Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CryptoWriter (talk | contribs) at 03:12, 19 November 2018 (→‎Removing and Advertisement Tone: new section). 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...                        
A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.
Shortcuts

ColinFine, 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.

The labeling of "fake news" seems inappropriate and biased how can we change that?

Collapsing this for WP:NOTFORUM violations. I am convinced the OP is in good faith and might still have legitimate questions about reliable sources, how to identify them and use them etc.; but the present state of discussion (whose responsibility does not entirely lie on the OP) ensures a near-zero chance that future enquiries in that thread will be usefully asked and answered. If needed, open a new thread without being an apologist for any news source, politician, etc., asking precise questions such as "is source X reliable for fact Y", etc. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CNN has been called "fake news" by THE PRESIDENT OF THE US, and many more sources. If that is not a valid source I don't know what is. Yet if I were to put that in their description on their wiki it would most certainly be reversed. Yet with news stories like this "Sessions firing planned like a murder" [1] which is implicitly biased and clearly over the top I would hardly disagree. Yet, I would still find it inappropriate to do so.

Yet, on the other hand, InfoWars [2] is called fake news in their description. If I were to remove that it would most certainly be added back. But this is a dangerous accusation and unfair in my opinion. I am already aware, that most of you reading this will have a difference of opinion, but I ask you as reasonable people to hear me out, and help me correct this issue.


Wikipedia should not be used to discredit or censor those most people disagree with, it is our obligation to maintain a fair and objective look at each group. When it comes to news organizations, we need to be particularly cautious as to not let our bias get in the way. As much as I dislike CNN's unfair reporting, I would never call it fake news. And as someone who actually listens to InfoWars, I can attest that they are not fake news, though they are biased. The sources linking to them being fake news don't even make sense to be honest, non of them make InfoWars "fake news" yet the claim sticks. The strongest "reference" is the one about his claim about Sandy Hook. Though he mulled the idea around that it might be fake, he never implicitly said it was and reported it that way. Even then that is his opinion and not fake news.

I believe this is an unfair accusation with misused sources and I would like to remove it, but I know I will face a team of opposition, and I just realized I don't have enough edits anyway.

Can anyone help get the right thing done, and remove that label?

Best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healinglaw (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSQcTpF5AtY
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoWars

To keep the references close to the text that uses them, I moved the list here. Pretended leer {talk} 18:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Healinglaw: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't need a certain number of edits to post on article talk pages, which is the proper forum to give this sort of comment. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Infowars is labeled as fake news because multiple independent reliable sources have called them that, and demonstrated multiple instances where they have invented stories out of whole cloth. Statements by Donald Trump are not treated as a reliable source, because Donald Trump is not a reliable source. In fact, he lies often enough that it is possible to begin to analyze the issue statistically, and estimate that he makes on average, somewhere around 5.01 public false statements per day. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for epistemological relativism or assertions of moral equivalency. We do not seek to provide balance where none exists. If you regularly consume information from unreliable sources such as Infowars, then the fact that Wikipedia's content does not align with your worldview is not a bug, it is a feature. GMGtalk 18:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot:Thanks for letting me know, I was having difficulty finding the right location. I will do tht from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healinglaw (talk • contribs) 05:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: Please cite your sources, or carry on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healinglaw (talk • contribs) 05:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of that is horribly inaccurate. President Trump is not a reliable source because he's the "President of the United States", and not a "reliable source" according to Wikipedia Policies. He's a political figure, and not a news organization. This would be true of any President, and any political figure. So you can't say "The sky is blue." because President Trump said it was, but you CAN say "ABC News reported that Donald Trump said the sky is blue." The difference may be hard to understand to a newcomer, but it's critical for an encyclopedia. The comments above by GreenMeansGo about Trump's character are inappropriate for several reasons, the most important of which is that it leads by a bad example. It's not just wrong, but it allows New Editors to think and believe wrongly, which creates more problems for other people to have to deal with. What happens when this New Editor shows up to an Article and starts advocating the inclusion of some politician's statements as a "reliable source" because this goofy "truth index" thing says they "always tell the truth", and you told him it's okay as long as the magic, truth-detecting gonkulator approves said politician's speech? The New Editor asked a question that goes directly (and only) to the definition of what a "reliable source" is, and did not solicit your opinions on the "truthfulness" of politicians or the "reliability" of one news outlet or another. The "feature" aspect of Wikipedia you mention exists precisely because your faulty understanding of "how it works" is the exact opposite of what actually takes place here. It's about the policies and guidelines, and not the personal opinions of the Editors being elevated to the encyclopedic level.Tym Whittier (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Healinglaw said as someone who actually listens to InfoWars, I can attest that they are not fake news, -- IMO, this is almost sufficient for a WP:CIR block. InfoWars has pushed conspiracy theories that:
It is the McDonald's of Tinfoil Haberdashery. If I see any further defense of InfoWars, I'm just going to block under WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson:

Hi Ian, Thanks for the Info! In response to your sources: Info Wars hosts a variety of guests, and they are not scripted. They are allowed to freely talk about what they want, for the most part. In specific your "Children on Mars" link, I listened to that show myself when it came out, he did not say anything like that, his guest did, furthermore he dismissed the claims the following day. Note that the article states his guest Robert David Steele said that and did not quote Alex Jones.

As for Pizzagate he apologized, though I am not sure he pushed it much to begin with. :*[[1]]

For the school shooting, he briefly said he thought it might be staged, he did not say it was, just that he thought it was possible. He later walked that back, and last I checked an opinion that is wrong, is not fake news. False flag events do happen. :*[[2]]

Hilary Clinton... is probably a witch. Can't argue with that :P

And its atrazine, an herbicide in the water causing frog to not reproduce, not chemtrail. He did say it was turning them guy, which is not entirely true, as they were actually changing genders :*https://people.howstuffworks.com/alex-jones-and-infowars-fact-or-tinfoil-fiction.htm]]

It's not fake news, it is news with a bias, just like CNN, just like Fox, the Hill, the WSJ etc. If CNN can say Sessions firing planned like a murder Alex Jones can say They are turning the freaking frogs gay

It's his slant. News has always had a slant, that's how you make headlines. He doesn't hide his like others. That doesn't make it fake, just different. No one should believe everything they hear no matter the source, not because of fake news, but bias and slant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Healinglaw (talk • contribs)

Like I said, if I saw any further defense of InfoWars, I was going to block. Filling out the relevant stuff now. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've just re-read this whole thread for about the 5th time in as many days, and now have a question using "Infowars" as an example. First I accept the idea that Infowars (and similar) "news outlets" are not, can not, and should not be used as a reliable source, but a stopped clock is right twice a day. Here's the hypothetical:
reliable source A says "the sky was blue on Tuesday, according to Donald Trump"
reliable source B says "Hillary Clinton said the sky was blue on Tuesday, despite the fact that it was raining"
Infowars says "Despite the fact that it was raining, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump said the sky was blue on Tuesday"
Point of this exercise is to illustrate how an "unreliable" source might take two facts that are corroborated by two other, and reliable sources, and "fuse" them together in a single sentence, thereby allowing the Editor to convey the same information by using one sentence from an "unreliable" source, thereby making the Article more readable. (shorter, more concise, etc...)
What do other people think?
Tym Whittier (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. Unreliable sources should not be used, and scare quotes will not make Infowars acceptable under any circumstances. --bonadea contributions talk 19:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read WP:RS several times. That would likely be more productive. Reliability for a source has no connection to being correct in a given instance. Instead, it has to do with the procedures the source has to ensure correctness, and its reputation for providing accuracy. John from Idegon (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:AI_Peer_Review - requires revision, chat, probably more revision

Greetings and Salutations Wikonians, Ok fine, in that case, consider a revision of the entire Section AI-complete problem: AI peer review. --Gravitoelectrotensor (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gravitoelectrotensor. I find this post a little confusing; is this a question?
P.S. The demonym for users of Wikipedia is "Wikipedians" :).
Thank you,
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 01:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rebestalic[dubious—discuss]. The title link Draft:AI_Peer_Review is to the article I'm asking for the Wikipedians and perhaps a few Wikonians to comment on whether the comments by the reveiwer have been met to justify resubmitting the article.

,

Gravitoelectrotensor —Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Gravitoelectrotensor, and welcome to Wikipedia! I think this draft has an understandability problem. How about starting it like this:

Artificial intelligence (AI) peer-review is a machine intelligence replication of the human intelligence peer review evaluation: an evaluation of a work by people of similar competence to its authors.

or even like this

A peer review is an evaluation of a work by people of similar competence to its authors. Artificial intelligence (AI) peer-review is a machine intelligence replication of the human intelligence peer review evaluation.

Normally, articles should start with their titles or at least have it in their first sentences. But you could probably prioritise readability over consistency with other articles here. Later sentences in the article could use even more editing, but I don't understand the text well enough to do that myself.
Other issues I've noticed include:
  • A multi-line quotation formatted as multiple one-line quotations. That, and its use of weird characters might be considered accessibility problems. I might look at this at some time, but there are other things I'd rather do first.
  • What does "logical objective refinement" mean? What's logical? The objectives or the refinement? Or is the refinement logical and objective? Considering the topic of this draft, you might find "Time flies like an arrow" interesting to read.
  • Just because something is a name, it doesn't mean it has to be in bold. :: And something that gets mentioned multiple times should probably not be bolded multiple times. I'm not saying bold shouldn't be used, but don't overuse it in paragraphs. Using it to show that the word that is a pronoun might be okay. What you do in the first sentence is probably also okay, but I'm not sure about the latter. – Pretended leer {talk} 22:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Pretended leer {talk}, Thanks for the welcome, I've watched Wikipedia explode with info since the mid-2000's, hope to contribute something myself here. Regarding understandability, here is the first sentence of the existing Wiki Peer review article:

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of the work (peers). It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility.

which (without showing the references here) I modified slightly to

Artificial intelligence (AI) peer-review is a machine intelligence replication of the human intelligence peer review evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work. Research and development towards an AI peer review capability seeks a further refinement of the methods of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility in determining an academic paper's suitability for publication.

Note that I did start the article with the title in the first sentence. Generally, as much of the article as possible is copied from the existing Wikipedia articles it connects together.
Regarding the other issues you noticed:
  • What are the sadly weird characters you are referring to here: "A multi-line quotation formatted as multiple one-line quotations. That, and its use of weird characters might be considered accessibility problems. I might look at this at some time, but there are other things I'd rather do first."
  • OK so I revised this phrase out of the article's second sentence shown above: "What does "logical objective refinement" mean? What's logical? The objectives or the refinement? Or is the refinement logical and objective? Considering the topic of this draft, you might find "Time flies like an arrow" interesting to read." The context of this article is formalized, i.e., machine readable, logic. Peer review is supposed to be objective, i.e., based on logic. An AI peer review machine learning cognitive system would represent a "logical objective refinement," however yeah if that's sounds like an essay then ok fine.
  • OK just one bold.
So I think I'm ready to resubmit the article, after taking out the essay parts without direct references.
If I were to really write an essay ... about the oncoming trainwreck called AI we're told we are completely unprepared for, I would start with the fact most engineers and scientists, including the self-defined Aspen CERN LHC 10,000 physicists, are completely unfamiliar with the formalized mathematical logic underpining all of AI. To the extent, in spite of the widely held belief, the universe operates according to some mathematical group operation ... even the 10,000 particle-multiverse physicists cannot state their "theories" in the mathematical language of a logical conjecture — which formalized conjecture if verified could then join the list of proven theorems. Gravitoelectrotensor (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gravitoelectrotensor: I've fixed it now. You were using <blockquote>text</blocquote> multiple times in a row. And then you were using the character • as a bullet for the bulletted list. What we normally do is having lines starting with asterisks. Unfortunately, I made a mistake when fixing it and now I can't get a diff for the fix. But I can show the code before and after.

Before: 

<blockquote>• No evidence for supersymmetry so far at LHC </blockquote>
<blockquote>• Without supersymmetry, we don't understand how the Higgs boson can exist without violating basic mechanisms of quantum physics</blockquote><blockquote>→ Either the new run of the LHC should discover superpartners, or radical new ideas are needed </blockquote>
<blockquote>[[Maria Spiropulu]] ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB6xIH24P7Q see ''The Future of the Higgs Boson'' - YouTube APS video at 20:32])<ref>{{Citation|last=APS Physics|title=The Future of the Higgs Boson|date=2014-04-14|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB6xIH24P7Q|access-date=2018-09-14}}</ref> </blockquote>

After: 

<blockquote>
* No evidence for supersymmetry so far at LHC
* Without supersymmetry, we don't understand how the Higgs boson can exist without violating basic mechanisms of quantum physics
{{arrow|alt=Therefore}} Either the new run of the LHC should discover superpartners, or radical new ideas are needed
</blockquote>
{{Block indent|1=[[Maria Spiropulu]] ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB6xIH24P7Q see ''The Future of the Higgs Boson'' - YouTube APS video at 20:32])<ref>{{Citation|last=APS Physics|title=The Future of the Higgs Boson|date=2014-04-14|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB6xIH24P7Q|access-date=2018-09-14}}</ref>}}

As you can see, the before code looks like several one-line quotations rather than a single multi-line one. Not very readable. And I used template:block indent for the author of the quote after not finding anything in the Manual of Style saying how that should be written.

Sequences of lines starting with asterisks become bulletted lists. But having <blockquote> at the start of a line stopped it from working, so I added a line break before it. Then I didn't need the other "bullet" characters.

I also used {{arrow|alt=Therefore}} to make an arrow that screen readers could read as a "therefore". The template had had an error which had to be fixed before I could use it here. Because of that, I waited before putting it in the draft. – Pretended leer {talk} 22:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gravitoelectrotensor: Some sentences still look rather long, but I guess I'm not in the intended audience. But at least now I can feel I understand the lead section.
And one thing you can try to do when writing is to read the text aloud after writing it. It helps notice hard to read passages. – Pretended leer {talk} 22:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pretended leer: I just copied the bullet format of the YouTube Video - but the resubmitted article just got rejected again because of "Copyrighted material" which I took to be the YouTube quote and link. So those direct quotes are not so direct anymore and the YouTube link is gone in the once again resubmitted article. Yes, some sentences are long. Reason for that is the article connects together some rather complex fields of research regarding the interconnected problems involved in an AI peer review cognitive system solution.--Gravitoelectrotensor (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content Requirement & Less

Could I please be informed of the content requirement for a new article on a Youtuber? --QuantumPen (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atbreuer11: It's the same as for any person: That the person in question has been covered in a significant way by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals have more information about criteria that can indicate whether a person in a specific field is notable enough for inclusion. Regards SoWhy 11:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --QuantumPen (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You also need to learn proper formatting for references. David notMD (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix the reference formatting. --QuantumPen (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: Are the references now in compliance? --QuantumPen (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please inform me if my page still does not contain enough independent sources. I have observed so far a level of hostility in some of Wikipedia's members that concerns me. What is my conflict of interest with your organization? I know there are many other pages to be reviewed, but I have a feeling mine has a set of eyes on it. --QuantumPen (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the decisions of other consciousnesses, and no more no less, I sit here in a state I never could think imaginable. Yet still, I retype my username already knowing of my ban, so that if it is lifted some will not have to spend energy to identify me. I need to say hello. --QuantumPen (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey QuantumPen. It's not clear exactly how the nature of consciousness is terribly relevant to your question. But as to your question, a fan made Wiki, his own LinkedIn profile, Ancestry.com, Famous Birthdays... none of these are reliable for the purposes of writing biographies of living persons. Those sources that do seem fairly good, such as the Forbes source and the European Journal of Cultural Studies source, are fairly brief in their coverage, and it's not clear that they provide sufficient in-depth information for us to write a well balanced encyclopedia article.
It's also not clear to what you are referring to as your ban, but if you have had a previous account on Wikipedia, you should disclose that account, usually with a declaration on your user page. GMGtalk 14:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me talk to SalimJah (talk · contribs). The Kite Runner. "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" --QuantumPen (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing format improved, but still not ideal. More to the point, what you are using as references are not suitable to establish notability as Wikipedia defines it. There is no intended hostility. Asking a question at TeaHouse does bring eyes to your now FIVE TIME REJECTED draft. The volunteer editors here may not be maximally tactful, but their replies have been intended to be useful - your references are not good enough. Please be aware that "conflict of interest" has a specific meaning for Wikipedia - in means that an editor has a personal relationship with the topic, often a family member or friend. You are not being reprimanded for having an undeclared COI. None of the editors here have a grudge against Draft:Lewis Hilsenteger or you. You are not banned or blocked. But please stop resubmitting the draft. Because it is getting really, really annoying. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am annoying. And smart and other things. I will do better. --QuantumPen (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'm not seeing where anyone has been calling you these types of names, either here, on the draft, or on your talk page. But given that an article on this topic has apparently been deleted four times now, the best advice here may be that you should consider writing about a different topic for the time being, and allow some time for better sources to become available for Hilsenteger. GMGtalk 16:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not write that QuantumPen annoying, I wrote that repeatedly submitting the draft (with only cosmetic changes, none of which addressed the fatal weaknesses of the citations), was annoying. Draft:Lewis Hilsenteger now shows that it was submitted SIX times on 13 November, submission declined each time. David notMD (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft deleted, title salted in mainspace. Only thing left to do is figure out what's in the top dresser drawer. John from Idegon (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between vandalism and disruptive edits?

Hey, I have been reverting vandalism by monitoring recent changes but while leaving talk page warnings I am not sure whether it is vandalism or disruptive? So please tell me.Denim11 (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Denim11: Vandalism is a subtype of disruptive editing–all vandalism is disruptive, not all disruptive editing is vandalism. Vandalism is not only disruptive, but malicious, intentional disruption. Merely-disruptive editing can be accidental, or the result of disagreements between editors without intent to sabotage Wikipedia itself (for instance, edit-warring is disruptive, but if both editors truly believe that they are improving wikipedia, it is not vandalism). As such, vandalism is a much more serious accusation than disruptive editing. As far as warnings are concerned, WP:WARNVAND describes several levels of default warning messages you can put on someone's talk page; the first two give the target the benefit of the doubt, while level-3 and beyond explicitly accuse them of vandalism and should be used only for repeat-offenders that have ignored previous warnings. For more information, see WP:VANDALISM and WP:DE. signed, Rosguill talk 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Denim11: It's quite possible for an editor to be so keen to deal with what they see as vandalism that their own actions in reverting or warning other editors can, itself, become disruptive. I think you know what I'm alluding to. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes:Thanks for the clafification. I completely agree. Regards, Kmw2700 (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HELP

I am trying to help my wife make her wiki page for her. I have no idea where to start I was trying to do a template but no success. Can anyone help me make the page !!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCfitness (talk • contribs) 23:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CCfitness: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your account has no edits recorded in its history(aside from your post above) so if you have written about your wife somewhere please link to it. That said, any article would be an article about your wife, not for your wife. You and your wife would have no special rights over it to control what appears there. In fact, there are many good reasons why an article might not be desirable for your wife; please read this page for more information on that point.
Your wife will need to meet the appropriate notability criteria(in general, at WP:BIO, though there are fields with more specific criteria) in order to merit an article. Not every person merits an article here, even within the same field. You will need independent reliable sources, sources not associated with your wife, to support its content. You will also need to review conflict of interest; it is strongly advised that you not directly edit in the area of your conflict of interest, instead making edit requests and submitting drafts of new articles to Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to have to pay someone to do this. I do not have enough help or knowledge in the matter MEH — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCfitness (talk • contribs) 18:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CCfitness. I urge you not to do this. It is permitted, but nearly always a bad idea. The person you pay will be required to make a declaration that they are doing paid editing, and can expect their work to be particularly carefully reviewed. Neither they nor you will have any control over the content of the article: if they tell you that they can make the article how you want it, they are either unfamiliar with Wikipedia, or lying to you. I'm not sure why you think Wikipedia has to have an article about your wife, but I can tell you that Wikipedia's purpose (to have an encyclopaedia of neutrally-written articles about notable subjects, based entirely on reliably published material) trumps your purposes, whatever they are. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a picture to the top of an existing article

I would like to add a picture of the Capital Plaza which is in Abu Dhabi in its corresponding information box at the top of the article. How do I go about doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorMayhem (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MajorMayhem: - a few questions first - do you have a specific photo you are looking to add or are you asking where to find such a photo (and then add it)? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Nosebagbear: I found a photo on Google that I think should work so I have a specific photo that I am looking to add. MajorMayhem (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MajorMayhem: - so your biggest initial issue here is copyright. It's not your picture, so that means that unless the creator has declare it in the public domain (or given a wiki-friendly license) you would need to demonstrate it was Fair Use. This could be difficult as it is a picture of a still-existing location, which means that because it is possible to get a freer picture in the future (you can still take photos of it etc) it usually isn't covered.
If you let me know the photo I can give it a look or ask a better qualified soul to consider it Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

posting English wiki page as new German wiki page

I've been asked to revise an existing English-language wiki page, and then have it posted as a new German page. I am unable to log into de.wiki with my account, and wondering what is the best way to accomplish this?Tlvernon (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tlvernon: You may need to create a unified account. See WP:SUL and [3]. Once this is done, your account will be usable at all the Wikipedias. RudolfRed (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tlvernon: All accounts are already unified today. Special:CentralAuth/Tlvernon shows yours. What happens when you try to log in to the German Wikipedia at de:Special:UserLogin? Either you should already be logged in when you click the link, or your username and password should work. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. Second part of the question, can I take the existing english wiki page I'm revising, translate it into German and post it, or does it need to be reviewed and approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlvernon (talk • contribs) 19:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tlvernon: You will need to ask de-wp about it, since I am not sure about the procedures for new articles there. An existing article on en-wp is no guarantee that its translation would fly on de-wp (nor the other way around) because the notability policies are different.
When translating, please make sure not to use unchecked machine translations, and to attribute the original page to satisfy the copyright. On en-wp, there are templates such as {{translated page}}; there is probably something similar in de-wp. (Again, ask at the German help desk equivalent). TigraanClick here to contact me 10:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New User Here!

Hi! I would like to move an article rom my sandbox... I am already over 10 edits in, but I think I am just about 4 days in... Or maybe 3... But I wanna publish my article! Lol! Scarlet Quinn (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scarlet Quinn: welcome to Wikipedia, and to the Teahouse! To write a new article in Wikipedia is the hardest thing to do for a new editor, and unfortunately, User:Scarlet Quinn/sandbox does not actually meet the requirements that Wikipedia has on notability for actors. The person you write about must meet these requirements and/or these requirements in order for a Wikipedia article to exist, and if you were to move your sandbox into the main encyclopedia, I'm afraid it would almost certainly be deleted. Another editor has already left a message on your sandbox draft; please read that, and see if you can find several reliable and independent sources that talk about this person in some depth. Without such sources, there can't (yet) be an article. Another thing: if you have a personal or professional connection with the people you are writing about, you will need to read and comply with this and (for a professional relationship) this. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Against advice, you moved your draft to mainspace, and when an editor moved it back to draft so attempts could be made to improve it, you returned it to mainspace. As it exists, the article has fatal flaws and is likely headed for deletion. You have also ignored the request to identify whether you have a personal or professional (paid) relationship to the actor. David notMD (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag removal

Hi, I recently wrote an article on musician Noah K. I had originally written about one of his bands, Dollshot, that was challenged and ultimately deleted based on notability. I rewrote it recently (6 months later) since there were new sources that I believe overcome the notability issue, but it was ultimately deleted again. So, I wrote an article about the bandleader, K, who clearly passes WP:MUS and included a section on Dollshot within the article. As soon as it was posted RoySmith tagged it with a COI. At RoySmith's request, I have responded on my userpage User talk:Artaria195 and clarified my relationship to Noah, and to my understanding there is not a COI. I have done my best to write a neutral, unbiased, non-promotional article and carefully researched and cited sources for every statement contained within. Does anyone know how the COI tag can be removed? Thank you. Artaria195 (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Removed. Not sure why Roy placed it there since Template:COI editnotice says it should be placed on talk pages, not articles. Regards SoWhy 14:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the incorrect placement. I've put it on the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SoWhy. Artaria195 (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Artaria195:, just FYI -- a conflict of interest declaration, like this one, should be posted on your user page and not on your user talk page. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks Aoi (青い). Just added it here: User:Artaria195. Thanks for letting me know, Artaria195 (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What type of licence/copyright for using protein structures from Protein Data Bank (open access)

Example image: 1shg SH3 domain

Hello! I'd like to upload a protein structure that is published. All protein structures that are published are available in Protein Data Bank: http://www.rcsb.org/structure/4CAH Normally researchers take a structure from PDB (it's free and open access) and then they change the colors, orientation, etc of the structure depending on what they want to represent. In these modification the structure itself is intact but the orientation or color may change. The identifier of that protein structure is that four letters, in this case 4CAH. Then the original work and the identifier are cited. My question is when I do this, should I choose "this is my own work" or someone else's? Both the publication itself with the authors and the PDB URL will be cited of course. Here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SH3_domain As far as I understand since I generate the final image and the original source is open access, I can cite the protein identifier, authors, and PDB link, and choose my own work. Is that correct? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyVeg14 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DannyVeg14, and welcome to the Teahouse. You ask a very interesting and sensible question. I am assuming you're wanting to upload the protein image to Wikimedia Commons, rather than just to English Wikipedia, as that would seem most logical? Because Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are two separate entities, we tend to be extremely reluctant to advise on how they apply their own rules (there's are applied a lot more strictly than our own, too). Now, you indicate that you would be modifying a freely available image and validly licenced image, but only to the extent of changing colour or orientation. By reading this guidance page at Commons it's clear (to me, at least - bracketed comment added later) that you would not be adding sufficient new content as to be able to regard it is a 'derivative work', created by you. So, I think you should upload it as "not my own work", and do what you propose by clearly linking to the original usage policy, which took some finding (see here) and, of course, crediting the original image creators. You would simply be the uploader, and the authors would be credited in the Commons entry as the creators. You would be able to add detailed description to explain how you have subsequently modified the image. One thing you could do is to upload the unmodified image first, and then upload a new version with your own colour and orientation changes (each Commons image page has a link on the lower left side to "Upload a new version of this file" . That way, the page on Commons would contain two versions of the same image, giving users a choice over which one they wanted to utilise. Does this make sense? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need images uploaded to Commons be free as in free beer, not just open access. So the questions are whether the original work is under a license compatible with Commons', and if not whether there is a real claim of copyright.
I am not sure about the former. http://www.rcsb.org/pages/policies says Data files contained in the PDB archive (ftp://ftp.wwpdb.org) are free of all copyright restrictions and made fully and freely available for both non-commercial and commercial use. (...) which is clearly CC-BY-SA compatible, but are you taking all your original material from that URL?
As to the latter, I am not sure either. Changing colors and rotating a 3D image would fairly clearly constitute a derivative work of the original, but does the original have a claim of copyright? Molecular structures are probably not subject to copyright (maybe they could be subject to patenting, which is a different kind of intellectual property that we do not really care about here). The software rendering the structure into a 3D image might or might not create copyright in the resulting image: considerations of threshold of originality applies, especially if there are strict conventions to represent different kinds of molecular relations (so that different researchers representing the same molecule would end up with very similar drawings). (I have zero familiarity with the topic of protein structure representations.)
@Nick Moyes: While it is true you can download multiple versions of the same file from Commons, only the latest one is available for inclusion in en-wp articles and the like. Furthermore, one should not upload a copyvio to Commons even with the intention of immediately "updating" it by a non-copyvio. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigraan: I don't believe I advocated uploading a copyvio image - that certainly wasn't my intention (but I see you are probably right about the complexity of trying to rotate, modify and upload a newer version, especially so if it requires accessing some other non-free dataset to create it). Whether that makes it a derivative work, or just a minor modification of the original is probably beyond my competence and best left to others with relevant expertise. So your advice is certainly very sensible, but I see no issues around uploading an exact copy of the original image under its CC-BY-SA licence, and I appreciate advising that only the latest version uploaded to Commons can be inserted into an article. I probably should have realised that. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: There seems to be a misunderstanding about the term "derivative work". When you make a derivative work, it creates a copyright for you because of the modifications; but it does not remove the original copyright, so you would not be able to release under a CC license if the underlying work is copyrighted. For instance, if you write a Harry Potter fanfiction, JK Rowling cannot publish it as her own (unless you licensed it to allow such use), but you cannot publish it yourself without JK Rowling's (and her publishers', probably) approval. So the only question when it comes to Commons upload is whether the underlying work is copyrighted (since the uploader agrees to release copyright for whatever modifications were made, copyright-creating or not). TigraanClick here to contact me 17:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add, for those of you who are not familiar with protein structures and PDB, that downloading PDB files and using Pymol software to rotate and change the colors is a very common thing in protein research and almost all protein structures in Wiki, including the example I attached are structures originated from PDB but the orientation and colors are different. That's because people rotate the molecule to show different parts of it depending on the subject they are studying and there are different coloring systems to emphasize on different things. So almost no one ever uses the PDB structures as is. Thank you all! DannyVeg14 (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)DanVeg14[reply]

Changing the title of an article

I have created an article named William Farrar (settler), the name needs to be Councillor William Farrar. Primarily as it will be used as an external link, and William Farrar (settler) is not handy for an external link. At present the Article Cicely Jordan Farrar mentions him as her third husband, it would sound strange to say that she married William Farrar (settler) ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvanhholmes (talk • contribs) 10:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alvanhholmes. William Farrar (settler) seems to follow Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation and we don't make titles for linking purposes. A link from another Wikipedia page is called a wikilink or internal link. You can write [[William Farrar (settler)|William Farrar]] to produce William Farrar which links to the right article but only displays "William Farrar". This is called a piped link. See more at Help:Link#Wikilinks (internal links). PrimeHunter (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Alvanhholmes and welcome back to the Teahouse. PrimeHunter has just said what I was going to say, but his reply was far more succinct than my verbose one. So I've just scrubbed most of it, but will leave in just two points. Firstly, that it is possible to create a redirect which would take someone from a search starting 'Councillor.....', but I'd only ever do that if I perceived a genuine need for that search, eg Dr ruth, Senator John F. Kennedy etc. I think people's common sense tells them to search by name first, not honorific. Secondly, why have you called Cicely, Cecily in a section heading on Farrar's page? This looks like a typo, and I'd just point out that we don't use wikilinks in section headings. If I remember your name correctly from previous postings, I believe you may be one of our newer and more mature 'silver surfers' here? If so, you do seem to be managing very well with what can be quite a daunting suite of detailed guidelines. So, keep up the really great work, and don't let us pedantic types grind you down! We do intend all our feedback to be helpful - honest. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken everyone's advice and took the historical info from Draft: Beggars Bush (Colony of Virginia) and placed it in Jordan Point,Virginia

What is left is something that I think is needed for disambiguation and that is the Origin of the Name.

I would like to Rename the article from Beggars Bush (Colony of Virginia) to Beggars Bush (origin of the name), but I do not have the editing rights, and then since it is so simple, move it to review for publishing. Can anyone help? Alvanhholmes (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I move an article out of draft:.... to being reviewed for publication?

I have two articles in Draft: I assume that they will sit there forever until someone approves them for publication review, am I correct?

One of them I submitted for publishing, but it winds up in Draft and I was not notified.

What do I have to do to get the following articles into being reviewed for publication?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Farrar's_Island

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:C Alvanhholmes (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alvanhholmes - First, you created the Beggars Bush article, so it should appear on your watchlist, if you have that option selection in your preferences. If not, click the star on that page and it will be added to your watchlist, and will appear there anytime anyone makes changes to it. You've already left a message on Ariconte regarding the changes they made to the article, so I'll let them address that. The draft on Farrar's Island is queued up in the Articles for Creation project, and is awaiting review. Just took a look at it, and while it still needs a little bit of work, I've moved it to the mainspace. And as corrections are made, take a look at what was done, so you can understand where mistakes were made. Keep on editing. Onel5969 TT me 11:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Nick Moyes. You have no idea how much I appreciate all of the help I have been given.

The reason that I spelled Cecily and not Cicely is because Cecily is the proper current spelling of the name. I have never seen the version Cicely before and would like to change her article to Cecily Bailey Jordan Farrar her maiden name is unknown, her 1st husband was a Mr Bayley (apparently moderns spell it Bailey) her second husband was Jordan and her third and last was William Farrar.

Williams mother was Cecily Kelke, but it was spelled Sissley in the Allegations of Marriage by the Bishop of London, 1574. And I've seen another variation of Sicily. I've never seen Cicely though, for anyone historical or current.

As a side note. In the era in which spellings of even common words were not standardized, the spelling of a name or a word was left to the discretion of the scribe, and he would spell it phonetically as a consequence the Name Farrar (has current varations of Farrer or Farrow) can be found in wills, marriage bans, deeds, baptisms, Visitations by the King's Herald as Ferrar, Farror, Farrer, Farrow, Fairer,Fareher, Farher, Fawrher but the origin of the name is Ferror, and a ferror was a man who forged iron or steel, as opposed to a smith who reworked iron or steel.

It would be terribly confusing to spell the names as they were spelled then, for convenience and linkage sake they are all spelled using, best we can, modern spelling. Although in some current situations persons surnamed Farrer. Farra, Pharo, Farrow share the same ancestry as persons surnamed Farrar, but not all Farrars and Farrows share that ancestry as some belong to different haplogroups as expected since the name is occupational and the occupation (thus surname) appears where ironore deposits are found in England.

I was considering writing an article on John Farrar the Elder, Essquire gent of London as he was the father of William Farrar (the settler), and was a shareholder in the Virginia Company, an officer of the company, and a member of the first Charter of the Virginia Company, a Join Stock Company. But after the current exercise I am exhausted

It seems not to be known or mentioned but the 1607 adventure was a commercial Venture, operating under the Charter of the King, it wasn't until the Third Charter that Virginia became a colony. The enterprise almost came to a halt because Virginia was not producing any gold or silver or any product of value, so the King repealed the charter, but the officers of the company, Nicholas and John Farrar prevailed upon him and he issued a 2nd Charter, this about the timethat John Rolfe, who married Pochontas, was able to use his seeds of Turkish tobacco to make a commercially value crop. Which incidentally King James, considered abhorable and sought to ban, save that the officers of the company used it's commercial viability as a reason to save the venture.

I don't have enough time left in my life to fully research and reference all of this information. But it is worthwhile, as it sets the record straight about some of the mythologized history of the U.S.A. and don't even get me started on the real causes of the revolution, or the real reason a bunch of rigid, superstitious, fundamentalistic Calvinistic puritans migrated to America and landed at a place they called Plymouth Rock.

All of that to explain why Cicely should be spelled Cecily and why her name should be Cecily Bailey Jordan Farrar Alvanhholmes (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvanhholmes: Firstly, may I just pay tribute to your efforts, and say that I think the story of your contributions (and the support you have garnered from users like Pretended_leer, Ariconte, Shashi Sushila Murray, amongst others here) is a moving and wonderful demonstration of the very best that Wikipedia's ability to bring people together to produce lasting encyclopaedic content has to offer?
Taking you other points in turn:
  • I see your Draft:Farrar's_Island has now been moved into the main part of Wikipedia (i.e. 'mainspace') - and that's great
  • I've added a few improvements of my own, but it still needs more inline citations, and a few elements have been repeated, so excising these could be helpful
  • Regarding Draft:Beggars Bush (Colony of Virginia), I am rather sceptical for it. I say that because, having read it, I can't see much distinction from the existing article on Jordan Point, Virginia. Why don't you simply improve the historical section within that article, and create one of those WP:REDIRECTs to it that we mentioned earlier? I think that would be more sensible. What do you think?
  • I understand about the vagaries of early names. I'd be happy to move the article on Cicely Jordan Farrar to Cecily Bailey Jordan Farrar for you. But does including 'Bailey' in the name help, or hinder users from finding her page when searching for her? I would welcome your thoughts.
  • I'm sure many of us think our work here will never be done, but then most of us don't live under the shadow off illness as you have done. Once you're rested, let us know if we can help you further, especially if you feel up to working on John Farrar the Elder. I'm sure all of us here at the Teahouse would like to wish you well. With kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Nick. I might give John Farrar the elder a go after I finish up this task. It's nice to keep the mind busy. I spent hours trying to figure out how to fold Beggars Bush into Jordan Point, VA and am having a deuce of a time, although letting the reader of Jordan Point know that it had previously been called Beggars Bush would be nice, but that could be done by inserting a link to Beggars Bush (if it is published) in Jordan Point, Virginia.

Have you looked at Beggars Bush since I've done some work on it? There is information in there that is inappropriate for Jordan Point. Jordan Point is an article about a specific place, and much of it is current date.

Beggars Bush has relevant information, for the curious and inquiring mind, as to the origin of the very phrase Beggars Bush. Information that doesn't belong in and will detract from Jordan Point, Virginia.

As I mentioned elsewheres when I first started working on Family History and saw the word Beggars Bush, my mind translated it as Burning Bush and I would have sworn on a stack of pound notes, that it was Burning Bush. It took another 40+ uears for me to learn different.

There isn't much to say about Beggars Bush, but I did include information as to why it is notable and should be published. It's existence was only a microcosm in time, from the time that the Jamestown settlers finally moved out of the stockade and the Massacre of 1622, but it did serve a purpose and prevented even more people from getting killed (especially my ancestor, William Farrar (settler) without whom this story and maybe even America as we know it) would not have been written. Alvanhholmes (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]



Is this vandalism? What's the least time-consuming way to deal with it?

I stumbled across this today: an IP-user took what looked like a well-sourced article and removed most of its content with comment "Wrong information, ... added bands real history,..." in March 2018. It was caught by a bot, but somehow overcome by the user in question. There was one attempt in August to bring back what seems to be the correct discography, reverted from the same IP. No discussion on the article's talk page, nothing. I'm not familiar with the band, but this seems like a weird case of vandalism?

I started reading through WP:VANDAL, but as usual with WP policies, it's very long-winded. I tried to find a place where volunteers who specialize on dealing with it hang out - only to find more and more long pages with no clear way to report such a thing. I tried to be bold and revert the edit, but the WP software didn't seem to let me. I was on the brink of walking away from it, but this place lured me in with the "friendly place" tagline ;) so I thought I'd give it a try. Any way to deal with it without entering into an edit war, issuing five levels of warnings to the user, finding the correct committee, participating in a discussion and so on?

Thanks --asqueella (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Asqueella: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Vandalism can be reported to WP:AIV. You do not have to issue five levels of warnings to a user before reporting them, if you see no point in doing so(though the last warning should be the strongest). Users are not entitled to five warnings. I'm not sure why you would have been unable to revert the edit as the page is not protected. What message came up when you attempted to do so? 331dot (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Hey, thanks for calming me down:) I was a bit overexposed to internals of wikipedia recently. Thing is, WP:AIV tries to dissuade me from posting there - I'm not sure this is a case of "obvious vandalism" (do you?), and the least controversial way to handle it would probably be to Assume good faith, enter a discussion with the user, find a way of reverting the page, check the sources on the older version of the page, then monitor reverts, add a warning, eventually report it to WP:AIV - not something I'm currently able to do. While I understand that I can't expect other Wikipedians to do it for me, I hoped there was a way to contact those willing to - is there?
(The message was "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits", linking to another long article which starts by threatening blocks for reverting. See, I just need to take a break -- sorry for venting in here.) --asqueella (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Asqueella:"Conflicting intermediate edits" only means that someone else edited and saved their edit while you were in the process of doing so. When that message comes up, two edit windows appear; the edit you attempted to make is in the lower one, and the one that the other user made is in the upper. You can usually copy your edit from the lower into the upper window and then click "publish". If you are unsure as to if something is vandalism, you could try asking at the Help Desk or maybe even WP:ANI if you would like the opinion of an administrator(though that requires notifying whomever you think is vandalizing). 331dot (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Thanks again for your help! You encouraged me to go through with the reversion (two edit windows did not appear for me, but I found another way). Also tried to contact the user in question. I'll keep in mind your HD/ANI suggestions for later on. Have a nice day! --asqueella (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Downloading PDF files

Could the download link be in a header position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.53.218 (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are asking. Could you expand your question a bit? If you are asking whether you could place an external link to a PDF inside a header in an article, the answer is No. MOS:HEAD says that secton headings should not contain links or citations. --ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created the autobiography of myself it was deleted; I am well known already

Hello

I hope you are well.

I am aged about 31 years now.. I am an IT professional with Master of science from University of Greenwich London United Kingdom. . Worked in both London United Kingdom and India. . Even in London Olympics & Paralysis 2012.. I have lot of achievements and I am well known already... sources: google sources , I have personal website.. and I have recently published book.. For which Link is available from the international publisher.. Then what's else do you need for me to make my autobiography up and running ? Someone from admin deleted it already.. why ?

Kind Regards - Dileep Keshava Narayana

See WP:AUTO. On Wikipedia you are not allowed to create autobiographies of yourself, or someone you know. That is a conflict of interest. If someone else does create a page about you or someone you know, it must be notable and with reliable sources. If not, even if it is not an autobiography, it will also be deleted. Regards, --164.52.225.2 (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not exactly true. It is strongly discouraged, though not totally forbidden, for someone to write an autobiography. It is in theory possible for someone to be able to do so, but the vast majority of people cannot, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. In this case, though, it seems that the person just wants to post their resume or a list of accomplishments, which is definitely not allowed. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personal achievements, although worthy, do not reach Wikipedia's definition of notability. To even begin to be considered, more than one person has to have written about you. Those would be valid citations. What you write about yourself has no weight. David notMD (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

account

Hi, I was wondering if I could create an account on this school IP address, even though my friend created one. If I created an account, would it be considered as a sockpuppet? Thank you. --164.52.225.2 (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding creating an account: Sure, go ahead.
Regarding being seen as a sockpuppet: Yes and no. If both you and that other user stay out of trouble, you should be fine (it might help if you put a note on your user page explaining you registered the account at your school). Logging in to your account at home will also help associate your account with that IP address. If, however, both of you behave disruptively and you only ever edit at school, then we could only be able to conclude that the accounts are sockpuppets, even if it's different people operating those separate accounts.
Remember to log out of your account whenever you're not using it. Someone else using your account is a reason to block it, we don't excuse it under any circumstances. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian.thomson: I changed your link to WP:MEAT above to WP:SHARE, as presumably that is where you wanted it to go. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigraan: Thanks but no, I was referring to when multiple people use separate accounts but are otherwise indistinguishable as sockpuppets. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you are aware that someone else is using your IP address, you can declare this on your user page after registering. You are unlikely to be considered a sockpuppet in such cases unless other reasons exist to assume that you are indeed using multiple accounts. See WP:SHARE for more details. Regards SoWhy 17:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this band Notable?

Hi Everyone,

I have requested an article to be created about a band and I am wondering if you all think it is worthy of an article.

I believe they are worthy but am looking for an attestation so I can have some validity to me request.

The band is The Mixus Brothers ...

Can someone with experience in the Wiki world give me an honest answer?

Thanks! Jacob slimpikenzIII — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimpikenzIII (talk • contribs) 16:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimpikenzIII: Can you find at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are neither affiliated with nor dependent upon the band or its associates, but feature the band as its primary subject?
Adverts or listings for their concerts would not count (no matter where published), press releases from their record company would not count, interviews on someone's blog would (almost certainly) not count.
Articles in professionally-published music magazines (e.g. Pitchfork) about the band might count, articles in newspapers might count, documentaries about them might count -- as long as the band is the primary subject and not just mentioned in passing or sharing the spotlight with anything else.
If you can find at least three such sources, they're probably notable. 16:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I truly appreciate you getting back to me... The band has multiple articles in the local paper like this https://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/the-mixus-brothers-make-pretty-music-even-if-theyre-not-family/Content?oid=1719534 and this https://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/new-releases/Content?oid=1603205 this was on local TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56plVjYXqv4&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3X8d-7xWesRvY2VEMtys73A2GjTwpg_7yGWHaD6VUg5kWqYuTOXxPEdLA There is also this out of the UK https://www.americanrootsuk.com/the-mixus-brothers---to-hang-me-high.html

So there are plenty of other mentions but those are the ones I would consider outstanding...what would you think?

Thank you again!! Jacob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.137.37 (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour! Hi!

Hello how do you do. Can you have copy someone else's fuselage onto yours? Va te faire foutre dedans (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Va te faire foutre dedans: Welcome to the English Wikipedia. I can't tell what you are trying to ask. If your primary language is French, you might want to ask at the French Wikipedia instead: [4]. RudolfRed (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I speak French and English. Va te faire foutre dedans (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So Sorry I was in a rush, I meant Can you put someone else's userpage on your userpage. Are you allowed to copy it word by word or do this {{}} and put there name in the middle. Va te faire foutre dedans (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Va te faire foutre dedans. You're certainly allowed to copy elements of the design of other's user pages. However, if you if you copy someone else's page in a way that makes it look like you are attempting to impersonate them, that will likely be seen as disruptive and confusing to other editors. GMGtalk 20:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information User:GMG Va te faire foutre dedans (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting references for Individuals of Note

Does a biography qualify as a non-related reference for an individual of note?

The following article Draft:Adédokun_Abiọdun_James_Haastrup has been declined twice: the first time because the person was not deemed to be of sufficient note despite reference to the biography by Familusi which is available in the British Library. The second time because the additional references from magazines and other books were deemed to be passing references.

Your advice is much appreciated.'DesoHaa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google finds only unreliable sources for me, but perhaps you can find more WP:Reliable sources in addition to the Nigerian biography by M. M. Familusi. Dbfirs 20:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

uploading an image that I found on Wikimedia Commons

Hi! I have a question! I found an image on wikimedia commons but when I try to upload it to my page it is too big! I want to upload that image but I actually don't know how to change the dimension of this picture. Can you help me? Thank you so much in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colussisi (talk • contribs) 22:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Colussisi. Assuming you mean using a picture in an article (which is not what I understand by 'uploading'), you should find everything you need in Help:Pictures. --ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You want the "thumb" parameter, like so: [[File:Posey County Courthouse composite.jpg|thumb|Description of image]] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help us urgently

Hello. It is interesting for me, why the "Justlettersandnumbersyou" deleted the page "Eldaniz Elman oglu Mammadov"? He is one of the young and famous Library and information science specialist and scientist in Azerbaijan, and well known in Iran, Turkey and Russian with his scientific articles. Whith this page we are going to show scientific articles of Eldaniz Mammadov's, of course with the consent of doctor E.Mammadov's. We have listed a list of his scientific works. This page is also available in Azerbaijani. https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eld%C9%99niz_M%C9%99mm%C9%99dov_(Elman_o%C4%9Flu) Now we are preparing this page in English. So please help me recover this page and do not delete this page. Eldaniz Mammadov's students need this page. How can help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulnar Ibrahimova-Mammadova (talk • contribs) 00:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "us", please? Guy (Help!) 00:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the note on your talk page. Apparently the article was deleted due to copyright infringement. I suggest you start at WP:YFA to learn how to create an article here on the English Wikipedia. There is a wizard there you can use to create a draft article for review. RudolfRed (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are group of students who want to founded this wiki page.
We know what copyrights are. But apparently in foreign countries this right means something else. What kind of rights speech if the teacher himself gave us permission to create her page?

And all that we wrote was taken from the site of our university, which we ourselves created. We - are group of students who want to founded this wiki page. And we did it in the Azerbaijani language. No one has not deleted our page! https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eld%C9%99niz_M%C9%99mm%C9%99dov_(Elman_o%C4%9Flu) And why in the English version is it blocked? And you are talking about some kind of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulnar Ibrahimova-Mammadova (talk • contribs) 01:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gulnar Ibrahimova-Mammadova: Because you are one of his students, you have a conflict of interest.
Paraphrase sources, do not copy directly from them.
Wikipedia is not a website for hosting resumes/CVs.
Ian.thomson (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gulnar Ibrahimova-Mammadova. I just want to add a couple to things to what has been posted above.
  1. Wikipedia articles are only intended to be written about subjects deemed to be Wikipedia notable. There are various Wikipedia notability guidelines, but the was relevant ones in this particular case are probably Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (academics); so, in order for an article to be written about your professor and not be deleted, it's going to have to be demonstrated that he satisfies either one of those two guidelines.
  2. Wikipedia article are written about a subject, not for a subject. Article content is only intended to relfect coverage the subject has received in reliable sources (preferably sources which are secondary and independent of the subject). In other words, Wikipedia is not really interested in your professor might have to say about herself or what you as his students have to say about her, but rather is only interested in what reliable sources unconnected to your professor have to say about her.
  3. Wikipedia doesn't need your professor's permission for someone to write about her and any article about her will not be accepted just because she or someone connected to her wants one to be written. If she's someone deemed to be Wikipedia notable for an article to be written, then someone somewhere in the world may someday decide to write an article about her; however, the article will only be accepted as long as it's in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Moreover, the subjects of articles have no final editorial over any article which is written about them as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content, and an article cannot be used to either promote the subject or their activities, etc. Article content both positive and negative can be included if it complies with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and any disagreements over content are to be resolved per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution by establishing a consensus on the article's talk page.
If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing for some of the reasons why creating a Wikipedia article about someone you know can turn out to be a bad idea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One further thing: Wikipeda usernames are for the sole use of a single individual. Everyone in your group may work on the article, but each one of you must have your own username. John from Idegon (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hello

can you answer me so I can ask you some questions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E5CE:5B00:BD00:46BA:31B1:F9A0 (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'd get more answers if you actually asked your questions. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to DJ Slick stuart and DJ Roja

Hello,

Been working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DJ_Slick_Stuart_and_DJ_Roja since June 2018, since then, I have made all necessary changes but still get the same feedback "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia......" I sent to this forum by invite to work with an experienced editor to add more to the article. I really need you help, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techcherio (talk • contribs) 08:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up a bit more. Good luck with the Submission. David notMD (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New page approval

Hello, I've just submitted my first article and wondered how and when I will hear if it requires editing or if it is approved? Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicola Forshaw (talk • contribs) 11:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nicola Forshaw and welcome to the Teahouse.
I made a couple of small corrections, but did not have time to seriously consider the case for notability. You displayed some inventive notions, but seem to have misunderstood infoboxes, external links, and categories. IMDB cannot be used as a reference. So, for my part, I say "good effort", but it still needs a proper review and some additional editing to make the case for notability clearer. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 13:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resizing an image

Hi Teahouse folks, it's good to see you again. I'm here to more or less ask for help - I added an image to a table of images (here's the diff) and somehow I seem to have changed the sizes of all the images in the table, which was not my intent. Does anyone know how to add the image without messing up the sizes and making the table fill the entire page width? Thanks! Airbornemihir (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First thing to do is to make sure both Chrome and Firefox are fully up to date. Then start comparing things. - X201 (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- My investigation was done on the latest version of each (both are set to auto-update on my system). Neiltonks (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took these screenshots on 64-bit Firefox 63.0. Airbornemihir (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone, with experience dealing with browser differences, able to help? Airbornemihir (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to request IP exempt?

I usually edit at school with this account. However because i edit under a hard blocked school IP, i can't do stuff such as create accounts at school. How do i request IP exempt to have full access to stuff as i would when i'm not editing at school? PorkchopGMX (Sign your posts with four tildes!) 16:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing under the range 152.26.0.0/16, which includes the IP address i usually edit under (152.26.201.24). PorkchopGMX (Sign your posts with four tildes!) 16:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The procedure is outlined at Wikipedia:IP block exemption which states; "Request IP address block exemption through the Unblock Ticket Request System." EniaNey 17:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to find Twinkle in mobile view?

I use twinkle regularly to revert vandalism but I cannot find twinkle in mobile view so I have to go to desktop to find it but as I edit by a mobile phone it would be easier in mobile view so can you tell me how can I find it?Denim11 (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "mobile view" is also called the "reader view". It lacks JavaScript, which is what drives Twinkle. In short, you did exactly what you needed to do. If you're using an an Android device, you can go to a frequently used page such as your watchlist, switch to desktop view, and then set a link to it on your desk top. Use that to access Wikipeda, and any page you jump to from there will open in desktop view. John from Idegon (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I redirect an existing link to a new article that is more accurate for the search?

For a long series of articles about geology of countries, states and provinces, I'm wondering how to redirect to a more accurate link? For instance, the Geology of California entry in the Geology of the United States table and the Geology of Mexico within the Geology of North America table both redirect to "Geography of..." articles. I have geology articles for both written that I would like to create, but I'm not sure of the process. Any advice is greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zircon 2 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After being redirected, go to the top of the page and under "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" it will say "(Redirected from NAME OF REDIRECT)". Click the link and that will take you to the actual redirect page which you can then edit to change where it points to. EniaNey 17:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EniaNey (talk • contribs) [reply]

Creating Editnotice

How does a user create an editnotice for their userpage? PUZZLED🥕|🗣️ 19:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Puzzledvegetable: Check out Wikipedia:Editnotice#User_and_user_talk. It has links to the templates to use for this. RudolfRed (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble saving an edit

Good afternoon! I was advised by the Executive Director of the American Anthropological Association that I should place my "Prehistoric leadership symbols" on Wikipedia Encyclopedia. Wikipedia data indicates an individual should make ten (10) edit changes before attempting to create an article. I know quite a bit about business suits and how they are used to symbolize status of managers and executives in a business setting (et cetera). Accordingly, I tried to make changes to the "Symbols of leadership in offices" section of "Symbols of Leadership". However, the changes I make to the article disappear when I try to view them after entering the word changes. Also, I choose the user name "object symbols" and a password [redacted], but Wikipedia keeps indicating I'm not logged into Wikipedia Encyclopedia. This may be a "cookies" problem. Pleas advise regarding all of the above if this is how the cookie crumbles, and maybe I should just create a website through WIX and be done with it. Thanks very much. Sincerely, Thomas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B020:95FF:9047:896B:D838:ACF4 (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols of leadership shows no changes to the article since 2016. Even as a new and not-registered editor, you should be able to edit an existing article. After you enter content, are you scrolling down to the bottom and clicking on Publish changes? What I am saying is avoid 'Show preview'.
I have redacted your password, you should never share that publicly. When you can log into your account you should change it immediately. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On my sandbox alvanholmes/sandbox I've created an article for John Farrar.

Here is my point of frustration In the section Indications of Variation in name

I have two web citations and neither of them is showing correctly

I have spend five hours typing and retyping trying ever variation that I can think of and nothing

More frustating it that this variation of web cite actually worked (ref 2) \Version 1.[1]


But when I tried to replicate it for the two problems, they didn't work (disregard title and url)

I have also tried this variation as well Version 2.<A ref name=”William Ferror of Halifax”>Template:Cite web url=https://archive.org/details/halifaxwillsbein02york/page/40</ref>{{rp | 40]] and it doesn't work either.

Here is version2 written in the style of version 1 <A ref name=”William Ferror of Halifax”>"Will of Henry Ferror of Halifax, 1548".</ref>{{rp | 40]] Can someone please tell me what I am doing wrong. An example perhaps. Is there a | or a " or an = that I am missing?

Why doesn't version 1 work when I use the url's (i.e. https; etc., in version 2?

What have I done incorrectly with Version 2.? or have I. Is it the bot that is causing me a headache Alvanhholmes (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alvanhholmes. I have fixed many syntax errors.[5] Two references are still missing a suitable title. I see you use VisualEditor and wonder whether you are trying to follow instructions meant for the source editor. In VisualEditor, you can get help to create a reference by clicking the "Cite" tab at top. In the source editor, you can get help to create a reference by clicking "Cite" above the edit area. It cannot help fix existing references. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Prime Hunter. I reviewed the syntax and my eyes just can't see the difference between mine and yours. Could you please show me the difference so I can get beyond this and not go over it again. As regards Titles for those references. I tried to insert a title in ref 6, but it isn't taking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvanhholmes (talk • contribs) 22:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvanhholmes: I think we can all identify with your frustration. Come back here and ask as many times as you need to. You can use the page's History tab to show the differences between any two versions - for instance, from the latest you changed to now the differences are at this link. Insertions and deletions are coloured. If you're a visual learner, you might like to check YouTube for extra material about creating references. For instance, if you're using Visual Editor then this video covers adding references, starting at 4:00.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alvanhholmes: Click the link [6] I gave to see the differences. If it's too hard to see for your eyes then your browser may be able to increase text size with Ctrl++, decrease with Ctrl+-, and reset to default with Ctrl+0. Here are some tips for source editing (not VisualEditor). Template parameters are separated by a pipe character: A vertical line "|". Any syntax element starting with a left bracket must end with a right bracket of the same type (and same number if there is more than one). E.g. (...), or [[...]], or {{...}}, or <...>, but never a combination like {{...)) or {{...]] which start with curly brackets but ends with something else. Citation templates have named parameters, meaning a parameter name like url= must be written before the value. References usually start with <ref and never with <a ref. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Prime Hunter and I understand that. But the problem of inserting a title persists.

In the Alvanhholmes/sandbox2, Line 31 or so, ref 6 in Visual Editor I keep trying to insert a title. All I can see is (6) for the refence. Here is what I typed, and it shows up in source edit, but not in visual edit. Is there something wrong with the syntax? [2]: 40 

The Title is there but it doesn't show up either atline 31 or reflist only the ref number. I checked the history and noticed that you removed the Title, but the Title is necessary for the reference. I can always type it in at line 31, but it won't show up in the reflist.

So my question remains. How do I include the Title of the reference in my syntax.? Thank you Alvanhholmes (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alvanhholmes (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvanhholmes: Reference 6 already has a title "Will of Henry Ferror of Halifax, 1548", both in the sandbox and in your post here, so I don't know what you are talking about. In the post here you wrote |last=Corssley|first=E W after the }} which ends the citation template so those parameters were not used by the template. You broke the reference in [7] by changing the ending curly brackets }} to round brackets )) so I reverted you. Your edit also made an unnecessary repetition of the title. In the source editor you make a title in a citation template by writing |title= followed by the wanted title. Do not change the ending curly double brackets }} to anything else when you do this or make any other edit to a citation. Do not write Title with upper case T. In VisualEditor you make a title for an existing working reference by clicking the blue number where the reference is used, click "Edit" in the box that pops up, write the name of the title in the "Title" field, and click "Apply changes". PrimeHunter (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks PrimeHunter. The problem is most certainly me. I have memory retention problems (age and removal of a cerebral tumor) so I have to use templates I store in wordpad for copy and paste, and often my shakey hands will cause a mistype. I try though. I solved my problem with citations on lines 31 and 32, by (duh) simply typing in the words "Will of...., etc.," don't know why I didn't think of it before (fibbing there) I will try in the future to concentrate more. And I will use your references for citations in the future.. they are going on my wordpad. I tried to use the cite link at the top and some how it didn't work out for me.

Thanks a million. I can only imagine the troubles I will have posting my next article. I hope it is easier and better. I will concentrate more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvanhholmes (talk • contribs) 04:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Ferrar Papers of the Virginia Company".
  2. ^ "Will of Henry Ferror of Halifax, 1548".||last=Corssley|first=E W

Article Issue Flags - Request for help

Hi, I want to proactively declare that I am a COI. I work for Mitchell Goldhar's company, SmartCentres. I understand that an employee of the company made edits to Mitchell Goldhar's article before declaring a COI. We recognize this was wrong. Can you please help me understand the process to have the flags removed from the article. I believe the employee's edits have all been reversed. Thank you in advance for your help. Mandymail (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once the issues of the tags are addressed, they can be removed. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 01:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More specific - User talk:Robert McClenon put the flags in. Consider creating a New section there and explain what was reverted. However, your relationship goes beyond COI. As an employee, what applies is WP:PAID. What that means is on your User page, you must declare a Paid relationship, and it is required/STRONGLY recommended that rather than editing the article directly, you create a new section on the article's Talk page, and writing there the proposed changes. In time, other editors will see this and decide to incorporate into the article. David notMD (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All that said, in my opinion none of the references support Mr. Goldhar's notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word, i.e., published articles that are about Mr. Goldhar rather than just name-mentions. David notMD (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lee majors

Was just wondering... Is that Mr. Lee Majors in the newest 2018 HONDADays commercials? Sure sounds like him!!! Could you confirm this for me, please? Thank you. Happy Holydays!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.95.153 (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi anon. This is a page for asking questions about Wikipedia or how to edit it. You may go to reference desks instead. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 02:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to add userboxes?

Which templates do I use to add userboxes? Give me at least three examples.KJ2574 04:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KJ2574: Hi. You may use {{<!--Userbox name goes here-->}}. For example, {{User wikipedia/rollback}} produces
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)
―Abelmoschus Esculentus 04:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two more examples?KJ2574 04:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go to find at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries/All ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 04:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sig colors?

Give me an example of making signatures colored using wiki code. I have to be able to see the wiki code. KJ2574 04:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use CSS. <span style="color:red">Abelmoschus Esculentus</span> produces Abelmoschus Esculentus ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 04:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get rid of the redirect in mySandbox?

My sandbox has a redirect to a recently published article, and I can't use it for another article. Can I get rid of it, I had deleted it and somone put it back in.

As a consequence I have a sandbox2, but can't access it from the sandbox link, when I click on it only the redirect sandbox shows up.

The only way for me to access sandbox2 is to bookmark it in my browser, and that is unhandy.

So how do I get access to sandbox2 from my user page, or wiki? Can I get rid of the redirect? How do I make a new sandbox3?

Most of these are redundant questions that I just asked, but I didn't make a subject/headline. Apologies Alvanhholmes (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done removed redirect in User:Alvanhholmes/sandbox. Create sandbox3 by clicking here. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 05:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the redirect. But how can I access my sandbox2 and sandbox3 without bookmarking themAlvanhholmes (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may add them to your watchlist or type it in the search box manually ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 09:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alvanhholmes! You can also go to Special:PrefixIndex/User:Alvanhholmes, which will list all subpages of your User page. Another option is to add links to your sandboxes on your User page. Happy editing! rchard2scout (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taras Kostanchuk

Good day! Earlier today my article about Taras Kostanchuk (commander of the assault group of the Donbas Battalion) was rejected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Taras_Kostanchuk. The reason is indicated my friendly or family ties or advertising is not a significant person, but this is not true. He led the assault group of the famous battalion and went through many battles (in the material I applied it was fixed, even video materials). One of the few who survived the Battle of Ilovaisk. I enclose a photo of the planning of the capture of Ilovaysk, where Taras Kostanchuk discusses it with the famous founder of the battalion, Semen Semenchenko.

File:Semenchenko and Kostanchuk http://ipress.ua/media/gallery/full/s/e/semenchenko_a393b.jpg Now Taras Kostanchuk is engaged in many projects in Ukraine and there are a lot of queries about search systems about him (you can check). In Ukrainian Wikipedia, I have already successfully created and approved an article about Taras Kostanchuk (you can easily check this). This man deserves a place in the encyclopedia and I would like to be the creator of his page until someone else did. This article does not carry any advertising character. Taras Kostanchuk does not need it. His biography is already searched in search queries, so I’m creating this page for people, whon try to find it. Thank you. Best regards, Pa30T (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query

If I wanted to change my username globally, then how to do so; and if I did that, what will be the side-effects? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special:GlobalRenameRequest ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 09:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't want to change. The current name is fine. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 18:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you ask this question? ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 06:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

question

How do I display on my userbox that I can speak in english , support Manchester City F.C. , F.C. Barcelona and Juventus . 223.176.84.4 (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi 223.176.84.4. If you were to register for a WP:ACCOUNT, then you could look at the userboxes in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries and then add the ones you like it to your userpage. However, I'm not sure if it's acceptable to add userboxes to an IP userpage simply because it seems possible that another person might also edit using the same IP address and would have just as much of a claim to the userpage as you and might just decide to remove them. If I'm mistaken about this, someone else will correct me, but once again I think registering for an account is probably necessary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Marchjuly is exactly right. Userboxes shouldn't be put on IP pages since IPs can change. In this specific case, the IP user is a sockpuppet of a user who has been blocked multiple times with different accounts, so they should not create another account. --bonadea contributions talk 11:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again

I wanted to change my user name but don't know how?

--MeKLT (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you are a very new editor, a simple solution would be to create a new account with a new user name (and password) and never, ever, ever log in again as MeKLT. Doing that would consign MeKLT to the dustbin of obscurity, where it would join the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of non-active accounts. David notMD (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are 34,981,616 registered Wikipedia accounts, and over 99.6% are inactive. See Wikipedia:Wikipedians for details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with uploading, please delete it i would like to upload it again. *Uploading was not successful.+ Mail adress can't be checked*

Uploading was not successful. https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soubor:Fórum_Ústí_nad_Labem.jpg

+

i can't proove that my mail is real there is any div error ...


Thank you for your time. Best Regards, George. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skajaw (talk • contribs) 11:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Skajaw:, unfortunately editors at English Wikipedia are unable to help with questions about Czech Wikipedia. Try asking at the help desk page at cs.wikipedia, https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedie:Pot%C5%99ebuji_pomoc Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for the file you linked to, that exists at Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F%C3%B3rum_%C3%9Ast%C3%AD_nad_Labem.jpg , and if you want to have it removed from there you'll need to go to there to tag it for removal. --bonadea contributions talk 12:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Skajaw, welcome to the Teahouse. commons:File:Fórum Ústí nad Labem.jpg was uploaded at Wikimedia Commons and cannot be deleted by Wikipedia administrators. You can request deletion with "Nominate for deletion" at my link. End the reason with a signature ~~~~. Commons uploads are sometimes cut off at 5 MB when they are started with an edit toolbar at another wiki. Try the upload link in the left pane at the wiki or at commons:. You can also wait until your Commons account is four days old. Then commons:File:Fórum Ústí nad Labem.jpg should get a link "Upload a new version of this file". PrimeHunter (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Hi there, My name is Zamzam I am a student at the University of Stirling in Scotland, working on a project to my module Living in a connected world.

I am trying to figure out how to cite, I have been going through several trials trying to discover the processes unfortunately, I failed :s

To be honest I tried to do so many things, I even tried to copy and past other's work but again.. I failed ;S

can you please guide me to any protocol I can follow, so I can upgrade my skills on Wikibooks project?

Thanks Zizi.husain (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zizi.husain (talk • contribs) 15:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Zamzam. Though Wikibooks is a WMF project, and runs on the same software, it is a completely separate project from Wikipedia, and has its own rules and policies. You might find what you need at B:WB:REFS. --ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks though!Zizi.husain (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating and Access 2d and 3rd Sandboxes

1. How does one create extra sandboxes? I have sandbox2 and sandbox3 but did not create them, they were created for me, and I want to know how? 2. How do I access sandbox2 and sandbox3, other than bookmarking them in my browser. When I click on sandbox at the top, it only takes me to my original sandbox, but there is no shortcut to sandbox2 or sandbox3

Thank youAlvanhholmes (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alvanhholmes! You can search for those in the search bar, which you can actually do the same for your normal sandbox. Go to the search in the top-right part of the page, and enter User:Alvanhholmes/sandbox2 and User:Alvanhholmes/sandbox3. There aren't shortcuts installed to go to these pages besides searching for them, but it's very quick and easy to search for them once you get used to it. I hope this helps you out a bit.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
and you can create extra sandboxes by typing User:Alvanhholmes/sandbox4 or User:Alvanhholmes/anything else into the search box, Alvanhholmes. --ColinFine (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I choose option 2 (link on userpage). Very much appreciated Alvanhholmes (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvanhholmes: I have taken the liberty of adding a helpful link at the top of your Userpage and both your current sandboxes. This will display every one of you subpages, no matter how many you create. There is also a second way of displaying any user's subpages: Just go to their Userpage, click the big Tab marked "Pages" (near the Edit tab), and then click subpages. Try it on mine, and you'll see I have a large number which are otherwise impossible to keep track of. Hope you find this helpful. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should victims be listed in articles on tragedies?

Hi all,

I saw that a previously unknown victim of the UpStairs Lounge arson attack had been likely identified, so I went to add that info to the wiki article. I saw there wasn't a list of the victims, but I added the finding to the section regarding the three unidentified victims. I then checked around similar tragedies, and saw that some have a list of those who died (for example, the Ghostship fire) and some don't.

Are there any guidelines pertaining to this? One potential issue is that the UpStairs Lounge fire was not well covered at the time, so when looking around, I had a hard time finding reliable sources of a full list of the dead. In this case, would a photo of the official memorial with the names (like here) be an acceptable source?

Thanks!

EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EponineBunnyKickQueen, whether or not to include a full list of victims is up to the consensus of editors at individual articles. To my knowledge, the consensus has been to do so in some cases and to not do so in others. So far as memorials, those are tricky in terms of copyright status. If the memorial is subject to copyright, any image of it would be considered nonfree, which would mean usage would be substantially restricted if not disallowed entirely. If the memorial is not copyrightable or has fallen into the public domain, I think a photo of it would often be relevant to the article about the incident the memorial is for. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as an aside, on "wiki article". "Wiki" is a generic term for any site that uses software allowing users to edit it. This site is Wikipedia, not "wiki". Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think EponineBunnyKickQueen was thinking of uploading the image, Seraphimblade; rather they were asking if the image they linked to could be used as a source. It seems to me that the answer is Yes, provided the site where the image is hosted is regarded as a reliable source, that image is not itself a copyright violation, and there is enough information on the site (either in the image iteself, or in surrounding text) to establish that this is indeed a source for the information being added. --ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. If I misunderstood and that's what you were asking, I entirely agree with ColinFine. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ColinFine, that is what I meant: taking the names from the memorial, not adding a photo of the memorial. Thanks, also, Seraphimblade. EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct me..

I am a teacher at St Martin Secondary who is trying to update our page, to follow other similar schools in our board.

I am not sure how I am in conflict of interest, nor do I wish to be revoked rights to update.

Could you please give me guidelines of how I can properly update our page?

My apologies for not doing this correctly. I am new to this process.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolandanavas (talk • contribs) 23:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yolandanavas, your editing was promoting the school. You were quite correctly told to stop that, and if you do so again, you will be blocked. Editors with a conflict of interest are expected to refrain from directly editing articles for which they have a COI, and instead to only suggest edits on the talk page, using {{request edit}} to bring attention to them. However, material such as "Our..." (articles are always written in third person), "program is designed for students that have a passion for sports", "Some of our students are high level athletes, but the majority are students that merely have a passion for sports. In either case, all of these students are afforded the opportunity to explore the world of sports through various roles and responsibilities which our student are exposed to in the community." That's brochure junk, and the rest of your edits go on that same way. Wikipedia strictly forbids any kind of advertising or marketing material, including any kind of "talking up". Also, please note that the article is not yours, nor the school's. Wikipedia is not social media on which you may write or maintain a "profile". It belongs to the community of Wikipedia and to the general public, and the school has no special right to control or dictate what it says. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject Matthew Gordon Banks (Gordon-Banks is surname_

Hello Everyone.

PLEASE could you help me. I AM the subject and my email address not to be published is (Redacted).

Over a number of years two people Moist Toilet and Phillip Cross now banned from Editing have truly destroyed my entry and anyone in International Relations looking me up sees very little most negative.

Recently serious vandalism occurred I believe by two Students. A recent change in the Personal section ought to be removed. It was put in by a non-editor and it has an odd address - not an ISP. Please would someone look at this and look carefully at the History section to see who has done what. A police officer - I have close protection officers - made a change which is genuine. Someone says I am frequently asked to appear on Russian TV. This is intended to further destroy my reputation and puts my life at risk. It appears I made a serious attempt to take my life in the early hours of Tuesday morning and Police visited my home to check on my welfare.


I ask you to reverse the changes made by people who are not proper editors. The block on my own ISP is unfair. I have tried to revert things - they even suggested these students I was a paedophile. It has been hell.

Your sincerely, Matthew Gordon-Banks (Redacted)62.128.207.104 (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone using the same IP address as you, 62.128.207.104, has removed mention of your two convictions for drunken driving last year. What you describe as "an odd address - not an ISP" is an IPv6 address - these are increasingly common now that IPv4 addresses like yours are running out. Maproom (talk) 08:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Code

What is the == == code meaning? 125.160.114.139 (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's the header for different sections. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, a level 2 header. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 06:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indexing userpage

For how long must a user edit Wikipedia in order to be permitted to index their userpage? PUZZLED🥕|🗣️ 03:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user namespace is automatically NOINDEXed. David Biddulph (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia exists to present properly written encyclopedia articles to the general public. There is no need to call attention to our backstage conversations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PUZZLED. Per Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#INDEX magic word, the account must be extended confirmed, meaning 30 days old and 500 edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

about editing

how can I be a verified publisher in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniru pahasara kamkanamge (talk • contribs) 03:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Seniru pahasara kamkanamge. We do not have anything like a "verified publisher" here on Wikipedia. Editors are judged by how productive they are. Please read Wikipedia:User access levels for information about various permissions given to editors according to demonstrated need and responsibility. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Seniru pahasara kamkanamge, judging by your recent post on your User Talk page, I believe what you want to know is covered at WP:AUTOCONFIRM. Since you account is more than 4 days old and you have more than 10 edits, you probably can edit semiprotected articles; are you sure you still can't? If you can't, you can request a change on the article talk page, flagging your request with {{Edit semi-protected}}. —teb728 t c 11:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ACIG.org as a referrence site

ACIG.org is used many times as a source for claimed air to air combat statistics on many of the combat aircraft pages on wikipedia... The problem is tjat site has been taken down... the resulting loss of their claimed data means that many pages on Wikipedia need to be edited and those sources removed... Is there any way to do a global change to efit it out on all pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAG0001 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The site may be available via https://web.archive.org/
In time the links will be updated to reflect this, Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

overwhelmed reader & feedback notes vs edits of mistakes

Not so much a question as a feedback comment. (but where does it go?.. forward this if you would, I'm lost and tired of trying)

I'm really just a casual reader. I have screwed up every attempt made at an edit/talk or any contact attempt on this site. I'm more of a tech dinosaur than an idiot. And that begins my point.

Being highly educated isn't a requirement for knowing a mistake when you see one, or even suspect one. In my opinion, Wikipedia would be enhanced by a more readily apparent way of contacting someone, anyone, in these instances, and likely others. E.g. I just stumbled across the teahouse by chance after being frustrated by a failed talk attempt.(Did it post? Did I fail?; or my device? I saw no change. Does "save" post? I.e., I left the page wondering what just happened? And to me, that indicates a design problem.

I'm a former graphics/commecial art major IBM/Lantastic/Apple; I went on an ability based scholarship vs grades, and was top of my class each year because of a knack for highly intiative page design.

The fact I don't find this site "intuative" enough to do something, hopefully contructive, is disheartening to say the least.

I don't find this organizational format intuative enough to follow well either.

For comparison, E.g., MS software I find very intuative, Apple & Android baffle me even with former Apple experience, after 4 years of exclusive daily use I feel just as lost as day one.. Wikipedia comes across the same way. Overwhelming and unintuitive is a loosing combo.

Wikipedia lately carrys an increasingly educational elitist tone normally reserved for a professor in their classroom. I don't see this as beneficial here as this isn't a course structured around goals pertaining to a particular subject with a pass/fail final outcome. Not for the "everyday" casual "bluecollar" type user anyhow.

So, who am I to critique? What's the solution? Nobody really & I can't say. But I do think Bill Gates made a few changes to W-beta after a half day with my playing with it. So just maybe it's food for thought I offer.

Along those lines, same timeframe and classroom, someone else said something I'll never forget especially as Bill dropped his head in frustration and agreement; I think it's Plato. Forgive the loosness please: "To teach well, the teacher should assume the student knows nothing.".

I think Wikipedia would do well to strive to follow that statement. It does to some extent, but as I stated, it has been creeping towards the elitist professors outlook. That's too much "attitude" for casual learning to happen IMO. And bring into question at what point do folks stop bothering with Wikipedia as a source? Can Wikipedia afford to find out?

I also understand that "too easy" might draw the true idiot/troll to a new sandbox for play, but at least make the talk/comment to authors more accessable with some real simplicity. Sit a third grader down at a screen. If they can't manage it, it's not gonna cut it. (by third grade I outread e ey adult in the school system for speed with 92% retention...but the aprox. grade seems about right I think.). Thanks for your time.

Ok, I thought I was done. But again..."Publish changes" isn't intuative. "Finish" "Post" "Done" "Send" or even "Publish" alone without "changes" is more intuative by being more along the lines of everyday speech; I only "changed" the "blankness" of the screen. It would have gotten me a B at best in design class for using unnecessary text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.166 (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On your final point (this is a relatively recent change), there was actually a recent discussion on that here, you can see it at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_860#No_SAVE_button_in_sandbox. Basically the reason/answer is "Legal said so, so cope". Per your edit-history you edit from mobile and I never do, but I have seen people recommend "desktop view." Others can probably help you better on that. Help:Editing may be a reasonable place to start. WP has a learning curve, but if you want to climb it, finding the Teahouse is a decent start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP editor. Welcome. (Minor feedback first: please avoid using the old-fashioned style of indenting the first line of every new paragraph. Yove done it on other pages too, and I've just removed them all because it causes our obviously esoteric software to render text in a horrid font. Just leave one clear line between text if you want to separate sentences, but definitely no spaces at the start of a new paragraph) Now, I do sense your frustration, though dont share your sentiment about elitism. I think we avoid elitism by having an immensely broad base of editors, as well as a very broad base of content-consumers, from schoolkids to scientists. As the worlds biggest free online encyclopaedia, we do expect content to be written clearly, simply and logically - and we even have special notices we can put on pages that are too technnical. Of course, you are invited and free to help address your own concerns by improving articles that you feel don't communicate with a lay audience as best they should. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My source is CC BY 2.0, how can I use the content?

Hello! I would like to use figure 2 in this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2923515/# It says: This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. When I try to upload the image in wiki commons and choose the type of license, I see all versions of Creative Commons, older and newer that version 2, but not 2 itself. What is the solution for this? Also I would like some feedback from expert editors before submitting the wiki page that I am creating, where can I get help for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam orbital (talk • contribs) 07:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Thanks so much and appreciate the help in advance! --Sam orbital (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Sam Orbital[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse Sam orbital. Commons has a license tag {{cc-by-2.0}} for that license. If that is not listed by the Commons upload wizard, I don't know why. You might get a faster response at Commons:Help desk.
As for feedback on your draft, User:Sam orbital/sandbox/Ferlin, I will leave this link to it in hope that another host will see it and respond. —teb728 t c 11:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sam orbital - I've also posted a note on the talk page of the WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology, which you can find HERE. The draft looks good to go, from my perspective. It's well structured and well formatted. I think there are only two issues with it, and neither, imho, would prevent it from being in mainspace. The first is that the lead might need a slight expansion, as per WP:LEAD to cover all the main topics covered in the article. The second is that while it is very well sourced, there are still one or two assertions which lack a footnote. In fact, I'm being WP:BOLD, and simply moving it to the mainspace for you. Since it's been reviewed, no need for it to sit in the AfC queue. But in the future, you would simply click on the "submit for review" button to ask for someone to review it. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 12:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please help me to improve Draft:Tatsuo Yamada (karate)

Hi the Kickboxing has some wrong link and i find out that a person with the name Tatsuo Yamada is not the man who create kickboxing and want to correct the link, so create Draft:Tatsuo Yamada (karate) but i received "Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference." and it move to "Draft " space. please help me to improve and correct this. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaleel2007 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse Jaleel2007. The source reference for your translation belongs on the Talk page of the article not in the article itself; I have moved it there. Articles in Wikipedia must be verifiable by references to reliable published sources. But since Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, it is not regarded as a reliable source. Perhaps you can find references in the source article in Japanese Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 10:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Mahajan

The guidelines on WP:COI/N say to try Talk page discussion first - so not sure how to handle this...so will ask here first. This article is an obvious WP:SOAPBOX and is not at all neutral...the primary editor, Vijay Mahajan PBX (talk · contribs) has a clear WP:COI and is writing a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. WikiDan61 warned them about this and yet they persist.

I thought of opening an AfD, but the subject appears notable at first glance given how many sources are cited in the lead. I hope a more experienced editor can deal with this, as I'm all tapped out in the ideas department. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting editing history. Article started in 2008. In 2012, two clusters of edits that may have been VM or person associated with VM (Vijaybasix and 223.196.174.84). Then in June 2018 massive additions to article by Vijay Mahajan PBX. Given writing style, I agree with Psihedelisto that this is likely Vijay Mahajan autobiographical. I have no interest in doing anything about it, just commenting. David notMD (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in mind the constitutional crisis of Sri Lanka and the rising uncertainty of who is prime minister due to which there have been constant edit warring, I want suggest that Extended confirmed protection be provided to the following articles:Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Ranil Wickremesinghe, List of Prime Ministers of Sri Lanka. Adithya Pergade (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The place for requesting protection is WP:RFPP. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i did something stupid.

JojokeGodFunhand (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC) I deleted the speedy deletion thing and can you help me? [1][reply]

References

  1. ^ https://soundcloud.com/shokkbutt/ruining-songs-forever

Draft : Zehra Neşe Kavak

Hello there. There's an article I've been working on for a long time. But still no confirmation. I've got everything I need. I'd appreciate it if you could help. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilaydin (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

creating a new page

hi..i am trying to create a new page for my neighbor who is a top tennis coach here in the US. i pulled down some bio information from his website and used that to start. my page was flagged because i didn't cite the source. the denial also said that my posting looked like advertising.

I'm a bit confused by the process and need some advice. What can one put on a page? Can I just create the page and let other contributors edit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfsamba (talk • contribs) 15:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find independent WP:Reliable sources where the subject has been written about in detail, and summarise what these independent sources say. A person's own website is of little interest to Wikipedia except possibly for very basic facts. An article must not be based on self-published material. What user name did you use to start the page? Dbfirs 15:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Leone: In or Out?

Hi, just want to consult with you about whether Sierra Leone was crowned yesterday or if the country has withdrawn from the Miss Universe competition. They dropped out last year, so I wouldn't be surprised. Let me know how long you think we should wait before we edit the country from the list. Thanks. --Rahu22 (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rahu22—I think an equally good place to inquire about this would be the Reference desk/Humanities. But someone here might know. Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SQL Query without FROM clause

Hi all,

The article From (SQL) mentions that " From clauses are very common" and that "FROM is an SQL reserved word in the SQL standard". Could you please help me to understand how to implement a query without the From clause? As far as I know this can be done, I just don't know under which conditions (kind of databases, general form, limitations, ...). Many thanks for the help. Best regards --Hundsrose (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Hundsrose: and welcome to the Teahouse. You might get lucky with an answer here, but generally this forum is intended only for Wikipedia-related questions. You could also try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing - the reference desks often answer such broader knowledge-related questions (or atleast point to sources for more information). GermanJoe (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello GermanJoe, thanks for the help. I just started to also edit in the english wikipedia and got confused. The linked Reference desk is much better for this purpose. Sorry again and thank you very much. Best regards --Hundsrose (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with an article

Hello,

I have an assignment to make a Wikipedia article for my International economics class and I've been declined twice. My topic chosen is on the Trade Facilitation Agreement 2014 and I was hoping for some advice on how to improve my article. I believe that I have successfully listed the important information about the agreement and I am struggling with how to word it in a way that it sounds more like an encyclopedia entry.

Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anrussell2 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This must be about Draft:Trade Facilitation Agreement 2014. It doesn't start by explaining what it's about. The first sentence refers to "our economy", leaving the reader to guess who "we" are. It cites no sources, though it does list some. One of the things you need to do is to read Help:Referencing for beginners, and then follow as many statements as practicable by citations of sources that confirm them. Maproom (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Anrussell2. I recommend these resources as well: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/students Here is the one on adding citations: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/students/sources and here is the one on evaluating sources etc: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/students/evaluating-articles Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 18:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the subject of the draft is the same as the trade agreement discussed in the article Bali Package. Maproom (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem with the draft, Anrussell2, is that (as the reviewer said) it reads like an essay. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable sources have said about the subject, no more. It must not contain original research - which means it must not contain any argumentation, discussion or analysis beyond what is in the individual sources, or conclusions that aren't in one of the sources. It can say "this source says X, while that source says Y", but it should not attempt to reconcile or choose between them.
I'm afraid that this suggests that either you have misunderstood what your teacher asked you to do, or your teacher has misunderstood what Wikipedia is. Have they (and you) looked at WP:Education program? --ColinFine (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference repetition

In an article I'm reworking, there's a section with 6 bulleted statements. Each bullet is supported by the same reference. Should I (1) put the reference on the section heading? Or (2) put the reference after each bullet? Or (3) put the reference after the final bullet? You can see the section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Schazjmd/sandbox#Successor_units Schaz (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that either 2 or 3 is probably OK, but 2 is the way to go if you want to be absolutely clear. Number 1 is right out; refs should never be put in headings (see WP:CITEFOOT). Deor (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Forget to ping @Schazjmd:. Deor (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, @Deor:! Number 2 is how I started it, but I was second-guessing myself. Schaz (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copy rights

Hii Guys! Can anyone help me how do I get the copy rights for the Images that i created manually? Thanks in advance and hope to here from you soon.Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322 (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Vijay[reply]

@Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322: In general, you automatically get the copyright to anything you create, although there are some exceptions such as work-for-hire, and it may vary by country. Can you please give a little more info about what you are asking? You might also have better luck at WP:MCQ where the copyright experts hang out. RudolfRed (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed: Thank you, I will do that..

What is the procedure to go from sandbox to public visibility?

What is the procedure to go from sandbox to public visibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielkernohan (talk • contribs) 22:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a Userspace Draft box at the top of your sandbox..... To send it on - click the submit button. It generally looks good! Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Better answer.... Since Draft:Zbigniew Blazeje looks like a poor first attempt at what your sandbox is now... just improve the existing draft article.  ????? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing and Advertisement Tone

Hello Teahouse,

I took the plunge found a topic and wrote my first article here on Wikipedia. Thus, far I have learned quite a bit thus far. Oddly, I take joy in my first article being declined as it pushes me to learn more. So, I write seeking pointers on how to improve my submissions. Again, thank you for the warm welcome. CryptoWriter (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=869516835"