Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MeKLT (talk | contribs) at 16:11, 2 January 2019 (→‎no: 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

GreenMeansGo, 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.

Pls approve the article asap!

Hello everyone,

I received a message that I should connect all the articles with the sources of Draft:Benjamin Schnau . I did that already on my last change.

What are you still asking for?

User Whispering is saying it would be OBVIOUS I don't do anything to make the article better which is an assumption he is doing which is offensive and rude and completely not the case.

I did what was asked for before already and now get that as a reply. Very unsatisfying.

Pls review the page its all connected.

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Franklin187: The article is probably not going to be approved right now because:
  • Many of the sources you cited are not reliable.
  • I'm having trouble finding which sources are independent.
  • It's unclear what sources support what article material.
I've left instructions on your user talk page that explains the simple way to write articles that will not be rejected or deleted. You just need to summarize at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of Schnau but still specifically about him. That's it. Writing unsourced material and slapping on dozens of questionable sources is a waste of your time and ours.
Also, why does it need to be approved immediately? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say immediately I said as soon as possible which is different.

I'm having trouble finding which sources are independent What do you mean by that statement 'independent'. All these articles are independent created based on the work he did.

  • It's unclear what sources support what article material.

If you check the articles and sources you see the titles and the movies he was working on which is what the article is talking about??

https://www.stern.de/panorama/gesellschaft/benjamin-schnau--ein-deutscher-und-sein-harter-weg-nach-hollywood-7860132.html http://www.manilaupmagazine.com/issues/vol3-8/mobile/index.html#p=80 https://christoph-ulrich-mayer.com/unkategorisiert/von-den-besten-lernen-speaker-made-in-hollywood-2-2/ https://www.astrid-arens.com/the-german-oscars-2018/?lang=en

All these sources for example above are independent journalistic resources. I clearly don't understand what the problem is with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks in advance for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Franklin187: What you need to do is provide in-line citations. There are two in the article, which are insufficient. Also, both of those sources are IMDB, which is not a reliable source. IMBD is written by its users, not professionals.
As I've already explained here and on your user talk page, all you need to do is summarize three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of and unaffiliated with Schau. These should be in-line citations.
If you get on that as soon as possible, the article can be approved as soon as possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling we are talking about different things here.

I'm talking about the external links you look at the reference field.

I added the journalistic sources to the reference field. Is that better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft still doesn't cite any sources. Until it does, it certainly won't be approved. Maybe you need to read Help: Referencing for beginners? Maproom (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Franklin187: My first post says I'm having trouble finding which sources are independent because you dumped the majority of references in the external links. It's unclear what sources support what article material points to the fact that you're not using enough in-line citations. Many of the sources you cited are not reliable addresses both sections.
It isn't an either/or problem, both are problems.
The work you have done so far has been a waste of your time because you did not do it right. If you just follow the instructions I left at User_talk:Franklin187#How_to_write_articles, you will have this over with as soon as possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hi Franklin187. It might seem strange to you, but the only thing you should put under the heading References is {{Reflist}}. Each actual references goes immediately after the statement that it supports, and the system inserts a reference number and lists the references where you put {{Reflist}}. I hope this helps you to understand how Wikipedia does references. Dbfirs 22:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dfirs: thanks for the info. That means I just put

right under the word 'References' and thats it? Thanks in advance.

@Dfirs: Hi, Could you pls check again now, I connected everything between sources and text of the article. Pls let me know. Thanks for the effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Franklin187: You've just replaced the text with external links instead of adding in-line citations to the end of the supported material. If you would just read the 8 simple steps I left on your user talk page, you'd get this over with sooner instead of wasting your time (and ours). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Franklin187 I converted the first of your references to a ref as an example of what should be done with the rest. —teb728 t c 23:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@teb728 Thanks for this example, that helped a lot. I did what everyone told me. Pls let me know. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did what everyone told me. Except you didn't, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.Thomson: I'm assuming you are talking about point 4, 5 and 6 in the link you sent me? What do these 3 points mean. Even reading them doesnt fully makes me understand what to do? If I'm assuming wrongly, I would appreciate if you would let me know what exactly you are talking about. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

331dot: Yes I do! Why are you asking?

You will need to review and comply with the conflict of interest policy as well as the paid editing policy and formally declare that on your user page or user talk page. The latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement for paid editors. Thanks 331dot (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No this is a misunderstanding I don't get paid for that. What are you talking about? I do this in my free time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs)

If you are employed or hired by him to be his agent/representative/public relations person, you are a paid editor and must declare it. We have no way of knowing if you are on your free time or not. If you are just editing at his request and are not paid or employed by him, it is still a conflict of interest that you must declare. 331dot (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guys can someone pls do me a favor and just tell me know what is still missing on this article beside that. I got this link to this article explaining the steps of how to create an article but have no idea what that means? I added in-line citations, what else is missing. I don't get it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no deadlines here; feel free to take all the time you need to learn about what you have been told and make the needed declarations. 331dot (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you work for Schnau you must create a User page and declare that. Even if you are not being paid to create a Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin187, after you have posted the required declarations, there are still points outlined in the post on your talk page that you have not addressed. The most important ones are a) citing sources properly, b) showing the person is notable, and c) removing promotional phrasing. You have gone some way towards a) by placing some of the URLs to your sources within <ref></ref> tags, in the relevant places, but there is still a list of unidentified URLs (not connected to any part of the article) in the "References" section, and you do have to cite the sources, that is, clearly identify them so that a reader can understand what the source is, and potentially find the information even if the URL should go away. The link to the information about that (which is also in point 4 in the list on your talk page) is Wikipedia:Citing sources. As for b) it doesn't really look as if you followed the advice in point 2. on your talk page - the sources in your article are still basically the same as they were before your draft was rejected, and as far as I can see without spending too much time looking into unidentifid URLs, there is really only one (Stern) that is independent and talks about Schnau in depth, as opposed to mentioning him in passing. This is what is required. (There are also several inadequate references on the page, including but not limited to links to Netflix, YouTube, and Wikipedia itself, which do not meet the requirements for "professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources".) As regards c), the draft is not entirely promotional, but it is also not neutrally written. That is often difficult when writing about topics where there is a conflict of interest, but it is not impossible. But again, before you look into these things you have to address the conflict of interest issue. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@bonadea: First of all thanks for your comments and feedback. Very valuable. I appreciate it. I addressed the conflict of interest on the user page. And would now work on the points you made in your comments. Is that ok? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't work for him, what is the urgency in getting the draft approved? 331dot (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Franklin187 has declared COI on User page. I cut and rearranged a lot, but still needs work, especially on referencing. And I also ask, what is with all the urgency? David notMD (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot There is no urgency at all. Sorry if it came across like that. I just want to figure out what I still need to do to be all correct. @David notMD thank you very much for rearranging and cutting, I appreciate it. As mentioned to 331dot, there is no urgency, sorry if it came across like that. I just like to figure out stuff as soon as I can. I will rearrange the other references as you did and let you know once I'm done. Thanks for starting that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC) @David notMD I rearranged all the other references. Please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance Hi everyone, I hope you are well. I just wanted to follow up on my last changes. Can you pls let me know the status. I'm assuming I finished what David notMD has started. ThanksFranklin187 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC) --Franklin187 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)- Hi everyone, happy new year to all of you. I just wanted to check if you received my last message here. It would be great to hearing from you. Thanks in advance --2605:E000:92C4:6F00:40FA:C5BF:CE3A:B048 (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulties Dealing with Another Editor

I asked about how to deal with what I feel is bias in the Incapacity Benefit article on the Request for Comment page, where the editor and I was told that it was too early in this dispute to ask for an RfC and I was sent to here. I have posted here in the past about a different issue.

I have been editing a number of articles relating to welfare for people with disabilities in the UK, including Employment Support Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Work Capability Assessment and Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment. While I have been editing these articles, I have come accross an editor name Dr Greg Wood. Dr Greg Wood appears to have some very strong feelings about the Work Capability Assessment. While I was editing the article on Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment, I looked at a section describing a doctor who used to work for Atos- the company who used to administer the Work Capability Assessment- who made some allegations against Atos in the media. The doctor wasn't named in the article. I looked at the references and found out that this doctor was also called Greg Wood. I reported this to the conflict of interest noticeboard, and another editor has dealt with this. I have noted this here for context.

In the Incapacity Benefit article, I removed a lot of what I felt was irrelevent content. The article mostly seemed to discuss the Work Capability Assessment. For those who are unaware, the Work Capability Assessment is used to determine eligibility for Employment Support Allowance. Employment Support Allowance is the benefit that replaced Incapacity Benefit. He reverted my edits. In the summary, he gave the reason for putting the content back as "undo deleterious change". I admit I have made mistakes; I could have explained what I was doing a lot more often. But I still think several of the articles Dr Greg Wood has worked on are problematic and he doesn't seem to accept there could be a problem. He doesn't seem to cope very well with editors disagreeing with him. After I edited the work capability assessment article, he re-classed it on the quality scale as a "D", and wrote in the essay summary that it was "Nowhere near a B now" (I know there is no D. It showed up as unassessed, so I changed it to a C.) Previously, he had assessed the article as a B.(I know this doesn't really matter, but I think this shows Dr Greg Wood's approach to editing Wikipedia). On his talk page, he has accused me and another editor of having conflict of interest. (I'd just like to say here for the record that I do not have a conflict of interest. I myself claim ESA. I do not and never have been paid or asked to edit Wikipedia by anyone. I have never had a job at all, so I have never worked for any organisations involved with the UK benefits system. Nor does anyone in my family or any friends).

How can I deal with bias in the articles Employment Support Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Work Capability Assessment and Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment? I'm fully prepared for someone to say that Dr Greg Wood is right or that the articles aren't biased, but my personal feeling is that if Dr Greg Wood doesn't stop changing articles to fit his personal viewpoint, the articles on these topics will remain biased and the article on Incapacity Benefit will continue to have a large amount of irrelevent content that I can't remove without being in trouble. It looks as if only me and Dr Greg Wood have edited these articles recently, so it's unlikely that another editor would give their opinion.

I have read about dispute resolution, but I was under the impression that this was for more serious issues (for example, threats of violence, contact off Wikipedia). I also don't want to end up in trouble myself for trying to deal with this if I'm in the wrong here. What can I do? CircleGirl (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CircleGirl. There are several levels of dispute resolution; some of them cover the serious issues you mention, but there are milder options you can pursue for disagreements on content. You may want to post at the dispute resolution noticeboard, or request a third opinion. Hope this helps! –FlyingAce✈hello 15:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perceived Flyspecking Editors ... Is This Normal?

There seem to be two types of people on this side of Wikipedia. There are those neophytes (like me) who focus on the subject-matter (the meat) of any given article. They are generally very intelligent people with significant (sometimes highly technical) information to share ... and then there are those who focus on the 'process' of article-writing. They often act like cops, blowing their whistle and leaving public announcements with big red iconology and terse formats on talk pages. There is no discussion, No detail. No specificity. They zip in out of nowhere, act unilaterally, seemingly harass, and generally relish the unique power and responsibilities they have been given. And then they disappear.

They seem to be on a power-trip at times.

I am a serious editor who wishes to write substantive informational articles, but the way it is done is like a small taser every so often that feels like Skinner Box training ... always leaving a 'scarlet letter' in my in-box. Is this normal? I would think it could be done better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecttype (talk • contribs)

Hello, Architecttype and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for your observation - not normally the type of question we receive here, but I understand to some degree where you're coming from. I'll try to address it from my perspective, if I may (i.e. an expert in a limited range of topics with an interest across many areas, and with a desire to see this encyclopaedia develop, and to help others, yet not be damaged by trouble-makers). Be aware that I started to draft this reply to you before I realised you had rather unhelpfully deleted two edits from your talk page which would have allowed me to understand the context of your question far better. It is unreasonable to expect us to be mind-readers, though I do address the two concerns about your editing later on in my reply.
Wikipedia is currently the 5th most visited website in the world, with over 5.5 million encyclopaedic articles on English Wikipedia alone, all free to be edited by anyone at any time. We welcome knowledgeable experts, like you, who want to contribute in a really positive way. But on the opposite side of the spectrum we have a minority who love to disrupt, damage or deface articles. In between, we have keen editors who do not understand our rules and policies on such matters as copyright violation, promotion, ensuring a neutral point of view, or only using Reliable Sources. Keeping up with ensuring that experts, like you, only add content that is supported by Reliable references and in conformity with our Manual of Style and other policies, whilst also ensuring that vandals and puerile school kids don't damage our content - whilst also trying to create content of our own - can be a daunting task for any committed editor here. A wide range of relatively experienced editors try to help out by managing how content is added, and guiding today's newcomers to ensure that they become the content-creators of tomorrow. To that end, some of us volunteer to help newcomers in this Teahouse; others help elsewhere.
The problem we have is that there are relatively few editors committed to keep the place spick and span, and we encounter so many contributions that are not of the highest quality that we are supplied with a suite of easy-to-use template messages to help us welcome, guide, berate, warn or even report those editors who do not contribute as we require them to. Inevitably, these messages may appear to recipients as terse comments, dropped seemingly randomly on your (or others') talk pages. I don't think any of us are bully-boy cops - we try to support, guide, encourage, welcome, warn or, if necessary, report new editors for repeated bad actions. And we're always here to be questioned, challenged, or even reported on our actions, or to respond to requests for clarification. But, if you want a response, you will have to ensure you address your question properly to the editors who leaves a note on your talk page. The best way is to ask for clarification on their talk page.
I do accept that a very small number of editors here can sometimes be rather too terse in the way they interact with new editors, but I hope we get the balance right here at the Teahouse? By way of just one example of how we try to help new editors, late last night I spent a considerable amount of my time delving into the contributions of just one new editor, leaving critical (yet supportive) comments on their talk page about my concerns about how they were editing highly technical medical topics in a way that wasn't ideal. I felt obligated to support another editor's proposal that one of their contributions was so poor that it should be deleted but, before supporting that deletion, I tried to tidy up their referencing and read through their sources, only to discover that the content they had added was in not referred to in their citations. Yet they clearly had very technical expertise in the subject. I spent half an hour drafting a (hopefully) gentle message expressing my concerns at their gung-ho approach to editing. I wanted to encourage them to do better, not stop them. Whilst doing all this, another experienced editor with administrator rights gave them an indefinite block for bad-faith editing and a violation of our username policy. Whilst it didn't surprise me they had got themselves blocked, I really felt sorry for the newcomer and contacted the administrator to ask them to explain why this was done, and observing that I felt a permanent block seemed rather harsh under the circumstances. I finally got to bed at 2am, having spent three hours trying to balance issues around incompetent editing by a technically skilled newcomer, poor referencing and addition of unverifiable statements, plus discussions by other editors on the merits of merging one article they had created into another.
We honestly try to help new editors here on Wikipedia, but not all of us can dedicate three hours every night to just one person when there are 5 million articles potentially being edited, and 30,000 active editors. So short, terse instructions or warning messages may be all we can sometimes leave to ensure that this fine encyclopaedia continues to flourish and grow, and that the broad spectrum of editors contribute as effectively as possible. (I could have provide diffs to demonstrate what I've said above, but that would have been invidious.) It is, however, typical of how I, together with innumerable other experienced editors here, work collaboratively to help and encourage good editing. I am genuinely sorry if your perception of how we operate has led you to conclude we like leaving short, sharp, nasty messages for people as a 'power trip'. That couldn't be further from the truth and I think we all take great pride in the work we try to do here.
If your concerns revolved around this notice on your Talk Page, it does seem fair to me. It appears you pasted copyrighted content into an article, and that is not allowed here, and all your edits were deleted by an experienced adminstrator. Users who are warned and then continue to repeat such actions soon find themselves blocked from further editing because this is, effectively, content theft. However, this unsigned warning post by Breaking sticks about promotional editing was not clear to me, either. The simple response would have been for you to have post a question on their talk page - do not expect them to monitor every page they post on if you do not yet understand how to WP:PING another editor. I'm sorry this reply became so long-winded, but I do hope you find my reply helps to address any misconceptions you may have had about how we try to support and help new users. As always, we're here at the Teahouse to help you and other new editors with any problems you encounter. (We are on your side, honest!) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm one of the uneducated, red icon cops on a power trip, just issuing a friendly reminder to all the technically fired-up super-intelligent Neophites out there to take a second to sign your posts with four keyboard tildes (~) at the end of each post you add to a talk page. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Architecttype: Given that you just came on board this month, your accomplishments have been remarkable - over a thousand edits, two articles approved, two more in draft, major additions to two more. The one major hiccup I saw was the removal of copyrighted content from one article. Wikipedia takes copyright violations EXTREMELY seriously, and I did see that you returned to that article without subsequent copyright problems. A minor note - you are labeling almost all of your edits as minor edits. Please review that definition and tag your edits appropriately going forward. Your knowledge and efforts on Sarasota architecture are lauded. David notMD (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful input. I appreciate knowing how to 'sign' my talk entries now. Yes, I removed the 'red alerts' from my personal talk page, mainly because I had addressed the issues mentioned in them (and besides, who wants to have a permanent 'F' on their report card?). As you could see, I rewrote the entirety of the article without pasting, (as with all of the articles I have written so far ... I even did my own photography) but felt that, in the case of the organization I was describing, they would have preferred their own self-definition than to have me mangle it through contorted paraphrasing in order to avoid the wiki-cops. Perhaps I should have added quotations? In the case of 'Breaking Sticks', it seemed like a bot-type of response. I attempted to contact that person to inquire, but didn't quite know the best way to accomplish it. In any case, he/she did not respond. I can appreciate the work of 'wiki-enforcers', particularly when one contemplates the global access of wikipedia, but I wish there was a better way to separate the wheat from the chaff. I think it's pretty clear that I have no agenda other than to improve a handful of architecture-related pages. As far as 'minor' versus major edits, when creating a new page, I do it offsite using html and import the whole thing in (except for some footnoting, where I feel more confident using the template tool). When editing existing articles, I do much of it online. Yeah, I've done lots of tiny changes and moved things here and there, but I'm a perfectionist and want the page to be great, both textually and visually. I tend to fine-tune things a bit. The only advice I would give you is that wiki-cops seem to rely on process rules far too much ... honestly, does it matter if an edit is checked as 'minor' or not, as long as the article is vastly improved? Wiki-enforcers need to have that latitude with contributors. Did they produce an excellent result? Yes? Then fine, let's not flag them for checking 'minor edit'. I know dozens of really competent people who could contribute wonderfully to Wikipedia, but they simply wouldn't tolerate the constant rap on the knuckles that you seem to dispense (sometimes with great relish. For example, the enforcer who wrote the word 'no' 97 times in a row in a discussion here in teahouse). The only people left to edit Wiki are those willing to navigate the labyrinth of process rules to do it, and I would submit to you that they are probably not likely to be the subject-matter experts you need to write the articles in the first place. Wiki-enforcers need to ask themselves ... in the end, what is most important, the process or the end result? Architecttype (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I was just notified that an article I wrote was autobiographical. It is not. I am not that person, nor have I ever met that person. As a matter of fact, I just wrote another article on an architect who died a month ago. I am not that person, either, although I met him in a Publix bathroom once fifteen years ago. For the article in question, Guy Peterson, I used the already-existing article on living architect Max Strang who has a similar page, as a rough template. Strang's is without all the offensive wiki-enforcer blather at the top. His article seems to be acceptable, even though it is very similar to the one I authored. I can tell you, as a subject-matter expert, that both architects are equally worthy of articles, perhaps Peterson more-so, in terms of accomplishment and awards (Peterson fits somewhere between Strang and I.M. Pei and his article reflects this, I think). Virtually every sentence is supported by footnoting. It is just this type of uneven article treatment by wiki-enforcers that drives contributors nuts. Was it somehow in response to our conversation here in teahouse? Wiki-enforcers can be capricious like that. Please advise. Architecttype (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Architecttype. In a huge collaborative editing project such as Wikipedia mistakes are bound to be made. When they happen, it's best to try and assume good-faith and try to resolve any issues through civil discussion without labeling other editors one way or another. We as editors don't WP:OWN the articles we create and edit, and for sure it can be quite frustrating at times when we wake up and find our "work" from the night before has be changed by someone else. However, that's the nature of an encyclopedia that anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet connection can edit at anytime. So, while aiming for perfection is a noble goal, Wikipedia is by its very nature WP:IMPERFECT.
I think most experienced editors try to aim to be WP:HERE as much as possible; so, if they add a maintenance template, etc. to an article (such templates are generally helpful and are not offensive at all in my opinion) or a user warning template to a user talk page, then they are usually doing so in good faith. While your knowledge about things architecture is an asset, another important part of editing is simply learning how to work collaboratively with others. Being an subject-expert is not going to gain you any special privileges as explained in WP:EXPERT and article content is still going to need to be determined through WP:CONSENSUS.
As for the minor edits, it might not be such a big deal as you say, but at the same time there's really no need mark an edit as such unless the edit is really minor. Some editors mistakenly check "This is a minor edit" when probably they shouldn't, but it's not the end of the world. Such a thing usually only tends to be an issue when a person is marking all of their edits as minor, is advised not to do so by one or more other editors, and then continues on doing so despite the warnings. Like anything on Wikipedia, making a "mistake" once or maybe even twice, is generally not a big deal; however, repeating the same "mistake" over and over again after being advised not to is usually when things start to be seen a disruptive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. It would seem to make sense that subject-matter experts should exert greater influence over their subject-matter than random Wiki-contributors. I know nothing about the Kardashians, and you will never see me edit their articles. I believe I have stripped the article clean of anything insightful, and think it has reached the appropriate state of superficiality. I assume that's what it needed. With such changes made, I've pulled the banners ... and didn't check 'minor edit'. Wikipedia can, and should, be so much better than this. Sad. Architecttype (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Bellezzasolo. When I was a younger editor, I felt exactly the way you do, with my first edit. This clearly violated policies against original research, although it could have been discussed at the mathematics refdesk. I felt especially perturbed because mathematics is a field with outright facts, unlike say, English. The culture on Wikipedia can take a bit of getting used to, but policies have developed for a reason, and, as you keep editing, you will generally come to appreciate them! They do help maintain the quality of articles, although they can be intimidating at first. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you read WP:OWN and Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is a collective effort. Separate from content, there is an intention to adhere to Wikipedia style. Once you have created an article it is open for others to add, subtract, etc. If you disagree with changes, the place to address that is the Talk page of the article. Wikipedia is not a place for editors' insights. Many an editor - myself included - has been reverted for adding original research, insight, synthesis, etc. Is what it is - an encyclopedia - not a place for experts to share their wisdom. David notMD (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bellezzasolo. FYI, I'm pretty sure I'm older than you.:) I think what offended some wiki-enforcers in my article was the quote, taken directly from an interview with the subject (and properly footnoted). It was not original work on my part, but it was 'insightful' to the extent that it relates to his philosophy as an architect. Somehow this was mistaken for POV or being autobiographic, but clearly was not. There is a fine line between the necessity of preventing POV, etc ... and sanitizing articles until they become nothing but footnoted checklists of facts. It's not my intention to be antagonistic, but when I read the user pages of some of the wiki-cops who browbeat (sometimes gleefully) potentially valuable contributors it creates a sense of cynicism and resentment for the entire process. I can see why many worthy contributors throw up their hands and walk away. The haranguing simply is not worth it.Architecttype (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted that, not because it was original work on your part, or accused of being autobiographic (that was a different editor's error), but specifically because it was from an interview with the subject of the article. Interview content is not appropriate. What people say about themselves - interviews, their own blogs/websites - is not usable content. It's not personal, it's just Wikipedia (to loosely paraphrase The Godfather). David notMD (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Architecttype: Continuing to refer to others as "wiki-enforcers", "wiki-cops" and "wiki-bullies" and assume they are only interested in browbeating others or are acting in WP:BADFAITH like here and here is a WP:BATTLEFIELD type of approach that is not helpful at all. You might feel the way Wikipedia has been set up is sad, but all of us have to learn to try and edit according to its policies and guidelines, which include Wikipedia:Behavioral guidelines. If we deviate too much from these guidelines too many times to the point that it starts to get disruptive, then the community may decide that whatever specialized knowledge we are capable of providing simply doesn't outweigh the problems we are creating. The community may then decide to tell us its time to either slow down and reassess our approach or to move on altogether. New editors are expected not to know everything Wikipedia right from the get go and good faith will be assumed when they make mistakes; however, as per Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact, the community does have its limits on assuming good faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Architecttype: Sadly, I have to agree with Marchjuly's comments above. Having taken a fair bit of time yesterday night to try to explain to you how we operate, and why sometimes messages left for users who breach our policies can seem a little terse (and effectively apologising to you for that), I'm really disappointed to see you are still using derogatory terms like 'wiki-cop' and 'wiki-enforcer' in your posts. I am starting to sense that, whilst you might be a technical expert and are making great contributions in your field, you may also have an attitude problem towards other editors. Please drop it, and simply recognise the essential efforts of those who maintain this site, and stop disparaging the necessary task of those who ensure that the 5.5 million articles here are maintained in good order. OK, so you've received a couple of minor notices encouraging you to modify your editing (one of which I still don't understand), but it's time to get over it and stop being nasty about other contributors here. Being belligerent is not a nice way to deal with others - it just sounds arrogant. And that almost inevitably leads to conflict. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nick Moyes. I have posted some thoughts on my user talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Architecttype) regarding my experience today. I mean every word of it and sincerely hope that Wikipedia can be made better. Regards.Architecttype (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not perfect by any means, and it has received a fair amount of criticism over the years. If you'd like to make suggestions on how it can be improved, then the place for that is probably at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), one of the general noticeboards or a relevant policy/guideline talk page. Not only will more people be watching those pages than are watching your user talk page, but also project-wide changes are best decided by the community as a whole and not by user talk page discussion. I believe what you're sincere and mean well, but at the seem time you seem quick to see things the issues your having as "a Wikipedia problem" instead possibly being a problem with the approach your taking. Even the very title you've chose for this thread and the tone you used in your original comment kind of indicated that you've decided that you are in the right and the others are in the wrong. Wikipedia, however, is not really about winning and its policies and guidelines have been established over many years with input from many different people. This doesn't mean they don't need to occasionally be reviewed and changed as needed, but it does mean that some thought went into establishing them and it was determined (at least at the time) through a consensus of the community that they are consistent with and help further the project's overall goals. Part of being WP:HERE is recognizing those goals and doing our best to adhere to them at all times. It's OK to be WP:NOTNOTHERE and propose changes in good-faith without feeling the need to attach a label to everyone who disagrees with you along the way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has become dystopian. The process has become more important than the product. Seriously, take the time to read the boilerplate written above (You're not doing it right ... there's a certain way we do things here ... you can't say that here. No, TALK pages, TEAHOUSE, and PNB are for just talking, you need to go to VILLAGEPUMP. No, you must use our NOTGALLERY and NOTNOTHERE policy. Nope, cannot BLANK pages, against policy, you actions have been reverted.) IMPERFECT.OWN.CONSENSUS.NOTEVERYTHING.YFA.CIT.CITE.NOTABLE.HERE.REDACT.API.REFB.SANDBOX.NOTNOTHERE.5P.WIN.BLANK.IUP.OTHERCONTENT.HIGHMAINT.CONLEVEL.POLICY. Wikipedia's policies and rules have become a bulwark to defend the fortress against outsiders. Thats why there is a dearth of good editors.
Is the goal to produce good Wikipedia articles? Yes. Is the Wikipedia article on Guy Peterson better written, footnoted, and documented than ninety percent of the articles on Wikipedia? Probably. Perhaps you would be better served looking after the poor articles, than shredding this one. You really need to ask yourselves why that is (I think I know). I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, but my last bit advice for all of you is ... let go of the policy book (or at least apply them consistently) and focus on producing good articles. Bye. Architecttype (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed inadvertent and duplicate text. Thanks. Architecttype (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, you're annoyed, I get that. You've also contributed a lot, in a short time, so thanks for that. This is the stuff we need. You look like just the sort of editor we're after.
So what's the problem? What's annoying you? What would make it better? (Apologies for not reading all above, but time's always tight on everyone (and I'm just here goofing off from work)).
I see a 5k revert on your recent edits. Now that's going to grate with anyone! But, looking at it more carefully, I can see their point. They might not be right (not my field, I don't know), but they have a good reason for reverting. If you disagree, then the next step is a talk: page - user first to clarify why, then article or project to see if this interpretation is what most of us think. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The above discussion (minus the final post by Andy Dingley) has been moved/copied-and-pasted by the OP to WT:RETENTION#Case Study: Why Wikipedia Loses Editors ..., so it's probably best to continue it there to keep things in one place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marchjuly: I appreciate your 'ping' from the Editor Retention page, but I decided not to contribute further to this Teahouse discussion, which probably now needs collapsing. I certainly won't be contributing to an ongoing discussion that has migrated to that page. I tried to give a lengthy, considered and, I hope, reasoned response to the OP here, as I genuinely care very deeply about editor retention, and have always striven to assist or defend every user, whether young or old. However, despite some great content contributions, I now sense this particular OP has a bit of a 'chip on their shoulder' and an abrasive attitude which, despite them decrying it in others, we won't remove from them, as evidenced by their continued use of derogatory terms such as 'wiki-cops' and 'wiki-enforcer' subsequent to our responses here. If they choose not to listen to explanations given in good faith, that is their prerogative. Whilst their expert contributions are to be welcomed, their dismissive attitude to others is not. Taking that stance will not put the Wiki-world to rights, nor will their apparent reluctance to listen to other editors explaining how and why we operate as we do dissuade them from their assumptions and accusations of some sort of male-dominated cabal of petty-minded incompetents against genuine experts, all of whom should be permitted to edit here just as they please. This discussion should either be held at the OP's talk page, or continued here in a collapsed form. Moving it to a third location is not appropriate. It is for those at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention to view our discussions and interactions dispassionately and to decide, independently, what issues they may raise. For example, are we, as Teahouse hosts collectively encouraging or putting off new editors with expertise, and what can be done about it and to guide us if we are? We should not move ongoing discussions there, as this only serves to confuse everyone, especially new editors. As someone who has adopted another highly professional world expert who brought none of this attitudinal baggage, I feel the concerns expressed by this new editor at the Teahouse may never be assuaged, and are probably not representative of everyone else, even if some of the points they raise are valid. I am pinging Jtmorgan who has an interest in how this forum is run. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]
    • @Nick Moyes: The OP is the one who copied and pasted this thread (along with several others from different talk pages) onto WT:Retention just in case that wasn't clear. I just posted a courtesy link here just to let others know that the discussion as been apparently moved to another page. I don't see any reason why this thread cannot be closed, especially since any further attempts to respond to the OP here is likely only going to lead to a fragmented discussion at best. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Please merge the histories of "File:The Accidental Prime Minister (Official poster).jpg" and "File:The Accidental Prime Minister film.jpg" and also rename the page as "File:The Accidental Prime Minister (film poster).jpg" without creating a redirect. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 15:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for making this kind of requests. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 03:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Where to go then? Help me. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 07:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN. I am not sure if administrators can perform histmerge on files ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 07:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the place would be Wikipedia:Requests for history merge Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for a history merge anyhow; their purpose is to fix attribution issues and I don't see any here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summoning @Primefac:. Added history merge request template to File:The Accidental Prime Minister film.jpg Harsh Rathod Poke me! 08:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Busy? Should I ask another admin? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 12:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were told where to go, and that your request would be denied. Why ping me? So that I can decline it for you? Primefac (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I will never ping you now. The best mistake I ever made, apologies. Waste. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 03:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit extreme, but to each their own. I'm always happy to give advice, just not when it seems unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Don't take it as an insult. I said waste because I was expecting a more detailed information as to why not merge. What I learned from this discussion:

  • One can freely create a file page as long as it got different metadata as compared to its significant older version.
  • First-look poster and Theatrical release poster are different even though they are of same film. They need different file pages.

For future: I will remember this and ask for an explanation if I find someone overiding the first-look poster file page's photo with the theatrical release poster photo. My question would be if they are different indeed then why did the user override? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people upload a different image onto an existing image because they don't realize they can just upload a new image. It's like if I took the article on Snoopy and changed it from an article about a dog to one about Snoop Dogg. Image hijacking isn't as common, but it does happen. And yes, I should have explained my rationale more (and will attempt to do so in the future). Primefac (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page published in October, but still not visible online

Hello, We have created and published a page on Wiki, but it is not visible online after 2 months. The title of the page is "Micropore particle technology (MPPT). What needs to be done to activate global publication?Fsd25 (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Bellezzasolo. I searched for pages matching that title and couldn't find any records. It's likely to have been deleted if created in Mainspace, but I couldn't find a record in deletion logs. It looks like you may have created it on User:Fsd25. That's the only thing I can find under your contributions, although deleted pages won't show there. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding publication, you should follow the Articles for creation process, where independent reviewers will ensure that the article compiles with our policies before publishing the page to the article namespace. It may be best to move your userspace draft to Draft:Micropore particle technology (MPPT) to this effect. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Found it in his contribs. It's called Draft:Micropore particle technology.--Biscuit-in-Chief (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fsd25. You have not submitted your draft for review. If you want it reviewed, then click the blue button at the top that says "Finished drafting? Submit for review!" Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A problem: for medicine-related articles there is a high standard for what are accepted as citations (see WP:MEDRS). This means no pre-clinical, no case studies, no conference abstracts and no clinical trials (really). Are there published review articles that address the use of MPPT? If not yet, this may be just too soon. David notMD (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help! And yes, there is a published review article in the November issue of Wounds this year. The articles are peer-reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsd25 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is the first ref (which I just changed to proper format). The problem remains with the other refs, as they report on pre-clinical work, a clinical trial and case studies. Does not matter if published in peer reviewed journals. Minimally, refs 2, 4 and 5 need to be removed, along with the sentences supported by these refs. You could try resubmitting with the clinical trial ref, but odds are strong that a reviewer would rightfully reject that as primary research, and then decline the entire article. P.S. Sign your comments by typing four of ~ a end. David notMD (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am making a wikipedia page for my friend and it keeps getting declined for no reason

hi I am making a wikipedia page for my friend jordan and it keeps getting declined can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ KDYN (talk • contribs) 10:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, DJ KDYN. The messages at the top of User:DJ KDYN/sandbox explain the reasons for your draft being declined. Topics need to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, published sources to be considered eligible for Wikipedia articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The draft in the editor's sandbox has been deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation. DJ KDYN, except for brief, referenced quotations, you must write in your own words. Please read and study Your first article and Conflict of interest. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does someone keep telling me I need to have a source?

My edits don’t need sources, I’m just improving the writing style in the articles. But someone keeps undoing them and saying I need reliable sources. Can this editor be blocked please? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Kweefsalot (talk • contribs) 13:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Kweefsalot: Wrong, all new information needs sources. Also, stating something so redundantly obvious that Helen Keller could see it from the International Space Station while facing the wrong way doesn't exactly come across as helpful. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every one of their edits is at such a level of redundancy ("Then, he later went on to" is triply redundant!) that I'm half-convinced they're trolling. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Galobtter: Yeah, I was waiting for any response short of a 180 but I see you've already blocked them. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, blocked for offensive name, but yes, all the edits were in my opinion deliberately annoying (and reverted, by different editors). David notMD (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Offensive user name that references female sexual anatomy + overt trolling = Architect 134. I dislike cleaning up after Architect 134 because it's always a slog to go through the checkuser data and block all the sock puppets, but you might as well ping me when these show up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit query.

I have added an edit on the Rajneesh page, from a reliable source, including information from an interview with the person who purchased the Ranch in 1981, and a member of Sheelas group who was present at all of her meetings. Her husband, in fact.

Anyhow, someone objected to it and pulled it down, because they said that I did not provide copyright from the website that hosted the interview.

I have cited the page where the interview is published , however, the creators of the website, do not have a copyright policy, and allow their articles to be reproduced by anyone.

However, I can get permission to use part of the text if neccesary from the editors of the site.

So , what I want to ask is, should I rewrite the gist of some of the interview in my own words , withou t using the text original interview, or should I leave it as it is , when the issue with copyright is sorted out?

I don`t see why the original text should not be used, as there is a lot of similar material, already on the Rajneesh page, that is qouted directly from other sources. That they are all reliable is highly debatable.

There are several sources, who were present at the same meetings with Sheela who also verify in FBI transcripts and other places that Sheelas husband was present and had knowledge of events.

And should I name the author of the article , in my edit?

Here is the content of my edit:

"Swami Jayananda, (John Shelfer) , Sheela’s husband and member of Sheela’s intimate group at Rajneeshpuram, was asked in a interview in 2011 , if he had any insight into why Sheela had Osho’s room bugged around 1983/85.

He replied that “She was resentfull of Osho choosing to communicate with other members of the community.She wanted to control all aspects of his life and the commune.”

When asked if Sheela was guilty of the crimes as ordinarily understood, Jayananda answered, “Yes, her rational was it was for the better good of the commune. In reality it was to justify her actions. It was to cement her control - remove any impediment to her total domination of the community. For example the poisoning of the Dalles- was in order to elect members of the community to the governing board of the county. This would have removed the hold on the community’s ability to issue building permits... the attempted murder of of Amrito , (also Vivek) .

She wanted through removing Amrito and Vivek to control Lao Tzu with her own people.....etc. “

“Can any of these crimes be put down to Osho’s promoting or instruction?”

“ Not a chance” .

“During 1980,81,82 I often accompanied Sheela on her nightly visits to Osho. I sat in on many of those sessions. I heard about many of the sessions that I did not attend up to the end of the Ranch. In all of this I never saw Osho’s hand of knowledge in what amounted to Sheela’s dirty tricks.” [148]

I would appreciate some advice, as there appear to be people who do not want to discuss their reasons for interfering with other peoples edits, even though I have asked them.

Eternity5090 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eternity5090. I'm afraid that Wikipedia is different from many projects in ways that you probably don't realise. The significant thing here is that Wikipedia has very little interest in what the subject of an article, or people closely associated with that subject, have to say about the subject. Information from them is regarded as a primary source, and may be used in limited ways, provided it has been published somewhere with a reputation for fact-checking. The bulk of a Wikipedia article should be based on secondary sources: where people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish substantial material about the subject (again in a place with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking). So the content of an interview is acceptable as a source only for uncontroversial factual data like places and dates (provided these are in fact uncontroversial). Please follow the links earlier in this paragraph for more information.
As for copyright: in the absence of an explicit statement to the contrary, Wikipedia makes the basic assumption that all material is copyright. In order to use text published elsewhere in a Wikipedia article, we would require that the owner of the copyright to that text make an explicit declaration (either in public, eg where the material is actually published, or in a private email to the relevant team at Wikimedia) that it has been released under a licence which permits anybody to reuse it for any purpose. See donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, ColinFine. I have realised that now, the page of the interview is indeed copyrighted, so I will ask for permission. There is no reason why some of the content should not be used, as it is directly related to the topic in question. And other qoutes have been used on the page, that are also taken from people directly related to the question. So I will ask for copyright.Eternity5090 (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Eternity5090. First of all, you misunderstand copyright. Everything published is by current law copyrighted and no formal copyright notice is required. The reverse is true. A website or any other publication must have a statement formally releasing the content into the public domain, or the copyright must have expired because the publication date was pre-1923, or other clear legal conditions exist, in order to conclude that material is not copyrighted. It is OK to include a few brief quotations from copyrighted material but each and every individual quote must be properly attributed and referenced. In my opinion, your use of quotes is excessive and instead you should accurately paraphrase the questions and answers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eternity5090 Firstly; that is far too large a chunk of text to be copying from anywhere, with too many quotes, in a question and answer format not suitable for an encyclopedia, and too repetitive even if not copyrighted. It would be far better to summarise it; however even if you do summarise it, its not from what Wikipedia would call a "reliable source". It appears to be someones self published blog,/forum with no evidence of editorial oversight. Who conducted the "interview", and when? who wrote it? none of this is clear from the website. See WP:RS for what a reliable source is. Have a look at the other references used in the article- they are all newspapers or books- no blogs.
I can see you have tried to discuss it, however, you still kept trying to put your edit in before the matter was resolved and were edit warring against two other editors, which is not a good idea. Curdle (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Where has Visual Editor gone??!!

Hello - I recently made some changes to a stub that someone else had created, about my grandfather F J Browne: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_James_Browne I did this using Visual Editor, which I found to be great. Today I wanted to add a reference, and I can't find how to get into Visual Editor. What am I doing wrong? (The only 'Edit' button or tab I can see is labelled 'Edit Source'. Why can't I see a Visual Edit button?) p.s. If anyone answers this, is it possible to get an email? Otherwise I don't see it unless I look! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JazzBadger (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @JazzBadger:. When you click that "Edit source" tab, you can change to Visual editor from there. Look at the top right corner of the editing pane, you'll see an icon shaped like a pen, click on it, you'll see "visual editor" option, then choose it. On your second question, it's partly possible. You should go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo and scroll down to "Mention" and tick the box against it under email header. If you do that, whenever someone mentions you in an answer, you'll be notified via email. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JazzBadger: Adding to what Ammarpad has helpfully said above, be aware that in your Preferences settings under the 'Editing' Tab that there is a way to select which editor(s) are offered to you (see here.) You can choose whether to "Show me both editor tabs", "Give me the Visual Editor if possible", or "Remember my last editor" and other options. Most times when the editing tool you want suddenly goes missing, it's because you've got your Preferences set wrong. Let us know if this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Article from my Sandbox to Draft for Review

Hello Teahouse!

I have finished my article in my Sandbox, and would now like it reviewed for publication in Draft. I entered "move to Draft" but have been told it is appearing as a "blank" document. How do I correct this? Many Thanks! Zuzuroo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carole Basinger: You moved the mostly blank page User:Carole Basinger instead of your sandbox, User:Carole Basinger/sandbox. I'll delete Draft:Carole Basinger so you can move the sandbox there. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carole Basinger: Actually, I went ahead and moved the draft from your sandbox to Draft:Brian Rosenworcel as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ian.thompson! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carole Basinger (talk • contribs) 20:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ian.thomson!Zuzuroo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is about what is now Draft:Brian Rosenworcel. Carole Basinger, you will need to read Help: Referencing for beginners, and do some work on the references, so that the text contains actual links to the references instead of dummy links like "[8]". Maproom (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How long should my Wikipedia article be?

I've written a 31 page biography of an artist with maybe 30 photos or more. Should I re-create the whole thing here, or cut it back to a few pages with a few photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RANJR (talk • contribs) 23:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RANJR: WHOA, hold up! It's not about length but about citing at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the topic but independent of it. All the information in there needs to be supported by reliable sources as well. I'll leave more detailed instructions on your page. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, RANJR. I am in complete agreement with Ian.thomson here. References to reliable, independent, secondary sources are like golden bricks when building an acceptable Wikipedia article. Our job, primarily, is to accurately summarize those sources. Everything else is minor in comparison to the real reason that we create encyclopedia articles, which is to summarize reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Bashkardi people?

hi all, i have received a question on my talkpage; Caddyspoked has asked why WP has an article on Bashkardi language but not one on Bashkardi people? a quick look on google doesnt really bring up much (as a non-academic/librarian that is my go to research tool), maybe someone here can help? i have also left the same question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran. thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to a Dab page

Looking up Heitor Villa-Lobos, I lazily entered just villalobos in the search field and arrived at Villalobos, a disambiguation page listing a surname and a DJ, a band, a municipality, a river, and a gunboat bearing it, all with the same spelling. I added

at the foot of the list,.

But I'm wondering:

  1. Should I insert a subhead between the six Villalobos-es and the lone Villa-Lobos?
  2. Should I move the composer, who is the best-known of these, to the top of the list, and if so how should I word and format it? E.g.,
    "Villalobos" may be a misspelled reference to Heitor Villa-Lobos, a Brazilian composer. It may also refer to

--Thnidu (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thnidu and thanks for your question at the Teahouse. I'm going to stick my neck out a bit (i.e. without fully checking the guidelines) and give you a very quick gut-reply; others may wish to correct me. I would put all the Villalobos entries in alphabetical order, and then I would then add a 'See also' section in which I'd put Heitor Villa-Lobos and USS Villalobos (PG-42) although others might wish to keep the gunboat in the main alphabetical list. I wouldn't put the most visited page first -alphabetical order suits most users best. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: I would disagree with you and say that Heitor Villa-Lobos should not be added due to the page Villalobos (surname) existing. There are dozens of people with the lastname Villalobos, and they belong on the page Villalobos (surname), not Villalobos (disambiguation). See MOS:DABNAME. MarkZusab (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkZusab: Yes, it doesn't take long to recognise that you are right, and I am not. Thanks for that contribution. I did say I was being hasty, but maybe I simply shouldn't have replied at all. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, MarkZusab. And when I went just now to carry out your suggestion, I found that you'd already done it. Excellent! :-)
Except that
both link to the same article. :-(
--Thnidu (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thnidu: I fixed that by making the first link go to Horacio Villalobos (photographer) instead. MarkZusab (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkZusab: Thanks. I didn't know what the articles were named. --Thnidu (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who can help me write a notable article in Wikipedia

Hello! I recently got declined for my submission. I hope I can have someone help me write an article. I have recently encountered and then followed a personality, who I think deserve a space in Wikipedia. However, I don't know how to make my entry notable for publishing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndiMaravilla (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, AndiMaravilla. I assume that you are talking about Draft:Lloyd Luna. Your draft is lacking the most important component of an acceptable Wikipedia article: In this case, that would be references to reliable sources that are entirely independent of Luna, but devote significant coverage to Luna. Such sources are the building blocks of an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328:Finding 3 - 5 sources that devote significant coverage to any person is a tall order save for a national politician,or a celebrity, mainly, and this this is a real problem, and one which might inspire negative comments like the one below. But the real problem is that significant coverage is like beauty it is in the eye of the beholder And this opens the door to abuse and overuse by someone who gets a rush out of exerting their power over new editors. Right or wrong I see analogy in an analogy in hazing. And the fact is that Anything, any position, can be rationalized and justified.I always assume good faith, or try to, but at times that is Bridge too far. And my observation is not limited to my own experience.Oldperson (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the comments by Cullen328 on this and on the "Peer Review" query following were completely warranted. An encyclopedia is not about beauty. Rather, it is about a uniformity of criteria for inclusion and of formatting. One side of the coin is that anyone can be an editor. The other side is that all editors are expected to follow rules. In their present form, neither of these two drafts are there. David notMD (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David notMD Apologies.When I made my comment above I assumed that the reader was knowledgeable of analogies/idioms in the English language. For when I said "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" I was not talking about the beauty of an article.'Twas merely an analogy anidiom. like one man's trash is another mans' treasure all meaning: "different people have different ideas and views about what is beautiful

not all people have the same opinions as to what is attractive or beautiful the perception of beauty is subjective it is not possible to judge beauty objectively what one person finds beautiful may not appeal to another" Source: theidioms.com"Idioms". In other words the issue which you did not address,but in your response reinforced. That which is notable, hence worthy, is highly subjective and dependent on ego, motivation and opinion of the editor/adminOldperson (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

I would like to have a peer review of an article ive written prior to resubmission Deanna Coakley 04:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanna Coakley (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Deanna Coakley. You must be talking about Draft:April M. Reign. This is a highly promotional draft that can never be accepted to the encyclopedia in its current form. It must be brought into compliance with the neutral point of view. Another point is that it is completely out of compliance with our Manual of Style but there are more fundamental problems as well. Please read and study Your first article, and implement all of the advice that you find there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of cleaning up some of the formatting errors and cut stuff in my opinion not relevant, but you still need to follow Cullen328's advice before submitting again. David notMD (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attaching a photo

Hi, Can I attach a photo saved on my computer? This photo is also on the photographer's computer. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona3003 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mona3003. Copyright is very complex so I will have an answer based only on what you have said here. In most cases, the legal copyright for a photograph that you found on the internet is held by the photographer. If so, then only that photographer can upload that image only if they are willing to release that image under the terms of an acceptable free license. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the photographer is willing to do that, you can direct them here:[1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the popups about how few people donate and such

they really might very dramatically reduce how much people donate by signaling the existence of a strong norm for not donating. I would suggest listing the number of people who DID donate not as a percentage but as tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people

I took a course in behavioral economics through Toronto University and this is just one of those things that people actually do really commonly but which has the opposite of the intended effect. Mentioning low voter turnout reduces voter turnout and actually it's also been specifically checked for how it effects donating to charities and it's a very strong effect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingtoph (talk • contribs) 09:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Flyingtoph. That makes sense to me and reminds me of experiments I've read about where people are most likely to be encouraged to recycle if they are told that the majority of their neighbours do so. Unfortunately (other Teahouse hosts might correct me here), I don't think us Wikipedia editors have any say in the design of the fundraising campaigns, which are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (see Wikipedia:Contact us/Donors), so I'm not sure we have any way of acting on your advice. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestion, Flyingtoph. I think the campaign is run from the Wikimedia Foundation, rather than within Wikipedia. I think the best place to engage is at meta:Fundraising. --ColinFine (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi, I wish to understand more about a comment made to me on October 11. I was accused of Vandalism. How do I understand the accusation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teratis (talk • contribs) 10:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can explain the relevance of "Pepi the frog" in the article that you edited? ... and the false edit summaries? These are classed as WP:vandalism. Dbfirs 10:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. I think my brother was using my account accidentally. He’s a special needs individual. I suspect that he likes frogs. Thank you, Dbfirs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teratis (talk • contribs) 10:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Teratis see below
  1. In 2018, various things have also been clearly heard (Pepi The Frog) - mind to explain how Pepi The Frog would be heard in the article of a territory in the Holy Roman Empire in 2018?
  2. added unsourced content - At Harvard, the Office of Provost is ceremonial. - but on edit summary you put typo
  3. changed invited to the Teahouse! to JackintheBox, you are banned from Wikipedia because you are insolent and a bit of a silly goose.!
Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested to read Wikipedia:My little brother did it.--Shantavira|feed me 12:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ONLY edits from your account are the vandalism edits back in October. Going forward, best way to avoid being accused of vandalism is to not commit vandalism. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me your account was blocked indefinitely for vandalism. Make sure to make a proper appeal without those excuses (or may be a proper verdict)... Quite unfortunate I'd say, you may challenge this block by placing {{unblock request|your reason will be here}} only if you'll properly follow all the policies and guidelines (and read some essays, quite useful in my humble opinion). If it's declined.. don't worry about it and agree to the terms they'll say. If not, then I'm afraid you've to move on. Also set some strong password or get encrypted passwords to avoid further disruption. It'll help you to keep that mobile away from everyone except you. Make that as a commitment and may be they will unblock you over this. Best regards, THE IP 182.58.205.181 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, per WP:BROTHER, it's admitting a compromised account. Which means all they have to do is create a new account. If it doesn't vandalise, then everything's OK. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is added Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi sister's husband name with brief details.

Dear Sir, Good Day

According to your advice regarding edit, i am providing you reliable sources with complete details as below:-

1. Book Name: Afkar e Milli

Author: Dr. Qasim Rasool Ilyas Title: Afkar e Milli Publication: Afkar e Milli Publication Delhi India Year: 2000 Language: Urdu Page: 254

2. Book Name: Tarikh e Aine Tirhut

Author: Munishi Bihari Lal Fitrat Title: Tarikh e Aine Tirhut Publication: Bahar e Kashmir Lucknow India Year: 1883 Language: Urdu

3. Book Name: Bihar Vibhuti

Author: Narendra Narayan Yadav Title: Bihar Vibhuti Year: 2014 Language: Hindi Volume: 3rd

I think that these references will be enough for edit. Please add below information about Noorun Nisa on Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi page. " Noorun Nisa was married with Chaudhary Mohammad Kalimullah "Zamindar" of vill. Hayaghat Bilaspur, Dist. Darbhanga, Bihar"

Best Regards,

Masroor Chaudhary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masroor Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 12:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Masroor Chaudhary: you have started several new sections about this same topic, and I wonder if I could ask you to please keep to the same section (as long as it has not been archived, in which case it is fine to start a new section). To do that, find the section you started previously on this page and click "Edit" to the right of the heading. Then add your new post to the bottom of the section.
In addition, you seem to have created this post after you had added the text yourself to the article (but yet again without any sources!), so I don't quite understand why you posted here. This kind of request is actually better placed on the talk page of the article. Note that your additions to Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi had been removed not only because the sourcing was insufficient, but also because an editor felt that this kind of detail about a person who is not actually the subject of the article is not relevant. That is the kind of thing you should discuss on the article talk page, and try to reach a consensus with other editors about what content belongs in the article instead of restoring the content yourself. You find the talk page for that article here; you can always find an article's talk page by clicking "Talk" at the head of an article page. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Masroor Chaudhary: You have also made six posts on this page without properly signing your posts, despite us asking you twice to do so. Writing out your name at the end isn't enough! Please end every post to a talk page, or discussion page like the Teahouse (but never in an article), with four tilde characters (~~~~). Look at Wikipedia:Signatures for more detailed instructions. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hola!

donde puedo conseguir algunas cajas de usuario para mi página de usuario parece muy aburrido.

English: Where can I get some user boxes for my user page seems very boring. Snowstorm (u.t.c) 16:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Snowstorm in the arctic! There are userboxes for every occasion at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries. Happy editing! –FlyingAce✈hello 17:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! You can find the topic or the areas which interest or something which you're fancy about, by doing a simple search for a set of topics right here. You may also want to read the content guideline and policy established for userboxes. Lemme know if you've any questions about this. Regards, THE IP 182.58.205.181 (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Question?

I've been a Wiki contributor for several years, and I've created one article that was published after some back and forth about its content. I'm just wondering if I'm allowed to remove the discussion items from my Talk page. Sort of an OCD thing. I'd like to clean things up and remove irrelevant things...and now that my article exists, I don't really think all that stuff needs to stay on there. I just want to make sure I'm not violating any rules by removing messages that were left there for me. Are my profile pages mine to do with as I like (obviously within reason and within the scope of Wikipedia) or is there some etiquette involved?

Thanks, and Joyous New Year! skatoulaki (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Skatoulaki! I have removed material from my own talk page simply by selecting the unwanted items and blanking them to the page history. Alternatively, you could start a new page User talk:Skatoulaki/ Archive, and move the "mail" posts into that. Hope this helps a bit. Cheers! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Skatoulaki, and welcome to the Teahouse! The relevant guideline is at WP:OWNTALK. Though setting up an archive is preferred, you are still allowed to clean up your talk page by removing old discussions, if you so wish. Happy New Year to you too! –FlyingAce✈hello 17:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! The Archive page sounds like a perfect solution! skatoulaki (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very welcome, and I wish you a happy and prosperous new year! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Draft on Anand Ranganathan was rejected.

Hi, The person in question has appeared on several media platforms. His work on Tuberculosis was also widely reported. He is author of 3 fiction books and has written multiple columns in various media platforms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk • contribs)

Hi, I did saw your article being moved back to the Draft page. While I saw multiple citations for the content, I don't know why did he do that. You may discuss it with the help desk. For now I'll look at your article and see if it meets our Notability guidelines. Regards, THE IP 182.58.205.181 (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, as per the guidelines 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. His work on Tuberculosis was covered by various news organisations such as the Hindu, https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/indian-researchers-use-a-novel-route-to-kill-tb-bacteria/article18508931.ece. 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. Young Scientist, World Economic Forum, for the New Champions Summit, 2012 Young Scientist Medal of the Indian National Science Academy, 2007 Young Scientist Medal of the UDCT, India, 2006 The Person has also written multiple fiction books. The latest book, Rat Eater was covered by neutral sources. https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/10-must-haves-indian-whodunnit-love-story-tips-rat-eater-65665 — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 17:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IndianHistoryEnthusiast, after a quick look at the article, it seems to me that you would do well to find sources more independent than his profiles at JNU and anandranganathan.com. The awards are sourced only to the JNU profile. —teb728 t c 10:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to Fix a Video URL

Hello! My article has made it to Draft for review, and I am attempting to improve my references. There is a Youtube video I must use to verify a point made in my article. I entered the URL, but it is a bad one, apparently because I was given a blackbox warning. I have tried to convert the URL, but it only converts to the bad one. Any suggestions on how to link this video to my article? Many thanks! Zuzuroo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Carole Basinger. I am not sure what kind of technical issue that you are running across, but many YouTube videos are not not acceptable to link to. Often, YouTube videos violate our copyright policy and/or are not reliable sources. Please read Linking to user-submitted video sites for more information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cullen! I am attempting to improve my article by "proving" my statements by referencing them. The Youtube video I would like to link supports my statement of "274K views." Would you suggest I remove the reference completely? Thank you for your help and suggestions. Zuzuroo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carole Basinger, you might think about whether the "274K views" are worth mentioning. More generally, I notice that many of your cited sources are Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook, an interview with the subject, and the band's website: Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the others are not independent and so do nothing for establishing notability. —teb728 t c 10:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The price of coffee in Canada

When asking for donations in Canada, I've noticed that it often compares a 3$ donation as the price of your morning coffee. The thing is, a lot of Canadians don't actually pay that much for their morning coffee. Coffee at Tim Hortons can cost less than $2, coffee at 7/11 can be as cheap as $1 (although they have recently increased their prices to be somewhere around $1.50 where I live). McDonald's is around the same price of Tim Hortons and offers every 7th cup free. A lot of people make their coffee at home, or buy beans or grounds from places to like Tim Hortons to make at home. This is the price in Canadian dollars, by the way.

My point is that comparing donating to Wikipedia to buying a cup of coffee might have the potential to distract from the point of donating to Wikipedia. I think you might have more success in donations by emphasizing the importance of the Wikipedia, or maybe even the convenience that the access and reliability of Wikipedia provides is important and should be supported.

I thought it'd be better to ask/comment about this here since it's more likely I'm forgetting to account for something important but I still wanted to ask/comment about this (just in case). Clovermoss (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Clovermoss! That's a pretty good point concerning Timmie's and 7/11 but many many coffee shops charge more than 3 bucks. I think the WMF was trying to describe an average price to stress the value that 3 bucks could do for the Wikipedia. Cheers! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I have no issue with Wikipedia asking for $3, I was just offering suggestions. In regards to Tim Hortons, if their advertising campaigns are to be believed, they sell 8/10 out of the cups of coffee sold in Canada, so it the price of their coffee might have a bit more relevance in general. Clovermoss (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The campaign is outside the control of anybody in Wikipedia, Clovermoss. You might like to bring your suggestion toengaging with meta:Talk:Fundraising. --ColinFine (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. I'll take a look at it. Clovermoss (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article not yet published

I have been working on this article for over a month now and I have more information than most other articles of similar topics, yet my article is still not being published. What else do I need to do?

JacobMinor33 (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)JacobMinor33[reply]

Hi JacobMinor33. Can you be more specific than "this article"? It will be much easier for others to help you if they know exactly which article your asking about. By the way, an "article" typically refers to something already in the mainspace (i.e., has been published). Perhaps you mean "draft"? I looked at your user sandbox and your recent contributions history to see if I could figure out what you're asking about. Your sandbox is empty and Draft:Czechoslovakian Vz. 53 Helmet has already been accepted as an article. Is there something else you're currently working on? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the latter, you published that yourself by moving it from draft to mainspace with this edit, JacobMinor33. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly Cordless Larry Thank you for the quick response! I was unaware my Draft:Czechoslovakian Vz. 53 Helmet was accepted as an article. I guess I was just confused as to why when I search up the article on google it does not show up anywhere, but when I search it up on the Wikipedia website it does. (Sorry if I didn't format this correctly or anything like that, I am still getting used to Wikipedia). JacobMinor33 (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)JacobMinor33[reply]
JacobMinor33 Sometimes things take a bit to get indexed, and sometimes they have to be viewed a considerable amount of time to get indexed. Your formatting looks good enough, though improvements are always possible. May want a Template:Infobox_military_gear. Have a good time, and feel free to post any questions on my talk page! WelpThatWorked (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WelpThatWorked Thanks so much for all the help! JacobMinor33 (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)JacobMinor33[reply]
New articles are NOINDEXed until they have either been reviewed through the NPP process or 90 days have expired. Your article is among more than 4000 awaiting new page patrol. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can we reign in the Deletion Nazis?

PREAMBLE In the past, I used to enjoy editing and adding to Wikipedia content but I have become discouraged by the vast power of "Deletion Nazis" who seem to get a thrill by deleting other people's content for its "lack of notability" or whatever. Many times I've found interesting and useful content, only to have it later deleted. As a result of this issue, I'm no longer wasting my time creating & editing content and, in protest, I've suspended financial donations until my legitimate concerns are answered.

My point to YOU Deletion Nazis: just because you think content is uninteresting and not notable, others almost certainly do NOT share your views. Please stop your power tripping and focus on CREATING content, not deleting the work of others.

Question: How can the excessive zeal of the Deletion Nazis be reigned in and what can I do when I see content marked for deletion?


Example: In this case, I reverted the "mark for a deletion" of an author who the Deletion Nazi thought was unimportant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Goodheart&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus451 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Markus451: Calling people Nazis just because you disagree with them is not welcome. If someone is not here to help, they probably would have been blocked by now.
The easiest way to ensure that things can't be deleted is to follow site policies regarding notability instead of throwing a temper tantrum. You can find a nigh-guaranteed plan for writing articles that won't be deleted at User:Ian.thomson/Howto.
"This is important to me" is not a valid reason to object to a deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your made one edit since 2016 and it was an improper approach. An Articles for Deletion template was added to the Adam Goodheart article. The place to voice your opinion is at the deletion discussion. Instead, you deleted the template (which has since been restored). If you disagree with one editor, the places to disagree are at the Talk pages of the articles in dispute, or in this case at the AfD. (Where you have not yet posted a comment.) Generalizing to a rant against anyone who ever deletes (and name calling) does not help. David notMD (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When to archive

If a discussion lasts from, say, January to August, and you want to archive that discussion, would you put it in the Jan–June archive or the July–Dec archive?  Nixinova  T  C  02:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nixinova and welcome to the Teahouse. I personally would put that in the July-Dec archive since the closing date of the discussion falls in that period. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 06:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion on removing a maintenance template?

Hi. I was wondering if someone might be able to give me a second opinion as to whether or not the maintenance template at PC Optimum should be removed. I've done recent editing for expansions and citations, but I'm not sure if it's enough to consider removing the template. Clovermoss (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

looks good to me. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Clovermoss and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for helping out with that article! There are now only a few unsourced areas left, as follows:
  • The last part of the second paragraph in the lead isn't sourced or mentioned in the body of the article, as far as I can tell. I would suggest incorporating the information into the body of the article and adding a source for it in the body.
  • The program is available at almost all Loblaw supermarket banners, with the exception of T & T Supermarkets isn't sourced or mentioned in the body of the article. Again, I would suggest incorporating the information into the body and sourcing it there.
  • PC Plus began in Ontario as a test launch in April 2013, expanding to all other provinces in November 2013 in the history section isn't sourced
If you can fix these points, I see no reason why the tag should have to stay on there any longer. :-) Again, thank you for helping out; I hope you continue editing Wikipedia! Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've also made a few tweaks to the refs, as can be seen here. I mostly combined duplicate references and changed the position of refs so that they were in accordance with this guideline.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you! I'll try o find sources for the other statements as well. Clovermoss (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the maintenance template now, per my talk page.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 19:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_St._Pierre

The photo and the signature are NOT those of the person described. They are mine, and should be removed from this page.

Paul St-Pierre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.185.221 (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the signature. Where did it come from? Should it be removed from WP:Commons? It was put there by Psubhashish in 2011 claiming "own work".
There is no image in the article. Perhaps Google is mis-matching an image from elsewhere. If this is the case, then you need to report the error to Google. We have no control over what they display. Dbfirs 14:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have checked Google and this is a problem with their Knowledge Graph. Google scrapes and summarizes Wikipedia's freely licensed content and often will find a photo, not from Wikipedia, but from somewhere else on the internet. Sadly, this type of Google error is fairly common when two people have the same name. Google needs to correct it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sockpuppet investigations as an IP

Hi I'm having a doubt over opening some related sockpuppetry by a master sockpuppeteer and wanna open a investigation over it. Is it possible to do that? And is it necessary to link via differences of revisions (or diff(s)) request a CheckUser for it?

Regards,

The IP, 182.58.192.93 (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also one doubt that will they close my case even if I provide strong connections in their habits? Or the CheckUser finds its unrelated, what to do then? 182.58.192.93 (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pinging some established CheckUsers @Zzuuzz: @NinjaRobotPirate: 182.58.192.93 (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you find that you can't edit a case, you can make an edit request using {{Edit semi-protected}}. The most obvious place to put it is on the SPI case's talk page. If you can't find anywhere else to post the request, you could do it at WT:SPI. It is highly recommended to include a couple diffs. You can use this guide to learn how to do that. The best evidence concisely shows a sock master and the sock puppet making similar edits. For example: "X always misspells 'edit request' as 'edit inquest'. Here is a diff of X doing it, and here is a diff of Y doing it. They also both edit the obscure page Rabid Grannies. Here is X editing it, and here is Y editing it."

If you don't include enough diffs, it might sit in the queue for a while because nobody wants to do all the work themselves. If you include too many diffs, it might sit in the queue for a while because people don't want to sift through all the evidence just to find the most relevant parts. So, it's a balancing act of finding just the right amount. If the checkuser result is inconclusive, the checkusers may pass the case off the SPI clerks or patrolling admins to investigate. If so, you don't need to do anything, but it helps if you're around to answer their questions (if they have any). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing page from Sandbox

The "More" dropdown with the "Move" feature does not appear on my acreen. How can I move a page from my Sandbox to being published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkdevans (talk • contribs) 16:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked the same question at the Help Desk. See the answer there. Please do not ask the same question at multiple forums, as it wastes helper time. —teb728 t c 18:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Jkdevans. As a new editor, even when you gain the right to publish articles, it's a good idea to submit them for review instead - at least until you learn the ropes. Premature publication without going through the review process can often result in article deletion. User:Jkdevans/sandbox was moved to Draft:Bush League (band) but has been declined for publication because you haven't yet established that the topic meets the relevant notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help resolving an issue

A new editor reached out to me recently for help on his first article Wizdom Khalifahd, a cinematographer and rapper. I checked out the article and found it has multiple issues. The subject is virtually unknown online and clearly not notable enough to deserve a WP aricle. A Google search yields virtually no biographical content, only information on a few of the songs he has created on Soundcloud and elsewhere. The article cites WP pages, a YouTube link, SoundCloud, and the subject's own website TJOD Entertainment. Again, none of these provide meaningful biographical information (not to mention that WP/YouTube/Soundcloud links should not be used). Furthermore, I think the creator of the article has close connections to the subject. He described the subject to me as his "blood brother" and his name User:Sufiabdul is listed as "starring" in a video created by the subject (the video is one of the sources of the article). When I informed him that the subject has to be notable and information must be cited by published third-party sources, he tells me, "All what I have written in the article is basically known to me."

Soon after the article was created it was nominated for deletion by User:Ifnord per WP:PROD. Soon afterwards the creater of the article removed it without explanation. After my conversation with him, all of which can be found on my talk page under "Please help me for my first article", I added the Template:BLP unsourced which he again removed. I added Template:Citation needed where appropriate, most of which he removed. He also blanked my talk page, possibly in protest. In response I wrote him a vandalism warning on his talk page.

I believe User:Sufiabdul has good intentions, but doesn't understand that the subject does not deserve a WP article. He has been uncooperative to me and others when it comes to understanding this. At this point I'm unsure what to do next. I'm looking for help from someone with experience to resolve this issue with me. Thank you! --Nannochloropsis (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nannochloropsis and welcome to the Teahouse. I have sent it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. You can take part here if you wish Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizdom Khalifahd. Theroadislong (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong: Thank you. I have seen the AfD page. This is my first time dealing with this sort of issue so thank you for your help! --Nannochloropsis (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:TheWikiWizard

How can I add an edit notice for this page?--Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:EditnoticeWelpThatWorked (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to delete my wiki account

please help me to delete my wiki account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olegkozinets (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've already asked this at the Help Desk and it has been answered. --Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to delete my wiki account

please help me to delete my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleg.kozinets00 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts cannot be deleted, but you can simply abandon it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit a draft page in other than source mode?

I need to remove external links from the body of a draft page as I am told that they're not allowed -- How do I edit the draft without using the "Edit Source" which is all that I see? I want to remove the external links in the body of the article and also remove using Wikipedia as a reference (I didn't know that you couldn't do that either - Thanks!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untipoflaco (talk • contribs) 22:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can try the visual editor. Click the Pencil in the top right of the edit window. WelpThatWorked (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect requests for articles that don't exist

I recently found out how to move a page, but I'm not sure how to create redirects. I've just renamed the page Stations of the BBC to TV Channels and Radio Stations of the BBC but it doesn't come up when I search for it for some reason. So could someone make it so that it appears in search, along with creating redirects for articles which don't exist like: "Channels of the BBC", "List of BBC Channels", "List of BBC Stations", "List of BBC TV Channels and Radio Stations", "BBC TV Channels", "BBC Radio Stations" etc so that they redirect to the page TV Channels and Radio Stations of the BBC Danstarr69 (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Danstarr69 The redirect is there: It was created automatically when you moved the page. One way to see it explicitly is to click on Stations of the BBC and then click on the link to "Stations of the BBC" under the title "TV Channels and Radio Stations of the BBC" —teb728 t c 00:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

teb728 What I mean is that when I type TV Channels and Radio Stations of the BBC in the search box at the top right of the page, the article TV Channels and Radio Stations of the BBC doesn't appear. The only way I can get to that page is if I click on the redirect titled Stations of the BBC. That's why I'm asking for someone to make it so it appears in the search box, and add some more redirects to that article like the ones I suggested. The reason I'm asking is because we don't call TV channels "TV stations" in the UK, so I end up forgetting what I'm meant to be typing whenever I try to find that page. Danstarr69 (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The person who's just posted below has reminded me of the Page Information section in the left hand pane where you can see all the redirects https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/TV_Channels_and_Radio_Stations_of_the_BBC&hidelinks=1&hidetrans=1. As I've just found out by looking in there some of the redirects I suggested do already exist like:

Why is Stations of the BBC the only one that appears in the search box? Danstarr69 (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Danstarr69, I don't understand what you are talking about. I pasted each of the following into the search box. In each case the search box recognizes the name. If I leave off the last character, it offers to complete the title.
  • Stations of the BBC
  • TV Channels and Radio Stations of the BBC
  • Channels of the BBC
  • List of BBC Channels
  • List of BBC Stations
  • List of BBC TV Channels and Radio Stations
  • BBC TV Channels
  • BBC Radio Stations
Maybe you are typing only the first few characters into the search box, and the title you are looking for is not in the first 10 results? —teb728 t c 06:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

teb728 I've got no idea what's going on either. Either someone has changed something to make them appear, or Wikipedia was going a bit mental when I posted this 8 hours ago. When I wrote this, I would write the entire title and still would get 0 results in the search box. Now I'm getting multiple suggestions, and all the redirects are working. Danstarr69 (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How Often Is "Page Information" Updated?

Earlier today I was looking at the Wikipedia article on "Florence Nightingale". I noticed in the leftmost pane a link titled "Page Information". I clicked the link and say in the Basic Information section that Number of page watchers = 407. I then added the "Florence Nightingale" page to my watchlist. Now, 18 hours later, Number of page watchers is still 407. I assume it should be 408 since the page is on my watchlist. Does the updating of "Page Information" generally take 24 hours or more? Just curious. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindaPenn04 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, LindaPenn04. I do not know how often watchlist counts are refreshed, but have you considered the possibility that one of those 407 people may have removed the article from their watchlist? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LindaPenn04: I've just visited the Florence Nightingale page and checked the number of watchers. As at 3 minutes ago, it was 408. I then added it to my watch page, refreshed the stats page and the page view page and five seconds later it was showing 409 watchers. I removed it from my list, and 5 seconds later both paged reported one less watcher than before. I'm guessing that you might have needed to have cleared your browser cache to get the proper update. Anyway, just thought I'd mention it. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nick Moyes:. Thanks for explaining. I've got a lot to learn! LindaPenn04 (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dont know how to categorize this article

I was thinking about writing an article about Tyler Trent. It’s not that there’s a lack of notability it’s just that he was just a college student when he died, however there are a surplus of articles from reputable sources, so if someonce could help with that, that would be great. Erfson (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Erfson: The first one which came to mind is Category:Deaths from cancer with its appropriate subcats to choose by the condition type (bone cancer) and country.
Of course the basic one would be one of Category:21st-century deaths subcategories.
You may also consider Category:Purdue University people, although students are generally not categorized under their univeristy name. I'm not sure, but possibly you can also use Category:Cancer research due to Tyler's donation of his tumor.... --CiaPan (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photo for an Actor

Hi ! I am a new editor on wiki. I am loving it so far - but wanted to know how i can put a photo up to a page I have just created? I have a photo that I took on my iphone of the actor at an opening night last year - can I use that? or do i need to get an official one from a pro photographer?

Thanks so much for the help in advance! TimT E Mclean (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One by you is fine (as long as its of reasonable quality, of course)- in fact it is much easier, because you wont have to worry about copyright concerns. Just bear in mind that if you do choose to upload your own photo, you are surrendering any copyright; anyone can then download it and use it however they like, even if it is for commercial purposes, as long as they credit Wikipedia. That's the sticking point most pro photographers have about donating photos here; they are essentially giving up all their rights to a photo. Even if you commissioned one, they would still have to agree to giving up their own rights to it.
The usual method is to upload the pic to Wikimedia Commons,and link to it from there. Its pretty simple if you follow the directions; even I managed to do it :). Have a look at WP:IMAGES for all sorts of links and information.
I just had a look at Commons, and there is already a pic of an Alex Rathberger there, if its the right Alex. Curdle (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the subject I want to write about is "notable"

Can I, as a company employee, write on one of the company's products which is under development — Preceding unsigned comment added by REODTGEAMR (talk • contribs) 09:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@REDOTGEAMR: Short answer, no. Long answer, please read our conflict of interest page and, especially if you intend to receive financial compensation for the work, our policy on paid editing. Generally, unless it has received substantial coverage from independent reliable sources, future products are not considered to be notable. Sorry.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Article: Peace Sign (Usher Song)

Hello, I wanted to release a new article for the song Peace Sign by Usher. Sadly it did not work. The song is from Usher's latest album A with Zaythoven. In December 2018, even a music video was released. Could someone please create the article. Thank you.

[1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67Joey (talk • contribs) 13:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/hip-hop/8489974/usher-peace-sign-video
  2. ^ https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/a/1438684941

Where do I go to request page protections?

A page is being vandalized, but I don’t know where to go to request. 2600:387:1:817:0:0:0:C0 (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no

my question is that when i post an article what must it be like and is my post visible to everyone on Wikipedia. --MeKLT (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=876481976"