BLP violations cannot be restored anywhere at all. If someone wants to take a go at writing an appropriate and neutral article that does not violate BLP, that of course is fine, but it'll have to be without the old one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your answer, once more. I understood Wikipedia aims at being neutral. As for the example you just gave me, in our sentence that talks about Zionism and Western media, there are two sources, and the second one is this one : [1], which says : " Resistance. vanessa beeley / September 12, 2014 Let me put it this way and maybe it will make sense to you. Palestine is the only nation that is standing firm against the Zionist entity that has infected our entire world infrastructure and is poisoning our minds, hearts and souls. Whilst we only suffer the fall out from this corporation of evil, Palestine eats, sleeps and breathes their demonic existence. For that reason alone God bless Palestine who are fighting to save the world on our behalf." (maybe you didn't found that link, maybe it was removed, maybe even it was a mistake of mine and did not appear in the article that I was still editing... I don't know), but source you've given me was linked to the other part of the sentence, about "Western Media".


By researches I meant collecting information and reliable sources, sorry, English is not my native language and I understand.

My question remains : what can we do to what you just wrote on that subject, that is : 

"Rather, we should be collecting information that has already been verified by reliable sources, and putting it together in a neutral way. We don't allow use of your own research and journalism (unless it's published in a source that would already meet the standards of being reliable, such as a high reputation for accuracy, fact checking, and editorial control.) We collect and reflect what reliable sources have already said; we are not and do not aim to be the first publisher of any new information. In fact, we should be one of the last."

What can we do as a lot of reliable sources exist on the subject ? May I have access to our article, as a draft, to correct it and submit it to administrators before trying to publish it again ? Or may I do it with your help ? Thanks !--M.A. Martin (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so that's another issue. Apparently she said that, but unless other reliable sources commented upon that as significant, representing it in the article is probably undue weight. If there are indeed sources that discuss her in reasonable detail (not just drop her name!), we can write a neutral biographical article. Certainly, if those references are sometimes critical of her, or even very critical of her, we can represent that in the article. But the article itself should just be a neutral summary of what those sources had to say. It should not be based upon reading her work and commentary based on that. And as I told another editor above, we cannot restore BLP violating articles anywhere or in any fashion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://thewallwillfall.org/2014/09/12/resistance/

Seraphimblade Thank you, once again for your answer.

You write "IF there are indeed sources that discuss her in reasonable detail (not just drop her name!)". I'm allowing myself this question : have you read my article and its sources before deleting it / before answering me just above ?

Guardian : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories "Some of the most vocal sceptics of the UN’s investigation include the blogger Vanessa Beeley, the daughter of a former British diplomat who visited Syria for the first time in July 2016" and "Separately, both Graphika and Menczer’s Hoaxy tool identify Beeley, the British blogger, as among the most influential disseminators of content about the White Helmets.", and have you read "Killing the truth" ?

"Beeley frequently criticises the White Helmets in her role as editor of the website 21st Century Wire, set up by Patrick Henningsen, who is also a former editor at Infowars.com."

"In 2016, Beeley had a two-hour meeting with Assad in Damascus as part of a US Peace Council delegation, which she described on Facebook as her “proudest moment”. She was also invited to Moscow to report on the “dirty war in Syria”; there, she met senior Russian officials including the deputy foreign minister, Mikhail Bogdanov, and Maria Zakharova, director of information and press at Russia’s foreign ministry."

"Meanwhile, Beeley’s influence continues. In April 2017, she gave a talk at a conference alongside ministers in Assad’s cabinet (who spoke via video conference) titled “White Helmets: Fact or Fantasy?” Her briefing paper and slides on the topic were then submitted to the UN security council and UN general assembly by the Russian government as “evidence” against the White Helmets."

etc.

12 occurences of "dropping Beeley's name" in this article seem to be a lot ! And I don't think you question the reliability of the Guardian ?

The Atlantic Council is also clear about her Vanessa Beeley, in this article : http://www.publications.atlanticcouncil.org/breakingaleppo/disinformation/

Have you read the report named "Killing the truth" ? There is a chapter on Vanessa Beeley.

etc.

I don't ask you to restore our article as it is, but in order to be edited and modified, and correspond to English Wikipedia policies, with your help and contribution if you like to...

I assure you it's a complicated enough subject so that I can understand that your first impresssion was an attack, more over if you didn't had time to read all sources and become familiar with the subject, but I'm sure that by now you've understand this is clearly not the case. Please could you edit and put back what you want about my article in my draft so I can work on it ? M.A. Martin (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom Thank you very much for asking Seraphimblade to let me and the Wikipedia community work on the article to make it fit in English Wikipedia rules & standards. I don't understand his refusal, as he apparently can edit it and remove what he wants before restoring it as a draft without any violation. He tells someone can start again, while I explained if was hours of enquiries with a whole team, reading and compiling sources, writing, editing to try to neutral, remove personnal informations, etc. I think he knows it's not likely to happen if I can't have my draft, and he told me he would block me from edition if I do it again... Besides, I still hope to have an answer as why he chose to delete urgently before warning and reading sources. Difficult subject indeed, suche powerful propaganda on such importance level... Too many conflicts of interest and too many fears in too many places... Happily, this article has been received, accepted and improved by other administrators on other Wikipedia! Maproom If the subject interests you, I've asked for review for an article on Beeley's collegues a few days ago, maybe yuo can read it and help me to improve it (it also has many reliable sources, some are common with Beeley's articles, and it's also quite ngative with more controversies than positive things...) Thanks !

David notMD Sorry, I haven't read your comment before. Thank you very much for your reply. Yes, of course, I know about editing, and that's great that we can all add and improve Wikipedia, but I didn't think my question was premature, because it was already happening (and because the same happened to various articles we published, even purely neutral & factual, even not on living people). And now I think you can understand that my fears have become true. Article deleted by administrator without warning, refusal to put in draft / sandbox / discussion to improve and make it cumply with English Wikipedia rules before publishing again, and besides warning me I'll blocked if I continue... I think I can tell that all doors have been quickly closed... while I was trying to edit, add sources and follow the advice I've been given here. Thanks anyway. M.A. Martin (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M.A. Martin, multiple times in the above discussion, you have referred to yourself as "we". ("...because the same happened to various articles we published, even purely neutral & factual, even not on living people, ....). Please tell us who this "we" is you speak of. John from Idegon (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon Yes, sure, as I've explained above, me and other human right defenders have been working together to compile information and sources, and they have helped me to select what was useful for my article here, what was to remove (as personnal informations or informations without reliable source), and others have done other articles in other languages or on related subjects. Unfortunately, I can't give you names because almost all of them have been blocked, insulted, defamed, threatenned, harassed... even famous researchers and journalists. But could you tell me why would you like to know about that, now the article has been deleted anyway.M.A. Martin (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M.A. Martin, @John from Idegon: doubtless asked that because Wikipedia has a strict Username policy that, amongst other things, forbids more than one actual person from using the same user account. Your multiple uses of "we", etc., suggested that multiple persons might be using the account named M.A. Martin. If however, you were merely referring to others supplying you with information, but that only you yourself are actually using the account to edit or comment, then there is no problem in that regard. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

90.200.41.3 Yes indeed, no one but me uses my account, no one but me writes my sentences. It is just because I was helped "in amont" to gather all the sources and also to think about what would be relevant to use or not, and I was also helped to correct a few sentences to make my English correct a with neutral vocabulary. All the rest is personal. I subscribes all by myself and never shared my account nor intend I to do it. But anyhow, as I answered on my talk page, I'll give up because everytime I manage to prove my good faith about something, there always is a new argument coming, and if the notability of Vanessa Beeley or the mentions about her in "reliable sources" are only "drop name" as I was told (which I disagree, but...), I'm afraid I won't be allowed to publish any article about her on English Wikipedia. And as I still don't know wether my draf on Eva Bartlett will be accepted or not, I'm not sure I'll edit anything here. Thank you very much anyway to make things clear for me.M.A. Martin (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for help publishing my company on Wikipedia

HI, I am looking for help getting my company published in Wikipedia Announce247 (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC) Let me know how can i get one.. some contacts will be helpfulAnnounce247 (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. In the feedback messages on your sandbox draft and on your user talk page the words in blue are wikilinks to relevant advice. You need to read about notability, and there is advice at WP:Your first article, but as you refer to your company, you firstly need to read the advice at WP:Conflict of interest, and the mandatory requirements at WP:Paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm sorry, Announce247, but you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is and what it does. This is an encyclopaedia containing articles on topics of general or special interest to readers round the world. It is not a business directory, and it is not an advertising platform. If your company is interesting and important enough, sooner or later a disinterested Wikipedia editor will probably want to write about it. Please wait for that to happen. Any attempt by anyone connected to the company to hurry that process is unlikely to succeed, and may indeed make it less likely that the article will ever be written. Sorry if this is not what you had hoped to hear. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Big 10 Conference (West Virginia) High School Football

I reviewed Draft:Big 10 Conference (West Virginia) High School Football. I said that it reads like a brochure about the high school football conference with no independent references. User:SGT1998 asked me, on my talk page, what can be done for the article to be accepted. Can other editors please look at the draft and comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty that could be done to improve the article, e.g. reduce the size of all the section headers, convert the section headers to sentence case, delete all the "External links". But without evidence of notability, all this would be a waste of time. Maproom (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced the header sizes. The external links are for conference member schools' web-sights so readers can get more information about them. Please explain why readers should not have this resource. Also, please explain your statement: "But without evidence of notability, all this would be a waste of time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGT1998 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, SGT1998. Please read our Notability guideline, which says, in part:
"Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."
Your draft article appears to be based, at least in large part, on your own personal knowledge. We call this original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. All substantive content should be verifiable, which means that you need to provide references to reliable sources. The best references in your draft are to articles about population decline in West Virginia but they do not discuss this high school football conference and are therefore of no value in establishing notability. What you need are references to reliable, independent published sources that devote significant coverage to this football conference and its history. Your draft should summarize what those sources say and nothing more. You ask, "Please explain why readers should not have this resource." The answer is that Wikipedia accepts articles that fully comply with our policies and guidelines. We do not accept draft articles that don't. There are plenty of other websites with far more lenient standards. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updating Campaignboxes

Hi, I completed the editing of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_of_the_Vega_de_Granada Also I edited the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Reconquista including this last article.

However the updated Campaignbox shows only in the new article I created while in the other articles linked to the Campaignbox the Campaignbox itself does not get updated

Hiraseku2007 Hiraseku2007 (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are seeing an earlier version of the campaignbox transcluded on some articles, you may need to refresh the page in your browser, and/or to purge the cache for the articles concerned. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No David does not look to be the case. The Campaignbox get updated only in the new article Hiraseku2007 (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks OK to me. Can you give us a wikilink to a page which shows the old version of the box after you've refreshed the page in your broswer and purged the page using the instructions at WP:purge? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Actor/Writer wants me to write him a wiki page - How can I help

Hey Teahouse,

I'm Sean, a part time writer and full time college student. I was recently contracted by a friend of mine to write a wikipedia page for him. He's a successful writer for television and film, as he's written for multiple television shows and is currently starring in a pilot episode for Amazon Prime. My question is, how much success does he need to have in order for wikipedia to accept my article submission?

Please let me know, I really want to help him.

Best, Sbfox19 (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sbfox19 - welcome to the Teahouse. Just a quickie before other post their replies to you - could you clarify if you meant to write "contacted by..." or "contracted by...". I t makes quite a difference to our answers to you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean "contracted by"... he is paying me a fee for writing the article on him due to my writing skills. Sorry if I didn't clarify that. Nick Moyes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.173.75 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read Conflict of interest and WP:PAID and declare those before you start any article. Then after that you can see if he meets the requirements for WP:NPERSON NZFC(talk) 21:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) So, there are a few things. Firstly, thanks for clearing up the other bit. Anyone who is paid to edit Wikipedia is required to disclose that fact in a specific way. While you've done it here, check that link, as that won't cover it, you must do it as stated in that policy. You'll also need to follow all the requirements for editors with a conflict of interest, so you'd start the article as a draft and have it reviewed by articles for creation. That aside, his level of success has nothing to do with it. What's required is that he be notable. That would mean that there are multiple reliable and independent sources that cover him in reasonable depth (so not just dropping his name or briefly mentioning him). If that type of reference material exists about him, make sure you cite it in your draft, and stick to only things the sources verify, don't use your personal knowledge or the like. If source material like that doesn't yet exist, an article about him would not be appropriate. Do keep in mind that articles must be neutral; we will not allow articles that are promotional, including "talking up" their subject. Stay away from marketese language ("leading", "award-winning", "successful", etc.), and just stick to the facts. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sorry Sbfox19 - had to put the kid to bed in the middle of replying further. I see you've meanwhile had some helpful tips. Here are my observations I started to write to you: Don't worry, you did say what you meant. I just wanted to be sure it wasn't a typo. Ok, so we do have a few big problems here we need to identify. Firstly, it looks like you are a brand new user with no experience of editing at all? Unfortunately, you have chosen to attempt the very hardest task possible on Wikipedia, namely that of creating a brand new article about a living person who you know personally and who is paying you. My advice is to give them their money back and submit their name at Wikipedia:Requested articles. But if you insist on this challenging task you must take it one step at a time, and be prepared for bitter disappointment when or if your efforts are rejected for one reason or another. (Please follow the blue links to key information you must read and understand in all that follows). Bear in mind that this is an encyclopaedia - its content must be neutral in tone, the fact that you might know this person as a charming chap or chappess is utterly irrelevant. We don't care what you - or they think about themselves. They should use a blog or LinkedIn for this. Consider any Wikipedia article as a distillation of known facts that have been written by independent and reliable sources. Don't look at anything they have ever written about themselves - we discount these. So...

  • To save wasting your time, have a read of this policy Wikipedia:Notability (people). If a person doesn't meet our criteria for what we call 'notability' your draft article will be rejected until you can provide evidence that it does. How much they pay you to prove this is irrelevant!
  • Then go and learn the basics of how we edit here by spending an hour doing The Wikipedia Adventure - it's a fun, interactive tour of key elements of our site.
  • Then read and absorb Your first article - it contains useful links to a lot of stuff you need to understand.
  • Maybe you could look for a similar sort of person to them and see if there's a Wikipedia article on them. See how that is written (it might be good, bad or about to be deleted, who knows)
  • Do some online research about your subject. Discard their blogs, social media accounts or interviews they've done.
  • Collate all the independent, reliable sources that talk about them in depth - this is key.
  • Create your user page and read about our strict policies on conflict of interest and on declaring paid editing. You are bound by these and may be blocked from editing if you don't conform. Your user page is the place to declare your involvement to begin with.
  • Then read about our policy on writing biographies of living people and how every single statement you write about them must be supported by a reference. If it isn't, it'll get be deleted.
  • Use your user sandbox (the link at top of every page) to collate all the reliable sources. Chuck out the rubbish ones. Don't ignore trustworthy sources that dig up shady things about their past. You can be confident that if you don't put them in, someone else will later. Does the actor know this will happen? Then read those sources and (in your own words, not by close paraphrasing) write down the known and published facts about them. Support each with a full citation, not just a bare url.
  • Once you think you've got some of the basics sorted out, you can use the Wikipedia:Article_wizard to make a draft article to continue working on until you're ready to submit it for consideration at Articles for Creation. Chances are, it'll get turned down at first shot, with helpful advice to guide you in doing better, should you choose to resubmit it.
  • While you're absorbing this wealth of guidance and instructions, there is one thing you can do. Go get your camera and take some nice pictures of your subject. We don't want ones that someone else has taken, as these will be their copyright. Then you can upload your pictures to Wikimedia Commons, releasing them under a Creative Commons licence for anyone to use, be it for personal or commercial use. If the latter sound worrying, just upload a medium resolution image that is just good enough for a website and nothing else. Sorted! The great thing is that even if your article doesn't get off the ground, the pictures you uploaded (assuming they are yours) can remain on Commons forever. Suppose the person you're writing about were a very young Dustin Hoffman who had done very little film work and no-one knew about. He's going to become famous (in all sorts of good and bad ways in the future) - his picture will be there to use when he does, even if right now is WP:TOOSOON (click the blue link to see what I mean by this).

I'm sure I've missed a few things off, but hope this gives you a good idea of the task you might face. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sbfox19 I would add to the great advice above that you may want to read this essay on a person having an article about themselves on Wikipedia. The message of the essay is that it isn't necessarily a good thing for someone to have an article about themselves here. As Nick Moyes points out, anyone can edit such an article and put any information that appears in an independent reliable source in the article, be it good or bad. You can't prevent others from editing it, or lock it to the text you might prefer to see there. The person who hired you should keep this in mind. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Sbfox19 - I've just had an after-thought. Save yourself a lot of bother and tell us this person's name (you're going to make this public the moment you start writing as every edit we make - even in our personal user pages - is published online and public for all to see). We'd happily check him out and at least give you an informal steer as to what we think regarding his 'notability'. Nick Moyes (talk)

Nick Moyes This is all awesome advice. I really appreciate how much you guys have made me feel like a part of the Wiki community. Is there a way I could share the information through a personal message? I don't want have him come across you guys telling him he has no shot of getting a wiki page (I think he does but that is neither here nor there). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.173.75 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - glad to be of help. (It can be tough getting told you've got a big job ahead of you, and then for another person to be told they're not notable enough is pretty hard too. (My wife tells me that all the time!) To be honest, keeping the name private won't do much good - and already you're learning the first lesson. . . everything here is publicly visible. The moment you start making your first edit and declare a 'conflict of interest' with that editing, then that person's name is going to be known. I promise to let you down gently, though I don't imagine you told him to keep watch on the Teahouse helpdesk, did you? (do we get free autographs?). Why not leave it a while then? Get comfy with becoming a Wikipedia editor, read our notability guidelines and look for published sources about him and make your own initial assessment and discuss it with them, too. Maybe point out this link that 331dot helpfully supplied, and then come back when you think you're ready to work on something and discuss it again later (even though my curiosity's now quite piqued!). Nick Moyes (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Moyes Got ya, his name is George Boseman. Give him a look. That is a very good point though. I'll be honest, I could really use the cash and he paid me well so if its possible I'd like to work hard on getting an article up for him. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbfox19 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbfox19: I did a simple Google search on his name and, once I got past the IMDB and Twitter entries and other self-contributed items, all I saw were things about some other people with the same name. So this is going to be an uphill struggle to find suitable citations that establish notability. Without something more substantial, I don't see how there can be an article. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of j's points there is that IMDb content does not count as reliable referencing. (Same for You Tube.) So I concur that this is too soon for an article about your friend. David notMD (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Make mine a third vote. Sbfox19, I'm active in the area on Wikipedia dealing with deleting non-qualifying articles. From the research I just did on your friend, the only citation I could find in a reliable source was a press release, which doesn't count as supporting notability. Were I to encounter an article with this little notability support, I'd nominate it for deletion, and were I to see a nomination for deletion on him, I'd support that deletion. I quite understand needing the money, believe me, but this would be a losing cause. The bar for people in the entertainment field is quite high, and I agree with the others that he doesn't meet it.

My advice would also be to let him see this discussion. I think you're better off him seeing that several Wikipedia veterans are pessimistic that an article on him can be sustained than you either telling him what we said, or taking his money and failing to deliver. Ravenswing 08:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Sbfox19. I think the comments you've received overnight from experienced editors do seem fair. I too have struggled to find in-depth, independent sources which talk about Mr Boseman in a way that Wikipedia can accept. Of course, this is absolutely nothing to do with him or anyone's view of him - it is, I am afraid, simply whether a Wikipedia page can pull together sufficient material to meet its own criteria at this moment in time. That's not to say that things won't change in the future as a person's career continues to develop. To expand on the rationale for not accepting IMDb content - it (like Wikipedia) is user-edited, and subject to bias by those who add or remove content. We freely admit that here, and always strive to be neutral in all that is covered - which we why we demand sources (unlike IMDb). But we cannot guarantee it and, despite always demanding reliable, third-party sources, for that reason even Wikipedia is not accepted by Wikipedia editors as a reliable source! (See here). If you think you have the skills to help develop a personal website or other social media profile for him instead, there is of course absolutely nothing or noone who can stop you. (And don't forget my suggestion about photos for Wikimedia Commons - that still stands) Kind regards from a sunny and frozen UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with the above as well. Please note that this isn't anything against on your friend as a person—a lot of wonderful people aren't notable enough for an article here, and a lot of horrible people are. It just means we really don't have enough source material yet to write an article from. If he continues to do well, that may attract notice and one day that situation might change, but I don't think we're at that point yet. I just can't find enough good source material that an article would be written from, so I share the opinion that such an article will likely be deleted as things stand today. I would certainly hope that the individual would at least be willing to give you something for the work you've done looking into the possibility, and you can certainly show him this discussion as such. I've done consulting and freelance work myself, and while unfortunate, we can't always deliver good news. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

De facto restrictive or legally restrictive

If you see Video game rating, you can see many colors. ESRB M is red, but de facto restrictive. CERO D, South Korea Game Rating 12 & 15 are also red. but are CERO D, South Korea Game Rating 12 & 15 de facto restrictive, or legally restrictive?(I know AU Game Rating MA15 is legally restrictive.) 61.109.111.155 (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We answer questions on how to edit Wikipedia here, IP. Perhaps they can help you at the reference desk. John from Idegon (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like an article content question that can be discussed on the talk page, Talk:Video game rating. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Talk:Video game content rating system is the proper place to discuss improvements to that article. The link above is a redirect. General questions about the rating system can be asked at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Guys i wanted to create a map of ranges of languages and how do i do it? Is a software requirement? Im on mac.  :)

--Newslayer3015 (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)newslayer3015:)[reply]

Newslayer3015: you create the map, using whatever software you like, preferably as an SVG file but PNG and some other formats are accceptable. Then you upload it to Wikimedia Commons so that it can be used on all Wikipedia projects. Maproom (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saving work in draft page

Hi. I started creating a new page using the Wizard. I wanted to come back and continue working on it but I couldn't find anywhere that said to save the draft, even though the instructions said there was a Save button. I didn't want to hit the Publish button as I understand that sends it through for review prior to becoming live. Now I can't find the work I did on the Draft page i.e. the Draft page has no text. (Luckily I have a copy myself so it's not all lost). So my questions are: can I retrieve the Draft page? How do I save the work I've done on a draft to come back to later? Would it be better to work in Sandbox instead?Gertrude206 (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gertrude206: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The 'save' button was recently changed to 'publish'. Most of the instruction pages likely have not been updated to reflect this. To submit a draft there should be a 'submit your draft for review' button. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The Wikimedia Foundation have confused users by changing the software to replace the "Save button" by something named the "Publish button", even in cases such as the Draft namespace where it isn't actually publishing the page to mainspace. They did so without changing the various instructions which refer to the Save button. Providing that you are working in either the Draft space or your user sandbox, you should be able to use the Publish button safely. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick replies. I appreciate it takes time to update all those help and instruction pages.Gertrude206 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point of note to other Hosts and Visitors regarding those few of our Help pages that are still out of date: I have tried to update them all -or get others to change them - but a few remain which contain screenshots which themselves need remaking before the Help page can be fully updated. I maintain a complete list of all pages and files that are still outstanding here, and would welcome anyone having a go at recreating them and uploading versions with the correct text. (Or please add or tell me of any other pages that I've missed). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

how do i edit on wikipedia. and how also I want to delete the existing template on the page of wikipedia articles, and how also I want to lock the page wikipedia semi protection articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecal saputra (talk • contribs) 00:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, you don't ask the same question in two places, as you have done here and at the WP:Helpdesk. You might like to try out The Wikipedia adventure for an interactive tour of the basics of editing here. Then try this link at Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing. You only delete a template on an existing article once the concerns it raises have been addressed. You do this either by editing the article to meet those requirements, or you discuss them on the articles talk page, if you disagree with the issues raised by it. If a page is being repeatedly vandalised, you can ask one of our administrators to consider putting temporary protection on it. To learn how this works, please follow this link: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Do come back with other specific questions if you're still stuck on. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-on: If the article you are referring to is Incheon International Airport, I can see at a quick glance, that it appears in general to be fairly well referenced. There are nine 'citation needed' templates throughout the article. But these don't seem to warrant a big template on the top of the page as so much esle appears to be supported by references. But I'd suggest you look at those tags and see if you can address any of them. I see you've removed the referencing template, and (personally) it doesn't look like you've done something terrible. As always, we advise editors to discuss specific concerns on an article's talk page. There may well be issues and sensitivities with this subject that I'm not aware of. Nick Moyes (talk)

Edit blocked

Memory and aging project https://www.rushu.rush.edu/research/departmental-research/memory-and-aging-project — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.119.133 (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

https://www.rushu.rush.edu/research/departmental-research/memory-and-aging-project

https://www.rushu.rush.edu/research/departmental-research/memory-and-aging-project — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.119.133 (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is about Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center. But I have no idea what is being asked. Maproom (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The OP might be concerned about the reference showing the error message "Missing or empty |title= (help)". In that error message the word "help" is in blue to indicate that it is a wikilink, in this case to Help:CS1 errors#citation missing title. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the reference so it no longer produces the error text. Neiltonks (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a draft that will review?

How to make a draft that will review?Jason CoolDude Smith (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read the advice on your user talk page(s) User talk:Jason CoolDude Smith and User talk:Jason Shades Smith, avoid sockpuppetry, avoid autobiography, learn about notability and about reliable sources, and then (if you wish to contribute an article on a notable subject) read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Jason CoolDude Smith welcome to the Teahouse. As this is an encyclopedia, not a social media site for self-promotion, Wikipedia only takes articles that meet our standards of notability (click the blue links to find out more). They must also be based upon what other independent sources have written about that subject. If there's nothing said about a subject, then that subject has no place having a page here. We term these reliable sources. I note you have created a user page (which you're normally welcome to do), but it has quite reasonably been put forward for speedy deletion as it appears have been made to promote you as a subject. User pages are for editors to introduce themselves to the editing community, and maybe express their interests in editing. We don't expect personal details like you've put in. Find out more here. Does this help? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be very blunt - you are not yet notable. Articles about you have not appeared in reputable print or on-line publications. YouTube does not count as a reference. Wikipedia is not Facebook. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. There are Wikipedia articles about living people, written by other people - not the people who are the topics of the articles. If you want to stay involved with Wikipedia, your help welcome improving existing articles. David notMD (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that edits such as this and these are liable to be considered disruptive. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this thread is now over, see WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/JaySmith2018. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Hi there! Hope you are doing great. I was wondering if there were any bot that could archive the urls in an article. This was from seeing edit summaries like "Rescuing 7 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v1.6.1)". Thanks a lot! Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityavagarwal: Sure thing! The bot that works on this task is User:InternetArchiveBot. –FlyingAce✈hello 17:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks a ton, FlyingAce! Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to list a Best Scottish Poem Winner for 2016, if she is one of 20

Hi,

I am working on a women poet biography. In the Awards section, I would like to include her inclusion in the Best Scottish Poems Award 2016 by the Scottish Poetry LIbrary.

I am not sure how I would list that in my bio, since she is one of twenty winners.

Please advise. Thanks. MauraWen (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, MauraWen. The Scottish Poetry Library is a notable institution. Simply write that she was one of the 20 winners that year, and provide a reference. Describing awards in prose rather than as a list allows you to make such distinctions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cullen328! MauraWen (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can an article be recreated after being deleted?

Hi, I'm just curious about the policy. Can an article be re-created years later after the original consensus of an AFD was for it to be deleted? Snickers2686 (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, Yes. But there must be new independent reliable sources that demonstrate notability in a way that wasn't possible before. It's not OK for an article that was deleted to be recreated with basically the same content. Quite often an article is deleted about a musician, actor or personality on the grounds that it is WP:TOOSOON, and that they haven't yet been covered in depth by reliable sources. When that situation changes, it's quite OK to try to create a new page. I'd recommend going through Articles for Creation and being prepared for it to be looked at sceptically at first. So make sure that recreation really is justified! Hope this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steps to edit a Template

The Template:Shared_IP_gov template has a box that reads: "In response to vandalism from this IP address, anonymous editing may be disabled." and there is a red stop-sign with a white x, next to this message. In my knowledge, this is improper communication and is communicating that the person that this "welcome" template was added to caused vandalism, prior to the template being added to their page (it is so in my case).

Am I allowed to edit the template? The template is in a lot of places and I don't want to waste everyones time trying to guide me in the direction of correcting this flaw in the template. I have found how to edit the template, I just want to know if I can just modify it as I can't find any rules about it.

I would like to change the warning to something like: "Note: Vandalism performed by users on this IP address will result in anonymous editing being blocked."

Please let me know. 134.186.234.108 (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to get messages for things that you didn't do, the best thing for you to do is register a username(which is more anonymous than an IP). I believe that the warning is a standard warning used in many places across Wikipedia, and it likely should not be changed without broad consensus. Users must be autoconfirmed in order to edit the template directly. If you truly feel that the wording needs to be changed, you could start a discussion on its talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no vandalism occurring. The template is in error, whoever created it did not realize that the word "response" indicates that the action referred to has already occurred, in the past. Does that make sense? 134.186.234.108 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But what the template says boils down to "If there should be vandalism from this IP, the response may be to report it [etc]". So a hypothetical reaction in the future. I don't think it's ambiguous at all - in fact I don't see how it would be possible to interpret it as a warning for specific vandalism that has happened. --bonadea contributions talk 21:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look up in the Merriam Webster dictionary: "response", specifically look in the section, RESPONSE Defined for English Language Learners 134.186.234.108 (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I shall start a discussion thank you, I believe this answers my question. 134.186.234.108 (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The message "In response to vandalism from this IP address ..." does imply that there has been vandalism from the IP address. I can find no evidence of vandalism from that particular IP address. If that is intended as a "welcome" message, to be posted on the talk page of innocent new users, it is misleading and offputting, and its wording should be changed. Maproom (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have added to the talk page of the template. Please assist if you can 134.186.234.108 (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

user id and repost draft submission

Hello. My user id , "designlab1008" is not located, perhaps because i have not used it for a while and a previous submission that i made "Mike Dubois" is no longer posted as a live draft and i would like to work on it again since i now have additional references. If someone could help with these two issuew it would be appreciated. 1-verification of my user id 2-repost draft of previous content for "Mike Dubois"

thank you for your time Nick Clemente Designlab1008 (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nick, welcome to the Teahouse! Information on how to recover your draft is posted on your talk page. As far as gaining what's known as "autoconfirmed" status on your username, that happens after you've made ten edits, which you haven't yet done. Ravenswing 22:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Designlab1008 shows 45 edits, but presumably most of them were on pages which have subsequently been deleted. This poses two questions as to how the count for autoconfirmed status is made. Is it based on the count at the wmflabs page or at Special:Contributions? And if the latter, if the count rises above 10 and autoconfirmed status is granted, but pages are subsequently deleted and the count drops below 10, does this then remove the autoconfirmed status? There is, of course, also the question as to why autoconfirmed status isn't shown along with other user rights at Special:ListUsers... --David Biddulph (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because (and I'm really not joking here) there are well over a million and a half autoconfirmed accounts. Ravenswing 02:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting stat. I see that there are only 38340 extended confirmed, so fairly low "conversion rate" from autoconfirmed to extended confirmed. Now that I look again at WP:AUTOCONFIRM I see that the 10 edits criterion does include deleted ones, so that answers one of my questions above and presumably Designlab1008 is indeed autoconfirmed. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When they don't tell you why you were reverted

What are the best practices in a situation like this?

  • User A makes a change, including explanations in the edit summary.
  • User B reverts the edit without explaining why.
  • User A asks him why.
  • User B does not respond.
  • User A restores the change, reiterating his rationale in a more frustrated tone.

What did User A do right or wrong, and what should he do now? —151.132.206.26 (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're asking the right questions. Except in the case of clear vandalism (where time is of the essence), a revert should require and edit summary. User A does not seem to be in the wrong here. I'm assuming you're A, so I'm trying to find to what you are referring now. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing particular from this IP; I'm not at home at the moment, editing from a public library. But I recently had something like this happen at MOS:ANIME, ultimately for the reason of making undiscussed changes which I disagree with as being a valid reason, but this was supposed to be a more general enquiry. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, if you were attempting to make changes to MOS:ANIME itself, I can see what the difficulty might have been. I can see on the talk page that an IP (I assume you?) attempted to make changes without seeking consensus on the talk page first. For any policy or guideline, this should never be done without getting that consensus, period, full stop, however right or justified you find the edits. (Indeed, the page has on a lead template the words "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.") Ravenswing 02:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing: If you refer to WP:WPEDIT, it also says: Minor edits to existing pages, such as formatting changes, grammatical improvement and uncontentious clarification, may be made by any editor at any time. These are the only edits I made to that page. I made no substantive changes whatsoever. Does our editing policy need to be updated to reflect this blanket restriction? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The original edit should not have been reverted as it was not clearly vandalism, but the fact that the edit was reverted meant that it was a contested edit and should have been discussed on the talk page before being restored. The next two times you were undone (not reverted) you were told to discuss the edit on the talkpage. Two pointers: if you disussing edits here please provide diffs, and if you are using multiple IPs please identify that fact on the talk page when you are discussing concerns. As far as I can tell there was no way to know that the first talk page post (using the 151 IP [2]) was by the same user who had made the contested edits to the article. Meters (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
you were undone (not reverted)—Undo is a method of reversion. Not a different thing. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But as mentioned on that talk page, I had contacted each of the reverting editors directly, immediately after each reversion: [3][4]. As mentioned in the OP here, they did not respond (technically, the second one did respond, removing my comments with a summary of “duly noted”).
If you’re reverted by an editor who fails to give any reason on any talk page, is the edit truly contested? At what point does such reverting become disruptive editing? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between reversion and Wikipedia "reverting". A revert, which the first edit was, is a form of an undo (but an undo is not a type of revert), whcic should only be used under restricted conditions (vandalism is the most common). An undo can be done for many reasons, including good faith edits. — Meters — continues after insertion below
With respect, I think you’re confused. A revert is any edit that completely reverses a prior edit; undo is a feature that revert[s] a single edit. All three of the edits in question were complete reversals of my edits—after each one, the page was in the exact same state it had been in before I touched it. That’s what reverting does. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, if you are reverted the edit is contested. When it's undone by a second editor it is even more obvious that it is contested. The best thing to do is to explain your reasons for making the changes on the article's talk page, where the reverting editor, and any other interested editors can discuss it, as is being done now. I think those undiscussed changes might have been undone had they been done by anyone, but an IP making an undiscussed changes to a stable MOS is even less likely to get the benefit of the doubt. Meters (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not disruptive editing to insist on discussion for uncontroversial changes that you don’t have an identifiable objection to? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" section

Is there a MOS or other guidance on what the "See also" section of an article should include? ▲RedScrees (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RedScrees: Yes, see WP:SEEALSO which will take you to that section of the MOS. RudolfRed (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed: Thanks! ▲RedScrees (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, you might want to check MOS:ORDER to show the correct ordering of sections. (as I always forget where "See also" should appear, and often have to remind myself). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI with ex-employer?

If I no longer work at a company nor have a relationship with them, do I have WP:COI? If so, is that clear somewhere in WP:COI and I'm just overlooking it? Thanks! ~ Rick305 t·c 01:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rick305. There is nothing definitive about ex-employees although you should pay attention to the concept of apparent COI. If you were to add content unfavorable to the company, someone may suspect that you are a disgruntled former employee seeking revenge, or a current employee of a competitor. If you add something favorable, someone might say you were currying favor in an attempt to get your old job back. Caution is in order. I suggest that you disclose your former employment on the article's talk page, and pay special attention to the neutral point of view. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this template?

I just encountered an editing template that is pretty interesting, and I'd like to know more about it. It appeared as"PDB: 3HTS​", and renders as PDB: 3HTS​, where the first half is a link to the relevant WP article, and the second half is a very useful external link to the Protein Data Bank's page on the 3HTS protein's structure. Where can I find out more about this template?--Quisqualis (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Quisqualis: Welcome to Wikipedia. I took a guess, and found that this is probably the template: {{PDB}}. Follow the link to learn more about it and some related templates. RudolfRed (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't a add an image in an infobox?

I want to add a picture, JHShonkwiler.jpg, to Draft: J. Harvey Shonkwiler but I keep getting a message about "articlespace" (?) and a manga girl image. Mephiboshethsmaid (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mephiboshethsmaid. I do not see a file by that precise name, either on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Did you upload it, and if so, where did you upload it? Please double check the file name. Even the slightest error will cause problems. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article submission not approved yet

Hi, I had submitted a Company article for one of my clients (Statkraft BLP Solar Solutions) almost 3 months back and and it has not been approved yet. Kindly look into it and let me know if any further changes needs to be made for it to go live. Below is a link of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Statkraft_BLP_Solar_Solutions

Your immediate response in this regard will be highly appreciated.Venugopals.rahul (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Venugopals.rahul. Your draft was declined on December 2, 2017, as reading like an advertisement, and I agree with that assessment. Your references are presented as bare URLs and lack bibliographic information. Several of your sources are to the company's own website and others appear to be reprints of press releases, and are not independent reporting. You have failed to show that this company is notable and eligible for a Wikipedia article. In addition, you have not fully complied with the mandatory requirements for paid editors, since you have not disclosed who is paying you on the draft's talk page. Since you are being paid (while the vast majority of editors including me are volunteers), then please do your job correctly instead of ineptly. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Highschool yearbook photos, the validity of

I've stumbled across highschool yearbook photos of a person with an article. Are they good for use in articles? The Verified Cactus 100% 04:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, VerifiedCactus. As with many things on Wikipedia, there is no easy answer. One important issue is copyright status, and yes, yearbooks are subject to copyright law. Determining whether a specific yearbook photo is copyrighted depends on when it was published, whether the book included a copyright notice, and whether the copyright was renewed. Here is an excellent analysis of the copyright issues. Another issue is verifying that the photo is actually of the subject of the article. In many cases, this will be clear. If the person has a common name, though, and their high school cannot be verified reliably, then there is a chance that the wrong photo could be included. Be very careful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective on article

Hi I have noticed that an article (perampanel) on a medicine is outdated and is rather alarming to patients. I am a healthcare professional and patients' best interests are close to my heart. In the interest of fair journalism, I believe Wiki should provide an unbiased, current, evidence-based account on any topic. Wiki does not replace the opinion of a patient's doctor, thus there should be a disclaimer redirecting a potential patient to their doctor.

I am keen to hear how I can edit the article in question, without an editing war again. I have no vested financial interest in the product. I am just a concerned healthcare professional.Haseenagani (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haseenagani and welcome to the teahouse. Articles on medicines are sometimes fiercely protected by some of our editors who have medical expertise (and occasionally they revert edits without thinking clearly about statements). It is important to follow the policy at WP:PHARMMOS, and, if there is disagreement, then the matter should be discussed on the talk page of the article (Talk:Perampanel). This will eventually lead to your suggested improvements being considered and discussed. Wikipedia reports what the best references say. A Wikipedia article is not journalism, but should indeed provide an unbiased current evidence-based account. Wikipedia never provides a diagnosis or recommendation about a treatment, but patients are always at liberty to read any encyclopaedia or any report on any drug before discussing the matter with their doctor. Dbfirs 09:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding picture to article

i have 2 last questions please . 1 - Can you please help us concerning adding an image of Perla to Perla Helou page ? what should we do in order to add it ? 2- will Perla Helou article appear in google search since it has been created ? or not ? (becuase now it doesn't appear yet ) thanks alot for your help Mimosheikh (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Mimosheikh (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=819430763"