Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by XTMontana (talk | contribs) at 17:47, 21 May 2019 (→‎Editing Kindie Rock page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

Eman235, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.
Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a 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.

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

Width of a frame

Around the template "Information science"

Information science
General aspects
Related fields and subfields

there is a frame. I would like to make it less wide. How can I do this or better: where can I find the tutorial to do this? Steue (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. You can edit the sidebar via the tiny "E" in the bottom right corner, but I see no obvious parameter for width. Also, anything you do here will effect all the pages this template appear on, and that may not be what you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I understand (and understood) what effect a change in there would have. I tried all three (VTE). Now I know what they are for. I never before cared nor dared to touch them. Steue (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CFCF, do you have any idea? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Steue and welcome to the Teahouse. Before answering you, I'm assuming you only want to change the size of the displayed template on your own userpage and not to change it for every other user on Wikipedia?
Indeed, Nick Moyes, I wanted to change it for all users. Regarding this template "Information science" I left a message on its talk page. Steue (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't attempt to change that template - or indeed any other - without first discussing your proposal on the template's talk page. That template uses another template to create a sidebar - see {{sidebar}} where the documentation shows there is a width parameter which can be included.
When you added the template here, you 'transcluded' it - meaning that it remains 'live' and that any change later made to the original template would appear here and on every other page where it is included whenever those pages are opened or refreshed.
That is how I understood this. Steue (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The method you actually need to deploy is 'substitution' whereby the actual text of the template is pasted into just your userpage; any subsequent changes then made to the template won't show on your page. And changes you make won't impact upon anyone else, either. So, to achieve this, type in this: {{subst:Information science}}, save it and then edit the source code. You can then insert the missing width parameter as |width=
If you add any number, say 50, and preview your page, you'll see it has shrunk just a tiny bit. But the limiting factor is the longest line: the very bottom link to the Library and information science portal. If you delete that line on your own user page (not in the master template!) you can shrink the sidebar even more. Unfortunately, I'm no expert in the finer points of templates - there are probably other parameters one could find to reduce the body font size, but I hope this quick reply suits your purpose. I've made a mockup for you in my own sandbox here, which first shows the original translcuded template, and below it a modified version which I substituted and then edited for you. Let us know how you get on. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I looked at your work. This is exactly what I wanted to achieve. But there is something strange: When I open the sourcecode of your scratchpad (via "Edit sourcecode") then there IS a parameter "width", but when I open the substituted template via its E, then this line where this width parameter would be, is empty. I also tried to play with the width in your sandbox: I could change the value. Then I clicked on preview, but the width had not changed. I even tried a value of 3000. Could that be because I have no right to change anything in someone elses sandbox? Steue (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Steue: You are welcome to copy and edit the code in your own sandbox, but I think you'll find the same issue. I did notice that changing the width value (the parameter for which I had manually inserted into my sandbox version) didn't actually change the width accordingly...but it still worked. I didn't mention it at the time as I did appear to have found a solution, despite not fully understanding what was happening. I assumes there's something else ever-riding it - not sure what. Getting to understand templates better is something I also need to do - and one's sandbox is certainly a good place to do it. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Steue, you said "I also tried to play with the width in your sandbox: I could change the value. Then I clicked on preview, but the width had not changed. I even tried a value of 3000." Try, instead, values like |width=3000px, |width=50%, |width=70em. All of these had an effect when I replicated your 'experiment' in Nick's sandbox. The value is passed as a CSS width value - see this guide (CSS width Property) and this page (CSS Units) for more details. -- Begoon 07:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaaah! Thanks. Steue (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving tricky URL

Hello Teahouse! Not really a newbie here, but I have had trouble archiving this website at either archive.org or webcitation.org. The URL is this redbull music academy article which I have used extensively for the Escape (Whodini album) article. The website seems to feature some sort of loading feature that prevents me from having it properly archived on Archive.org and webcitation (it constantly hits the loading page without hitting the site). I fear losing this valuable content! Anyone know of any alternative solution? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: have you tried Archive.is? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Finnusertop:I have not tried that yet. I am currently at work and that URL seems to be blocked.:) I will try when I get a spare moment at home. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andrzejbanas, http://archive.is/NZQ46 -- Begoon 07:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Begoon: Thanks so much for jumping to it for me! I just got back to wikipedia today. Thanks for tackling it for me. Just added it to the article. You just saved a good chunk of potentially lost information. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What to do if my XFD doesn't get any contribution from other editors?

What will happen when the closure date comes, after the relisting? Also, maybe, my proposal has characteristics that puts the passerby off from commenting? Is there somewhere I can find editors with (potentially) expertise/interest to RFC? I think the admin could just read my proposal and decide using common sense and/or some research on their part, but it keeps relisting, so I think that's probably not how things are done. Usedtobecool (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Usedtobecool and welcome to the Teahouse. If your page gets removed, you can ask a administrator to restore it and paste the article into your draftspace so that you can work on it some more. You can also ask for this to be done even right now. I have saved articles to my own desktop to work on it some more. Posting here is a good idea because others may help. A Passerby almost always passes your articles/drafts even though your draft/article my have have thousands of readers. That is not unusual. Any other questions? Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 14:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Usedtobecool is actually the AfD nominator, not the article creator. Their question was what would happen if there were still no !votes after the second relist. --valereee (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a movie was a blockbuster why we should not write that it was a blockbuster.

Do you think it is an unfair praise of a movie it met astounding success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma.Sydney.aus (talk • contribs)

Just write how it was a blockbuster instead without using that word. In the appropriate sections, you can write how much money it made, what were the audience and critic ratings, how long did it run theatrically, etc. Usedtobecool (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Emma.Sydney.aus. In theory, you can attribute the blockbuster claim to high quality reliable sources, in this fashion: "According to outstanding source A and outstanding source B, the movie was a blockbuster." But the term is so vague and so overused and it lacks a strict definition. Therefore, it rarely adds much of encyclopedic value. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Emma.Sydney.aus and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want the to keep the phrase "astounding success", add the phrase with quotation marks and reference it. Just make sure that the phrase is in one of the references. I hope that helps. If you need more help, leave a message on my talkpage. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 14:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original definition of the term was to describe bombs dropped from airplanes that were large enough to destroy a city block. Only after WWII did it get applied to large-budget, spectaculars that were expected to be high grossing movies. According to Blockbuster (entertainment) the first movies described as "blockbusters" were war movies. David notMD (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emma.Sydney.aus said blockbuster about the 1995 Pakistani film Mushkil.[1] I don't know Pakistani cinema or Urdu and I haven't found box office numbers for it but I doubt "blockbuster" is a good description. I only found [2] which says "Box office: Average". PrimeHunter (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Started a few days ago. It seems i contribute, it gets reverted, sometimes in seconds, no explanation. Even while still editing credits and can't figure out why page is different in editor than what shows to me on read. In fact on Single Hitch page, they decided the same old blank page was better as their contribution? Oh but not so quick to answer why. How do we move forward please?Thetreespyder (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The pages you have edited are probably on the watchlists of different editors, hence the quick revert. Please discuss your edits on the talk page of the individual articles. In most cases, explanations were provided in edit summaries. The stub Single hitch contained no references. Please read WP:Referencing for beginners. Not all of your edits have been reverted. Please ensure that you add appropriate references for future edits, then they are less likely to be reverted. Dbfirs 08:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thetreespyder welcome to the Teahouse. It was yourself who reverted Single hitch to a redirect.[3] We don't write article text after redirect code. Users clicking the redirect are taken to the target of the redirect without seeing the text. An article should have reliable sources satisfying Wikipedia:Notability. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i am new, and did put the re-direct back on Hitch after other comment made, and so while editing left the re-direct. Then later someone wiped out the Quoted numbers from Ashleys Book of Knots etc. On Taut Line page, the whole paragraph was quotes attributed to ABoK siting the existing reference to the book most properly i believe. Then while building reference to the very first quoted author everything was wiped out for me as i was going back and forth trying to figure out why editor wasn't reading same as page. This was done during 1st edit of the page, while in action/writing on day_1? i believe the part with Ashley quotes was properly done, especially as read other pages. But if removed, should be able to show the quotes themselves as false. Also, perhaps when someone just started on something, and is in mid stroke might be an untimely point to edit.Thetreespyder (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Ashley Book of Knots does not appear to have recent edits. Aare you writing about something else?David notMD (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Appears you were referencing TABK, not editing. David notMD (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it at all necessary to title citations?

Whilst editing pages, I have seen that, when making a citation, the author/editor will sometimes title their citation inside the '<ref>' text. Is this necessary for the citation, or can it be left without a title inside the citation itself? Thanks BigSmithster (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BigSmithster I think what you're asking is whether a bare URL is okay? It's better than nothing, but we do prefer the ref to be fully expanded. For new users like yourself, we understand that you may not have learned how to do that yet, and a bare URL is fine to start out with. You can learn how to expand references at WP:CITE, including tools you can use to make it much easier, like Wikipedia:ProveIt. --valereee (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BigSmithster I save time by cutting and pasting existing references in the articles, and overwriting the info with my reference info, and deleting info that doesn't apply. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BigSmithster: just in case you are asking about putting a name for the reference inside the <ref> tag itself, like so: <ref name="some name">{{cite template}}</ref>, that is only necessary if the same reference is used several times in an article. You'll put the full reference the first time, and then you only need to add <ref name="some name"/> when you use the ref in another place in the article. Hope that makes sense! --bonadea contributions talk 21:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

POwered Skateboard Racing

I posted and article about powered skateboard racing now its deleted why — Preceding unsigned comment added by NAPSR Racing (talk • contribs) 19:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, NAPSR Racing. I have had to block your account because it violates our policy as the name of a business or organization. Please select another username. I am not able to find any such previous article. There has never been an article called Powered skateboard racing but perhaps the title was a bit different. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Second error that needs to be fixed is that you put the article-type content in your user page User:NAPSR Racing. User pages are for describing yourself vis-a-vis you intentions as a Wikipedia editor. Your sandbox can be used to work on a draft. David notMD (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very embaRrassing error in naming article. How do I correct this properly (Not a redirect)

I just created a new article for a notable scholar and misspelled the name!!! it has been corrected with a re-direct, but the error is bound to be embaRrassing for the individual concerned as well as for Wikipedia. In my view, very few links to her name would be involved. How can I set things right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by City Bube (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, City Bube.
I deleted the redirect and moved the article to the proper title of Reeta Chowdhari Tremblay. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to nominate someone for an article?

My deceased father is quite notable in his field for his research and contributions to Air Crew Coordination and Aviation human factors. He held a doctorate in experimental psychology, worked with the US Army and Navy, travelled the world as a guest speaker, was a teacher and author of a textbook still used at Embry-Riddle today. I wonder if he would meet the requirements to have an article written about him and how is this done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stattales (talk • contribs) 20:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stattales: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds like your father had an impressive career, I am sorry for your loss. Potential article subjects would merit a Wikipedia article if they are extensively written about in independent reliable sources that indicate how the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. You can request that others write such an article at Requested Articles, though there is a large backlog there. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, @Stattales: your father sure sounds like a useful fellow, but there are rather strict rules (many people think too strict and weird) on subjects of articles. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) can give you some idea. Probably better not to try, but rather mention him in articles on fields in which he made important contributions. Go easy; if someone undoes your work, discuss it in the article's talk page. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stattales, you can get more topic-specific advice and assistance from WikiProject Aviation, simply post on the project's Talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spam vs. Vandalism

What would be the difference between spam and vandalism. And how to know if it really is spam or vandalism or if it’s a false alarm? GummiBear139 { — Preceding unsigned comment added by GummiBear139 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GummiBear139: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Vandalism is any edit that defaces an article; spam is any edit that is advertising something. such as posting an external link to advertisements or commercial websites. See WP:SPAM and WP:VANDALISM for more information and likely better definitions than I have provided here. If you aren't certain about it, you should assume good faith and discuss the matter with other editors. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalize my username

Hi, I am new here. I am happy to join Wikipedia but want to learn as much as possible. Can I change my user to SAGOtreespirit or SagoTreeSpirit, or am I stuck with Sagotreespirit? Sorry for the silly question. Sagotreespirit (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagotreespirit: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not a silly question at all. You may change your username in one of two ways; go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest(if you provided an email address to your account in your Preferences) or go to WP:CHUS(if you didn't). 331dot (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Thank you 331dot! I enjoy the friendly atmosphere here. I am ready to contribute and want to translate many Indonesian articles into English. I am taking a lot time to read all the guidelines to make sure I do not make many mistakes. Success to you. Sagotreespirit (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My first attempt to add a page titled "Progressive Capitalism" has been rejected and I need help responding and resubmitting

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lopifalko was: Neologisms are not considered suitable for Wikipedia unless they receive substantial use and press coverage; this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources. Links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself do not establish its notability. 

The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs independent reliable sources with sustained coverage of the subject, not just writing by proponents of the subject.

My Questions: 1) What is the effective approach to addressing the reason for denial above? 2) Do I need to demonstrate more conversation about Progressive Capitalism over time that is favorable? 3) Do I need to demonstrate that there is opposition to Progressive Capitalism by people with alternative economic models? 4) Can I copy some of the relevant material (criticisms) from the entry on Capitalism that may apply here as well (I'll review for relevance)? For example this outline: 10 Criticism 10.1 The profit motive 10.2 Comparison to slavery 10.3 Marxian responses 10.4 Criticisms on the environmental sustainability of capitalism 10.5 Supply and demand 10.6 Externalities 10.7 Counter-criticisms 10.7.1 Austrian School 10.7.2 Ayn Rand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parent55 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Parent55 and welcome to the Teahouse.
1) Progressive Capitalism needs to have been talked about significantly in sources which are not closely related to it, and which are considered reliable and trustworthy. This page could help with more information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources
2) Whether the conversation about this topic is favorable or unfavorable is not important: what is important is that it is given coverage. The article should give appropriate weight to the views provided in the sources while remaining neutral in presenting them.
3) This can be included but is not the main issue; see my answer to 2 and this page: Wikipedia:Weight.
4) Generally speaking, content shouldn't be exactly copied from other articles.
Thank you for stopping by and let us know if you have any more questions. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog

There has seemed to be a problem with the Sonic the Hedgehog page on Wikipedia with inappropriate edits that should be left unchanged. I think it would be a good idea to put a subtitle called memes to explain the recent history of memes that are associated with the recent sonic movie. I hope my senior editors take this into consideration since it would be a fun category of which many people will enjoy writing, including me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‪Johnytooshoes‬ (talk • contribs) 03:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At Sonic the Hedgehog (film), Talk page, there is already an answer ("No") to making a section in the article for Sonic fans to contribute. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia incorporates published information, not views of individuals. One the movie is released, professional critics will write about it, and those reviews can be referenced. David notMD (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is There an "Official" Wikipedia Dictionary?

I'm at that point in my development as an Editor (AFAIC, I'm still starting) where the precise definition of certain words is now a "thing". Rather than start a content dispute using whatever dictionary best suits the purpose of my POV, I've decided to post here and ask, 1) is there an "official" dictionary, 2) Is there a single dictionary that is most common? 3) Is there a group of dictionaries that are considered "acceptable", 4) are there dictionaries that are considered "not acceptable" (with the obvious idea that the "urban dictionary" is not acceptable, so no need to tell me that). I'm hoping there is a single authoritative dictionary, which would then make content discussions clearer, faster and use less words (learning that's important). Also, while I'm bothering you folks, when a dictionary lists multiple definitions of the same word, does the first one listed "trump" subsequent definitions, i.e. are they listed hierarchically, and if so by what standard. For example, say I assert that this word is unacceptable, because by definition #2, it's wrong for some reason, but by definition #1, there is a long, and less-valid connection that someone else can make. Do they "win" because their weak argument is supported by definition #1, and I lose because my strong argument is supported by definition #2? Note too this isn't tactics or strategy, i.e. how to "win", this is to help me to decide if it's worth the time & trouble to make an issue where I'm going to lose anyways. Thanks in advance.Tym Whittier (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a difference in a definition Wikipedia operates under consensus through the talk page process. Just one answer. Eschoryii (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No dictionary takes precedence, but I usually consult the OED and Merriam-Webster (and, of course, our sister project, Wiktionary) to get an "official" definition. However, as noted above, a consensus via the talk page is the Wikipedia method for resolving differences. Dbfirs 07:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source required

It is mentioned in English Wikipedia that the story for Vichitrakutumbam telugu film is by Sharad Pilgoankar? What is the source? On which Marathi Film it is based? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radhapathi (talk • contribs) 05:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy link: Vichitra Kutumbam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Eman235/talk 12:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about merging/redirecting wiki articles... and atomic bombs

Items involved (WikiData Codes): Q12802 (Nuclear Weapons), Q650051 (Atomic Bomb)


English (Italiano in fondo)


To anyone reading here, I apologize in advance if my English is not the best, as it is not my native language, but I thought regardless to post my issue here, as this problem could very well happen with any language, and here I have also the opportunity to be reached out by more of you guys. I also apologize already for the length, but here is the issue I'm concerned with:


Many languages have merged their version of the Atomic Bomb article within their article about Nuclear Weapons. In the Italian version of the Atomic Bomb article there is a lot of information that, if we merge it in the Nuclear Weapon article, I feel it would be a lengthy article that does need its separate page. It would be also unfairly balanced with the other kinds of nuclear weapons discussed in the article (namely: Atomic Bomb, Hydrogen Bomb, Neutron Bomb, Cobalt Bomb, and Radiologic Weapons).


So, to put it in basic terms, the "nuclear-related" articles in the Italian Language are organized in this way:


Merging the Atomic Bomb article in the Nuclear Weapon article (as well as all others) would make the article really lengthy to read and unbalanced in the amount of information available on each weapon. So there does not seem to me any reason to merge these articles together (unless anyone would like to tell me otherwise?). However, given the way the articles are organized, it is difficult to link these wiki articles with other ones which are not organized this way. For example, the English Wikipedia does not have an article on the Atomic Bomb (only a redirect page to the article "Nuclear Weapons"), and so a link of the Italian version of the Atomic Bomb article to the English one is impossible to add, given that the English page is then redirected to the broader "Nuclear Weapons" article (which is already linked to the Italian version of the article). A similar issue is happening with the German and Portuguese versions (they only have the Nuclear weapons/bombs article, already linked to the Italian article on nuclear weapons).


How is this issue able to be solved? I don't want to leave the Italian article without an English version, because many Italian people go on the English version of articles to get more information from there, since there is a lot more information online available in English. Do I create an English page for the atomic bomb? Or are multiple articles able to be linked to one in another language? Please let me know if you're able to help, or if you have any hints on how to help. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. --DanielePalladino (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Italiano


Mi scuso per la lunghezza del post, ma volevo essere chiaro e completo nella mia spiegazione. Questo è il problema:


Molte lingue hanno fuso la loro versione dell'articolo sulla bomba atomica all'interno del loro articolo sulle armi nucleari. Nella versione italiana dell'articolo sulla bomba atomica ci sono molte informazioni che, se le uniamo nell'articolo sulle arme nucleari, ritengo che sarebbe un lungo articolo che ha bisogno di una sua pagina separata. Sarebbe anche bilanciato ingiustamente con gli altri tipi di armi nucleari discusse nell'articolo (vale a dire: bomba atomica, bomba all'idrogeno, bomba a neutroni, bomba di cobalto e armi radiologiche).


Quindi, in breve, gli articoli "correlati ad armi nucleare" nella lingua italiana sono organizzati in questo modo:


Unire l'articolo sulla bomba atomica nell'articolo sulle armi nucleari (così come con gli altri articoli) renderebbe l'articolo molto lungo da leggere e sbilanciato nella quantità di informazioni disponibili su ciascuna arma. Quindi non mi sembra ci sia alcun motivo per unire questi articoli insieme (a meno che qualcuno non voglia dirmi diversamente?). Tuttavia, dato il modo in cui gli articoli sono organizzati, è difficile collegare questi articoli wiki ad altri che non sono organizzati in questo modo. Ad esempio, la Wikipedia inglese non ha un articolo sulla bomba atomica (solo una pagina di reindirizzamento all'articolo "Nuclear Weapons", Armi Nucleari), quindi un link della versione italiana dell'articolo della bomba atomica a quello inglese è impossibile da aggiungere, dato che la pagina inglese viene quindi reindirizzata al più ampio articolo "Nuclear Weapons" (Armi nucleari, che è già collegato alla versione italiana dell'articolo). Un cosa simile si trova anche con le versioni tedesca e portoghese di Wikipedia (hanno solo l'articolo sulle armi nucleari/bombe, già collegato all'articolo italiano sulle armi nucleari).


In che modo questo problema può essere risolto? Non voglio lasciare l'articolo italiano senza una versione inglese, perché molti italiani vanno nella versione inglese degli articoli per ottenere migliori e maggiori informazioni da lì, dal momento che ci sono molte più informazioni online disponibili in inglese. Creo una pagina inglese per la bomba atomica? Oppure più articoli possono essere collegati a uno in un'altra lingua? Per favore fatemi sapere se siete in grado di aiutare, o se avete suggerimenti su come aiutare. Qualsiasi aiuto è apprezzato. Grazie. --DanielePalladino (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DanielePalladino. This is a common problem when we try to link articles on the various language Wikipedias. Topics don't get divided up into articles in the same way in each case. There are two main types of nuclear weapons, fission (originally called atomic bomb in English) and fusion (originally called hydrogen bomb in English). In Italian there are articles for each type,it:Bomba atomica and it:Bomba all'idrogeno, and also in French, fr:Bombe A and fr:Bombe H. Here in en.wiki we have an article on the second type, Thermonuclear weapon, but no separate article on the fission bomb. The information is in the general articles on Nuclear weapon and Nuclear weapon design. I suggest writing an Italian article along the lines of the French fr:Types d'armes nucléaires and using that to link to en.wiki's Nuclear weapon design to give you the connections you need to the information here. (That's what fr.wiki does.) I am sure at some point we will have a comprehensive article devoted to the fission bomb and it.wiki can link to it then. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help me out in creating a artist page

Really need full steps on how to create a music artist page (diography) thanks as I get help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamemmysmith (talk • contribs)

@Iamemmysmith: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest task on Wikipedia. It's even harder when you want to write about yourself- writing about yourself is strongly discouraged here per the policy written at WP:AUTO. Please understand that Wikipedia is not social media for you to tell the world about yourself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such it is only interested in what others say about you, in independent reliable sources. Those sources need to show that you meet the notability guidelines for musicians written at WP:BAND. Please read them. If you meet at least one of the criteria to merit an article, it is best for you to allow others to write it.
Also understand that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Is copy-pasting of my own thesis OK?

Hi, I decided to write a new wiki article about topic, that have not been on Wikipedia yet. I have written whole thesis on this topic and I want to use parts of it in copy/paste manner. The thesis itself does not contain original research, it is compilation of different sources. The thesis has been succesfully defended and can be found on our university website. What should I do? --Dejv06 (talk) • 13:20, 19 May 2019

Hi Dejv06 the key question is; who owns the copyright of the thesis, you or the university? If it is yourself then you need to follow the Donating copyrighted material procedure. If the university owns it, the Fair use rules apply. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Dejv06. I'd encourage you to give this plenty of thought before proceeding. By adding the text to Wikipedia, you will be releasing it under a Creative Commons licence for others to use, and this might have consequences for your ability to publish the material yourself later. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Masters' Theses are not reliable sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Finnusertop aiui Dejv06 wants to copy some text from his thesis which cites other sources, so the thesis is not the original source. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Dodger67, provided that it only summarizes those sources and makes no conclusions. Most theses are more ambitious. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help Writing Draft

I am creating a a draft on an online store. How do i link it so other pages that are interested can help writing it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Masoko(E-commerce) Minty tech (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see Help:References. Ruslik_Zero 14:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two versions claimed, only one cited

I was reading a Wikipedia article that claimed two versions of an attributed statement, but the footnote only cites one of the alleged two versions. How can this be cleaned up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Emfield (talk • contribs)

What article and what statement? Ruslik_Zero 14:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COI disclosure not linking to article

I just submitted a new article for review. I did not try to open it myself because I have a conflict of interest: the topic is my father.

My question: Originally the COI disclosure on the page linked to the name of the article. Now the COI disclosure is blank. How do I get that disclosure re-linked to the article name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GVTeg (talk • contribs)

Hello GVTeg and welcome to the Teahouse. On User talk:GVTeg/sandbox, you can add {{connected contributor|GVTeg|declared=yes}} to show this. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English page creation

I creatd an English page :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Plan%C3%A8te_Juniors

From the French page :

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan%C3%A8te_Juniors

I want you add the sources like : "Notes et références" in the French page to the English page.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.191.132.190 (talk • contribs)

I cannot see any references in the French article. Am I missing something? Your English draft needs in-line references as described in WP:Referencing for beginners. It's up to you to find these, probably in French. Dbfirs 16:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I submit a definition of a business?

I can not find the step by step instructions to add a definition of a current business. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdenaHarmon (talk • contribs) 17:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AdenaHarmon, I'm not sure whether you're asking how to edit a current page for a business, or create a page for a business? --valereee (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to establish a definition of a business that does not yet exist in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdenaHarmon (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AdenaHarmon Are you saying that you want to write about a new business field, or type of business? 331dot (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on submission denial

Hi, a newbie editor has put a lot of work into a submission, but it has been rejected, a discussion followed but the issue has not been resolved. What should be the next step? In my opinion the grounds on which the submission is rejected are too specific and subjective to justify a rejection. Here are the draft and discussion pages for context Draft:National drinks and Talk:List of national liquors. Thank you Rybkovich (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Ruslik_Zero 20:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New editor in need of a draft to be proofread

Hi I've been working on my first ever article for a few weeks now and I would really appreciate it if someone could proofread and go through my article before I submit it for review, as I have probably made a few nooby mistakes. The article is: (now hidden)

I have a COI with this person so I would be really pleased if someone could skim through it and let me know if it's all OK and if there is anything missing or in need of adding. Let me know on my talk page if you need further clarification or have any questions. Thanks a lot --HeyitsBen (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HeyitsBen, if you want it reviewed, submit it to AfC for review. John from Idegon (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

someone keeps deleting my edit

On several occasions i've added content to a page...which is then deleted. the content is factual,non-political or racist. The page is Downpatrick and the content is about the Folk Group "Poteen" having been born there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:8634:c600:a925:65f5:7fa1:8539 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user . If you look at the history of the article Downpatrick, you can see that three different editors have reverted your addition four times, mostly with the comment "unsourced and not notable". Please look at the message that one of them, JimVC3 has put on your user talk page explaining this in more detail. Information which is not cited to a published source is of little value, because a reader next week or next month or next year has no way of checking whether it is correct (it may have been correct when it was inserted, but somebody could have come along later and changed it).
It is normal for editors to disagree about what should go into an article. When this happens, we do not simply keep applying the edit: this is called edit warring, and is regarded as disruptive. Instead, we start a discussion with the other editors, to try and reach consensus under Wikipedia's policies: please see BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colin....Listen this is all computer-babble to me....Here are the facts 1/Poteen were born and reared in Downpatrick 2/They were one of the most successful folk groups from Northern Ireland. 3/They played with all the heavyweights on the Folk scene i.e The Dubliners..The Wolfe Tones etc. I know all this because it was my brother and I who formed the group. We played in the band until he died in 2001. I came across your page on Downpatrick and felt he should be mentioned. I would create a "Poteen" page, like the one created on Facebook, if only I knew how. I find it terribly irritating that YOU and other EDITORS can dictate to someone born, and still living in Downpatrick, what is and is not notable and unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:8634:c600:5d41:e997:b2a4:67aa (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia is not like Facebook; Facebook is for people to tell whatever they wish to tell. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects; Wikipedia is not interested in what article subjects want to say about themselves. ColinFine gave you some excellent advice above on this matter. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that what you say is true, but your word is not sufficient, we need reliable sources that are independent of your group. That's how we judge notability. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See the range contributions of 2a02:c7f:8634:c600::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). 2a02:c7f:8634:c600::/64, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - editing about your own group is highly discouraged here. theinstantmatrix (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, IP-user! What you call “facts” are not known for me. I have never seen the group, I've never been to Ireland, I live in a quite distant country. How do you plan to show me those are true, and not pseudo-facts fabricated by some bored teen...? Who else can confirm what you said? (And when asking 'who', I don't mean your buddy next door. Facts in Wikipedia need →WP:Verifiability, which means citing →WP:SOURCES, which are →WP:RELIABLE and independent from the subject.) Best regards. --CiaPan (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listen guys and maybe even ladies...who knows..Thanks for all your help and advice....it's still all computer-babble to me lol..my daughter has a wiki account and she is setting up a Potéen page....she has sourced all the legit verifiable sources..oh CiaPan..I'm 60 years of age and retired from music but thanks for the compliment...anyways peeps once again apologies from a novice....Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmurphy113 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

Hello, I work for Jean Paul Garraud, a French politician with a Wikipedia page. He requested me to add a photo to his page as the previous one was deleted by a user.

I tried to add on Wikipedia the picture from his official Facebook page but it was deleted twice despite the fact I provided all the legal rights to use the picture : on Thursday and today.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.159.117.203 (talk • contribs) 2019-05-19T21:37:17 (UTC)

Could you please advise on how to proceed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.159.117.203 (talk • contribs) 2019-05-19T21:37:17 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Easiest way to avoid an licensing issue, will be by clicking original photos, and uploading it directly on Wikipedia. You should make sure you don't download any images from internet, and upload it on Wikipedia, even from Facebook. In case you want to use any image, that has been used on Internet, then you need to take permission of the copyright owner. See WP:CONSENT, in case you want to use any online photos. Feel free to reply if you need any further assistance. ML 911 21:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. I can't find any evidence of anybody adding a photo to the English article Jean-Paul Garraud, so I guess you are talking about the French article fr:Jean-Paul Garraud, where Stellouchou (is that you?) added a photo from Facebook, which was removed from Commons, and then added a different picture, which is also up for deletion from Commons.
If that is what you are talking about, then I'm afraid that the English Wikipedia Teahouse is not an appropriate place to ask: you need to ask at fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux, or at commons:commons:Help desk: these are all separate projects, with their own rules and personnel.
But from what I know of Commons the problem is likely to be that Commons only accepts pictures which are free for reuse - in practice, this means that the holder of the copyright has explicitly released them under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, which will allow anybody to reuse them for any purpose. But as I say, you need to ask there. --ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine, I had a similar question (without any French). Please see below Comm260 ncu (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing contributions?

I have just tried to find an edit I made a few weeks ago by checking my contributions on my Kindle, but when I click on "older 50" the list jumps from 2 May to 10 Feb. I'm the first to admit that I'm not the most active of WP editors, but I made numerous edits between those dates. On my laptop I can see all of my contributions. Is there a known fault with contribution lists on Amazon Kindles? JezGrove (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying it on a PC, and it works there. It shows several screens of edits through April. I can't suggest what might be going wrong for you - perhaps try it again and see if the WP elves fixed it in the meantime?--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you run into similar problems with Kindle on other web sites? Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gronk Oz and Liz. I figured out that despite displaying 50 contributions per page and a button saying "older 50" on the Kindle, it was actually jumping 500 contributions at a time (which is the setting in 'Preferences' on my PC). There's no way of adjusting this setting on the Kindle, but setting it back to '50' on the PC fixed the issue. I guess it's more of a glitch than a genuine bug, and not a very important one, but perhaps you could pass it on to the WP elves? Best wishes! JezGrove (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Posting Image of Marathon Logo—NO GO?

OK, I want to contribute some marathon race logos so they can appear in the info box of the marathon's Wikipedia page (like this one for the London Marathon). Pretty simple, right? Not quite. I make sure to upload a small image to the Wikimedia Commons site, but every time I upload the image, fill out all the information, and publish the image's Wikimedia page, a big red box appears with this message: This media file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion.

So the image can't be "fair use?" Then why do so many other company logos and marathon race logos appear in Wikimedia? I must have something wrong in the upload process.

I've created a "non-free logo" template (using {{non-free use rationale}}); I've tried checking various boxes (CC-licensed and fair use) when uploading. Still to no avail. They continue getting deleted.

Help!

Comm260 ncu (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comm260 ncu, don't upload non-free images to Wikimedia Commons; upload them locally to the English Wikipedia. (The reason for this: Commons serves as a media repository for all Wikimedia projects, some of which do not allow non-free files.) Eman235/talk 22:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason is that Wikimedia Commons aims to provide doubly free media for everyone, not just Wikipedias, and hence should not be polluted by non-free files. (See commons:Project scope.) TigraanClick here to contact me 08:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to format/link music artist songs etc

Hi all, I'm super new to this, so please forgive me if this is explained elsewhere. I'm working on a draft of a musical artist page. Right now, I have their albums, music videos, and singles listed as bullet-pointed text lists with a reference attached to each item. The references link out to either the Apple Store page or YouTube video for each item. Is this acceptable? Or, should each item in the article just be a hyperlink in and of itself?

Basically, my question is, should the links to things like songs/albums be references? Or just regular hyperlinks within the text?

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

AlwaysMoreMystery (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enquiry About a page "Wakil Kumar Yadav"

Hi recently I have edited a new article with valid citation, still it is in deleting category, why? Plz check the article named Wakil Kumar Yadav and solve this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakuxyz (talk • contribs) 06:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link: Wakil Kumar Yadav; link to deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wakil Kumar Yadav. Maproom (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we write an article on a company that does not exist in the wikipedia?

Can we write an article on a company that does not exist in the wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyankas3010 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Priyankas3010: It depends on what "does not exist" mean. If you plan to write an article that says something exists or happened when it did not, please do not do so. If the company does not exist yet but someone plans to start it soon, probably not. If the company lives within a work of fiction (such as Acme Corporation), maybe, but present it as a fictional entity, not as a real company.
In all cases, the relevant test is whether the company has been written about at length by reliable independent sources. (That is a test that must be met by any subject on Wikipedia.) TigraanClick here to contact me 08:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About Suryavarman II

I need to know more about Suryavarman II. He is a Tamilian. But i didn't see any lines that mention his clear history. I need to know more history about him. Also "Surya" is not only from Sanskrit. In tamil "Sun" is called as "Suryan". So while keeping it as name it's referred as "Surya" + "varman" = Suryavarman.

Thank you for your response. Please reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbk2019 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Vbk2019: We do have an article about Suryavarman II (assuming that is the same person you are talking about), which contains a fair deal of information.
If you have any additions/corrections for the article, please give them on the article talk page, located at Talk:Suryavarman II. However, it seems unlikely to me that a monarch of Cambodia has much to do with Tamils, so you would need to provide reliable sources for your proposed etymology. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New article on small startup

I'd like to try and write an article for a small startup in Silicon Valley but I'm not completely sure if it's "noteworthy" enough. The company is OmniPreSense, is couple years old and has just a hand full of employees however I've seen multiple articles about other startups that match this definition. Would it be appropriate to write an article about this startup? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpef0704 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jpef0704: Probably not. The criterion is "notability" (more details in the case of companies at WP:NCORP); it is not about the size, although the bigger companies are more likely to be notable. From a quick search online, I found nothing in the way of notability.
If other startups have articles despite lacking sources that write about them in great detail while being reliable and independent, those articles may need to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion for how to nominate them yourself, or just tell us the titles and we will handle it. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enquiry

Good morning

Thank you for the invitation.

I just need to find out how long will the draft:Collen Khoza page will be live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladoya.James (talk • contribs) 07:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, that draft is a hagiography of someone that does not demonstrate how that person is "notable" (in Wikipedia's meaning of the term). It is therefore never going to go live in its present state: Wikipedia articles are based on what secondary reliable sources independent of the subject say about it.
Please read Wikipedia:Your first article, and if you are CK, also read our page about autobiographies. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In general, if a draft is not submitted (or resubmitted) and not worked on, it can stay a draft for six months before being deleted. If seen as solely promotional, it may be deleted sooner. While in draft, it can be seen at Wikipedia, but will not be found if search for the name made at Google or other search engine. This draft may be deleted soon, as the content has nothing which suggests the person, Collen Khoza, can meet Wikipedia's idea of notability. David notMD (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How much times it takes to save a draft

I have created a draft for my practice last week, and am trying to save it but it is not being saved. but its not getting saved and is published. How much time it takes to save? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aadilghb (talk • contribs) 07:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aadilghb: I suppose you are talking about Draft:Muhammad Aadil? It has been saved on the Wikipedia servers, but not yet "published" in the sense that it is not in the mainspace. You might have been confused by the "publish changes" big blue button at the bottom left (it "publishes" changes by the meaning of Wikipedia's license, but it does not actually "publish" them in the usual understanding of the term; the wording is here for legal reasons).
Please note that this draft is unlikely to go to the mainspace unless you can add references that show that person is "notable" (in Wikipedia's special sense), which is roughly "has been written about at length by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject". (Many meritorious persons are not notable, and conversely many awful persons are notable; the job of an encyclopedia is not to pass moral judgement.) TigraanClick here to contact me 08:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can I publish an article with a name that is already "occupied"?

I would like to publish an article with the old biomedical term "Reticuloendothelial system". If I search for the term I will be redirected to "Mononuclear Phagocytic System". I think this is because the original article was published as "Reticuloendothelial system", but 12th November 2010 the name was changed to "Mononuclear Phagocytic System". I think that was a good idea because the article, as it stands now, describe "Mononuclear Phagocytic System". However, for many reasons I think it is important also to write an article about "Reticuloendothelial system". But how can I start publishing an article when the term/phrase (in a way) is occupied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjetilhe (talk • contribs) 12:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kjetilhe: See WP:EDRED—you can simply edit Reticuloendothelial system and write your article there. (See Wikipedia:Your first article for help.) Eman235/talk 12:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjetilhe (talk • contribs) 13:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kjetilhe and Eman235: When rewriting a redirect with a new article contents please check what links to the former redirect with the What links here link from the side menu. It will open the listing Special:WhatLinksHere/Reticuloendothelial_system – this should be checked for the articles, which need re-linking directly to Mononuclear phagocytic system. --CiaPan (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COI on Zbigniew Blazeje

I am sorry but I have exactly no idea how to deal with your conflict of interest complaints about Zbigniew Blazeje, an article I proposed. I do run a label called Spool. I have pressed a CD of music by Terry Rusling. I put that article up many many years ago when I had no idea of there was any possibility of releasing a CD. About 2 years ago I tracked down his nephew who inherited his tapes. We got together and selected some material and I released a CD this year. When I put the article up I had only poor dubs from 2 of the studios he worked and very early material of not very high quality.

A few years ago I tracked down his nephew who inherited his tapes. We went through the tapes and eventually released a CD. We pressed 50 copies. There is little hope of ever recouping the costs let alone making a profit.

While researching Rusling we discovered a significant collaboration with visual artist Zbigniew Blazeje as well as poets Earle Birney, Bob Cobbing and Gwendolyn MacEwen as well study with Stockhausen and other European composers. There was information about him in the Rusling interviews on CBC and notices in Toronto papers and ArtsCanada (aka Canadian Art) magazine. So there is an indirect COI of posting an article on Blazeje, in that it might create interest in Rusling. Given the status of the Rusling article's it seems utterly unlikely that this project would generate a profit and will remain a financial loss, though I see it as a charitable act.

Since doing researching on Rusling we discovered much more notable activity by him but I suspect from Wikipedia's point of view the fact that neither entries will unlikely never generate some sort of profit would be an argument against COI, it swings the article into the area of lack of notability, a catch 22, as it were. Knowing we cannot win this argument I have no idea how to extricate myself from being persona non grata on Wikipedia.

I have not intended to break any rules and at best my conflict of interest is laughable for a project which I do think is historically important in tiny Canada's history of experimental music, an area which is in itself without note or significance to maybe a few hundred people. I understand you have requirements for your site and must do what you see as correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielkernohan (talk • contribs) 15:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Danielkernohan. A COI is not an insuperable problem: as long as you are open about the level of your involvement, and invite editors to view what you write critically, you can still edit. A lack of notability (in the special way that Wikipedia uses that word) is an insuperable problem. If you can find substantial reliably published material, wholly independent of the subject, then there can be an article; and with proper disclosure, and using the articles for creation process to get your draft reviewed, then ther is no reason why you shouldn't write it. But if these sources are lacking, then an article is impossible, however important he may have been. --ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Hey can i start editing now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editordee (talk • contribs) 16:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Editordee: Yes! Check out the tutorial at WP:TUTORIAL and the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE, these will give you a good start. Come back here if you have more questions. RudolfRed (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A2

Does A2 applies to Drafts? CptViraj (Talk) 17:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CptViraj: I wouldn't think so- it seems plausible that one could write a draft not in English to get the ideas down, then go back and translate it for article space. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Simply not being in English is not sufficient for WP:A2 anyway, even for an article. A2 is only for "articles not written in English that have essentially the same content as an article on another Wikimedia project" - so it must exist in essentially the same form on another language Wikipedia to be eligible. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@A lad insane and Boing! said Zebedee: Gotcha! Thanks - CptViraj (Talk) 12:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PAGE Deletion

Hello,

My name is John Allen Mollenhauer I have been working with a company to help us put a page on Wikipedia around the idea called "Performance Lifestyle." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_Lifestyle

We got this message: 15:06, 18 May 2019, MER-C (Talk/Contribs) Deleted Page Performance Lifestyle G5: Creation by Blocked or Banned user in violation of block or ban.

This is an idea I and my team have been working on developing for nearly 20 years and an emerging marketplace term/sector/ big idea. We worked carefully with what we hope was/is a reputable company to make sure we followed all Wikipedia guidelines and the page was approved even though it was changed from our original content. We thought "that where we needed to start" Now the page has been deleted.

Any chance you can please advise on what has happened? Was the company we worked with blocked or banned?

Note: We are registered users, learning how to use Wikipedia the best we can, and supporters.

Warm Regards, JohnAllenJAM (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)John Allen Mollenhauer[reply]

Hello, JohnAllenJAM. It sounds as if you have the (unfortunately very common) misconception that Wikipedia has anything at all to do with telling the world about you, your big idea (or your company, your band, your non-profit, etc). It does not. If at some point Wikipedia has an article about one of these, it will not be your article, you will have no control whatever over its contents, and it should be almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with you have chosen to publish about the subject.
This specific deletion was not on any grounds to do with the content of the article, but because it had been created by a user who has been blocked or banned: I can't tell which user, or what they were blocked or banned for; but if you were "working with a company", my guess would be that that company had been breaking Wikipedia's policies in some way. Since promotion of any kind is forbidden in Wikipedia, many companies who offer their services for creating Wikipedia articles are either ignorantly or wilfully editing in a way that is dubious - and any company that represents to you that they can create a page to your liking is lying. (There are some companies who do offer the service in a responsible way, making the necessary disclosures; but they cannot guarantee that the page will be kept as their customer wants). For more information on the deletion, you will need to contact the admin who deleted it, MER-C.
As for the content: please read about notability and verifiability. If you and your associates have developed the idea of "Performance lifestyle", then nothing said or published by you and your associates can contribute to its notability (in Wikipedia's sense), and very little that you and your associates have said or published should go into an article about it. We require that most of the article be based on reliable published material by people who have no connection with you. --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The company is banned for hard-core, highly abusive spamming and covert advertising. I explicitly refuse this request for undeletion. MER-C 19:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your insights ColineFine and MER-C. This feedback is both important and appreciated. This was not set up as a promotion, at least as we saw it.

Whatever had been created by the Wikipedia "Expert" you are saying had been banned or blocked, had been edited by Wikipedia. Even after following guidelines to the best our awareness, it had been edited, substantially by apparently skilled Wikipedia admins prior to being published, so nothing led me to believe we were dealing with an unscrupulous company.

It looks like a Wikipedia "company" whom we spent 3 months with editing this, with a keen eye on what they were telling us were Wikipedia guidelines, had a history that led to being banned or blocked. We knew nothing about this.

I think Performance Lifestyle should be on Wikipedia, but it appears that because I have an interest in the idea, it can't be me who publishes it? Is that my take away? So, someone completely uninvolved with the idea would need to publish it? How then would they even know what Performance Lifestyle is if they don't have any experience in this emerging space or with this concept?

There are many pages for specific people, IE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Fuhrman, and specific concept or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Port and then ideas like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient_density. Performance Lifestyle is like "nutrient density," I have been developing the idea, for years, along with many others who are shaping the space. I provided links to the origin, other authors, etc. If we have gone about this wrong way, then we will accept that as learning and can't dispute your point.

What do you see as a course of action from here, to make this good?

Thank you for your feedback. John Allen Mollenhauer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAllenJAM (talk • contribs) 20:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JohnAllenJAM, when you say that the article "had been edited by Wikipedia", do you mean by Wikipedia editors not working for the company you paid? Wikipedia is writing and maintained by volunteer editors, not a paid staff. When you say "it had been edited, substantially by apparently skilled Wikipedia admins prior to being published", what are you basing that on? Did the company claim to be employing people who are Wikipedia administrators? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cordless Larry, yes. I think I wish I had read this article before starting this whole process. https://www.legalmorning.com/rules-paying-someone-to-write-a-wikipedia-article/ I do mean Wikipedia editors. The company we were working with, whom we did pay (apparently that's not the way and now I know) because they were there to guide us, did submit original text, but that text was then edited by Wikipedia. Wikipedia Editors changed it dramatically.

Nothing in there was spammy, or rubbish. I tried to represent the space, but our fee-based guides kept cutting it down. So after we wrote up a description of Performance Lifestyle and provided links, (some of which the company edited out including language and links that referenced our own works as well, as apparently, we had bumped up against some Wikiboundares; we accepted that as we learned. So yes, the final article, was far different. In other words, no editors that were being paid by the company. These were Wikipedia Editors.

The newly edited page, linked into established Wikipedia pages on several fronts and was far from the original works. I'm certain there is no way that was done by the company we hired to guide us, and they stated that as such when I brought up the fact that Wikipedia Editors made changes. I was fine with that and liked the integration/influence that Wikipedia admins or editors had on the idea.

From that point, I was in email communication with our professional guides, only to ask how we could contribute to the page since there is so much about the concept and the emerging field of Performance Lifestyle that did not make it in the initial page. I do want to be a contributor to this page, among others. I would have started it myself If had had the Wikipedia confidence at that time. But hey, maybe this experience will change that as I am very much dialed in.

This page is very important.

I hope that answers your question. Thanks for weighing in.

I'm an administrator, JohnAllenJAM, so I can see the history of the deleted article. From that, I can tell you that only one editor made substantive edits to the content, and that was the now-blocked editor who created it. I think you might have been misled about other Wikipedia editors having worked on it. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, JohnAllenJAM. I'm sorry you've had this experience. Unfortunately, something like this happens to most people who come here to promote (read: "tell the world about") something, rather than to participate in this wonderful project to create an encyclopaedia. The fact that you say "this page is very important" is an indication that that is your purpose: all Wikipedia articles are important. Why should your view prevail?
In attempting to write about your ideas, you would have a conflict of interest: this makes the already difficult task of writing a new article even harder for you; but though you are discouraged, you are not forbidden from trying. But what can make it impossible to write an acceptable article about the subject whoever writes it is if the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Since any article should be almost entirely based on reliably published material independent of anybody connected with the subject, it follows that if everything published about it is from you and your associates, then it is not yet notable in Wikipedia's sense, and no article will be accepted whoever writes it, and whatever they put in it.
If you do want to have a go at writing the article, please read your first article. But if you are truly interested in helping us improve Wikipedia, you will have a more rewarding experience, and probably add more value to Wikipedia, by working on articles that you do not have so much personally invested in. --ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JohnAllenJAM. Wikipedia has articles about topics that are notable in a special sense, already well-known as shown by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:GNG. The references that can been seen in in Google's cache of the deleted page do not seem to satisfy this requirement:
  1. "Performance Lifestyle - Live Like a Pro". studentathlete2day.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  2. "Getting fit not just for the Holidays - but for life". vegsource.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  3. Airton, Dawn (10 November 2017). "Ten Top Tips to becoming a Performance Lifestyle Advisor". eis2win.co.uk. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  4. O'Laughlin, Red (11 December 2016). "Review of John Allen Mollenhauer's 7-Day Water Only Diet". redolaughlin.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  5. "Performance Lifestyle". eis2win.co.uk. 11 December 2016. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  6. "Entertaining program prompts attendees to break free from "energy debt" and recharge". hbanet.org. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  7. "Move Over Diet And Exercise It's Time For Regeneration". regenuscenter.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  8. Schatell, Jackie (19 November 2010). "Former Livingston Football Captain, and Author, John-Allen Mollenhauer, to Hold Book Signing at Sams". patch.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  9. "John Allen Mollenhauer: How To End Performance Anxiety-Ep.96". popenskyfitness.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  10. "The Rise of a New Lifestyle Part 2". performancelifestyle.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
Significant means more than mentions or a link to your website. Independent means not written by you, not an interview with you, not a republishing of a press release. Have people not connected with you written about Performance Lifestyle? StarryGrandma (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry, StarryGrandma, and ColinFine, you are all clearly pro's and I, unfortunately, the greenhorn who meant well in every way, is coming up short here. I appreciate the ideals of who can write an article, but truth is, I am uncertain there will be an article on this any time soon as it takes a great deal of knowledge and awareness to pick up on this space this early in the game. I thought I was doing a good thing. That said, there are many people outside of me, that have written about performance lifestyle, many of those links which I originally submitted were cut out by our paid editor. I was genuinely representing the space, and if I could do that all over would do a much better job at it. I don't care if I'm in it at all, but I am involved in the space and have added many developments to the Performance Lifestyle space. I mean a healthy lifestyle has a page https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_lifestyle so why not a performance lifestyle? If that means we take everything related to me off of it, so be it. Unless someone else ads us in, and then perhaps one of you publish it, who are now aware of it, then who will do it? If not me, who? JohnAllenJAM (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean to say, is this: Can we start again and fully represent the space? I CAN, in fact, represent the space. I am committed to space, I don't need it linking to me. I just want it out there in a good genuine way. Any thoughts on that? JohnAllenJAM (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am committed to Wikipedia, and it's ideals. That's why I am a supporter and link to it and learn from it often. The good thing about this experience is that it dialed me into Wikipedia from an operations point of view and into how the community works. I want this to be a great source of wisdom and not be compromised. I approached this wrong indeed. Just looking to see what can happen from here. JohnAllenJAM (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see how Performance Lifestyle gets to be an article, as it does not meet the Wikipedia criteria of notability, i.e., the ability to reference sources not written by people affiliated with the company. You, trying to "represent the space" have a basic conflict of interest. Unlike Healthy lifestyle (which, by the way, redirects to Self-care, a weak article) there does not appear to be any consensus on what a 'performance lifestyle' is, outside your NJ-based business. David notMD (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JohnAllenJAM, could I ask you to forward any e-mails you have from the company to info-orangemoody@wikipedia.org? That address was set up to help with the investigation of paid editing scams and any information you have about the editors who promised to create an article for you would be gratefully received. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

If I have changes I would like to make, but while I think that the new content is important I don’t think I could write it as well as an official Wikipedia editor, what should I do?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmacat666 (talk • contribs)

@Emmatcat666: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Every article has an associated Talk page; it is meant for discussing changes or issues with the associated article. For example, the page George Washington has a talk page at Talk:George Washington. If you are using a computer, you can access the associated talk page by clicking the "Talk" tab at the top of the article. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publish

hey youll publish this page for me— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editordee (talk • contribs)

@Editordee: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to Draft:RichBoi Streeter (rbs), you have resubmitted it, and it will be reviewed in due course, please be patient. Trying to 'jump the line' like this doesn't usually work. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Hi, I have read that you can suggest corrections by posting to a "Talk" page and getting the opinions of other editors. How long does it usually take for someone to notice an item on "Talk"? Is there an appropriate way to attract the attention of editors to discuss an issue, or is it better to wait for someone who is interested to drop by the page?Urigfethera (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Urigfethera, how quickly someone will come to the page depends a lot on how many watchers there are on a particular page, which you can tell by click on 'page information' in the left column. If you have a particular change you want to make, you can simply make that change; if other editors object, they'll revert. At that point you can start a discussion at the talk page, and the other editor is expected to show up. --valereee (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Thank you for the watcher information! That is very useful. I can see there are many watchers on the article I'm thinking about, so I will try to be patient.Urigfethera (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Urigfethera: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It depends on the article involved. If it is an article about a highly visible or controversial subject(say, Donald Trump), it is likely a great many editors are following the article and its talk page. If it is a more obscure subject, it is possible that few editors are following it. There are ways to draw attention to your comments; you can tag one as a formal request for help by putting {{help me}} with your post(as you observe it on this page, not in the edit window where I have coding to prevent it from working here). 331dot (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot:Thank you for the "help me" code! The article I'm considering is semi-protected, so that kind of request (for an editor to make a change to a semi-protected page) perhaps will also draw the same attention. I cannot make those changes myself yet, obviously. However, that code will be useful on another page where I was considering adding to the Talk section.Urigfethera (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need to remove a redirect

I just completed "Sarre Brooch". Currently, Sarre Brooch redirects to Quoit brooch. I don't believe I have permission to do this myself. I would appreciate it if someone could delete the redirect so I can create the new Sarre Brooch article?

thx MauraWen (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MauraWen. Click "Redirected from Sarre Brooch" at the top of Sarre Brooch to get to the redirect. If you want the page history of your draft to be moved to the article then you can replace the redirect with {{db-move|User:MauraWen/sandbox Sarre brooch|move draft to mainspace over redirect}}. You are the only contributor to User:MauraWen/sandbox Sarre brooch so you are also allowed to just copy the text to the redirect without giving attribution to the original page. With this solution the creator of the redirect will be registered as the creator of the page and the second edit will be your article. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know If my artist/musician biography is notable?

Hello! I just wanted to know before I get started on an article for my biography, how do I know if I am notable enough to be on Wikipedia?

My website is therealamilian.com and I have music in every store and profiles on every social site. I am very easy to find in Google search (TheRealAmilian or Amilian) and just wanted to see a biography about me as an artist on Wikipedia. I would even consider someone with your company to start the article. Please let me know what I should do and I highly appreciate any feedback you may have. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amilian6969 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amilian6969: First, a note about signatures; please follow comments on discussion pages (such as this one) with four tildes (these things --> ~). Second, this may not be what you would like to hear, but you, as the subject of the article you wish to author, you have an official conflict of interest. This isn't ideal, for many articles authored by their subjects turn out somewhat awfully; you have, however, taken the initiative to ask here, and that is excellent! The policy I linked above (on conflict of interest) is a great thing to read in order to not be blocked for conflict of interest, which unfortunately can happen sometimes.
Third, this may not be great news, but I'm not sure you meet the notability criteria for being a musician. Typically, you should have been talked about in-depth by independent sources- ie, not your Facebook. I didn't find any results from third-party sources for you on Google. Are there any off-line (ie, in newspapers or books)? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Amilian6969: I would add that you should review WP:AUTO, the policy on autobiographies. Writing an autobiography, while not forbidden, is highly discouraged. This is because people naturally write favorably about themselves, and Wikipedia strives to have a neutral point of view. Essentially, to be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources, sources not associated with you in any way, have chosen on their own to write about you. While technically possible, most people cannot do this. The best thing for you to do is probably nothing. If a independent editor takes note of your career and determines that you meet the notability criteria, they will eventually write about you. Also keep in mind that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable; there are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refrencing question for Draft Sinfonia Latina

Hello I have digital copies of original news articles covering a music concert. From 1976 The publication no longer exists. However I sourced these from the Library of Congress in the USA and the national library of Barranquilla Colombia. My question is how can I use these for reference on the Draft Sinfonia Latina article I've been working on? Any and all input is greatly appreciated-Deanna Coakley 23:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing sources. If you have the publication details, just use something like {{cite news}}. That the publication no longer exists is not really important, nor does the news article need to be available online. Give as much information as you can that would help a reader source the news article themself, should they wish to. From Wikipedia:Citing sources:"So long as you are confident that you read a true and accurate copy, it does not matter whether you read the material using an online service like Google Books; using preview options at a bookseller's website like Amazon; on an e-reader (except to the extent that this affects page numbering); through your library; via online paid databases of scanned publications, such as JSTOR; using reading machines; or any other method.". See also Wikipedia:Offline sources, which again suggests the use of {{cite news}}, adding "Use of the |quote= parameter within those citation templates provides some context for the reference. This is especially important when using the off-line source to support a fact that might be controversial or is likely to be challenged." -- Begoon 08:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visual file markup query

I would much appreciate it if someone would look at Erie Canal#Parks and museums and tell me why the caption on the first picture doesn't display. I have looked at the help page for visual file markup and I can't figure it out. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deisenbe, You needed "|thumb". I've added it for you - I'll leave you to adjust the size etc... -- Begoon 02:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Create Page

Why I am not create a new page in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeecolors (talk • contribs) 03:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Zeecolors:, I see that you've created an account on 19th and you have made 13 edits, to create an article you need to have autoconfirmed rights, which you will get automatically on 23rd May. so after 23rd may you can create an article. though I would suggest going for Article for Creation or you can create Draft and then submit it for publishing in as Article in Mainspace. I hope this helps you. --Siddharth Talk To Me!! 06:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who will watch the watchers?

I'd like to voice a strong concern: it seems that an ensconced group of self-described skeptics (I would describe them as vandals) have established control over substantial areas of Wikipedia content pertaining to non-mainstream medical practice. Their editorial policies (using the term loosely) have led to significant censorship of content that I wish to see. They have abandoned any pretense of Neutral POV, asserting instead that because their views are right and proper that they have the right to delete any presentations of alternative viewpoints and the responsibility to attack people who argue for those viewpoints as quacks, charlatans, frauds, pseudo-scientists, and "fringe". While I would definitely not rush to the defense of every topic listed under Category:Alternative medicine, there are more than a few viewpoints and topics there that I believe should be accorded some degree of respect. And who am I? Some random dude? Well... no, not entirely. My formal education (from real, fully accredited institutions) includes 2 undergraduate degrees (one in Cell Biology, Molecular Biology, and Genetics) and a Medical Doctorate. I have completed postgraduate training in Internal Medicine and am board-certified in that specialty. While I certainly don't claim to have "average" or entirely mainstream views for a physician, my board scores (>95th percentile on the MCAT and 99th percentile on the USMLE Step 1) might suggest that I'm qualified to think and evaluate information for myself.

What am I asking for? Help. Help in removing special editorial privileges from overly dismissive "skeptics" who don't necessarily know what they're talking about but who are extremely quick to delete or criticize content that questions their authority. What can be done?

Ken Stone, MD Slowgenius (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what the teahouse is for. You can try WP:RSN. MarnetteD|Talk 04:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowgenius: or engage on the article talk page, and if you can’t make your case because of entrenched opposition, try WP:RFC to bring in some neutral editors. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 04:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Slowgenius, and welcome to the Teahouse! Please take some time to read through our guide for expert editors, which explains that our articles are based on reliable sources and not original opinions. If you have a content dispute, the best way to resolve it is usually through a request for comment, as TimTempleton mentioned. Nobody owns an article to themselves, but articles must meet all of our core content policies, which are strictly enforced. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 07:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) may be relevant here. Altmed is one of the more difficult areas on WP, and editing it without a good understanding of WP:s policies and guidelines will probably not accomplish much. To quote Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. This does of course not mean that probably all articles on WP can be improved. Bring your best sources and suggest specific edits at talkpages (or be WP:BOLD), that may work, depending. Start small. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To put it bluntly: Wikipedia covers every scientific topic (including medicine) from the point of view of mainstream science (see WP:RS). I would assume, based on that thread from five years ago, that you disagree. Your credentials are irrelevant: even in a content dispute, we get by what reliable sources say and not by what expert editors can deduce, but here, it is a policy dispute rather than a content one. If you want to get the policy changed, feel free to open a thread at WP:MEDRS or such, but your chances of succeeding are close to zero.
Notice that relying on scientific mainstream means (for instance) that if Wikipedia had existed in 1400, it would have said the Sun revolves around the Earth (arguably that is an anachronistic example since "science" as we know it is a 17th-18th century construct). That is by design: mainstream science is sometimes wrong, but there is no other source that is less wrong ("the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses."). TigraanClick here to contact me 10:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slowgenius: What would help here is if you will identify specific articles that in your opinion are being 'controlled' by a cabal of editors. And mention whether you have raised the question of bias on the Talk pages of these articles. It appears that you joined signed on as a Wikipedia editor in 2008 but have done fewer than 30 edits since then. David notMD (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RD1

How to request RD1 on particular edits maybe in row 5 edits, I saw someone requesting RD1 the article I edited (not created). --Siddharth Talk To Me!! 06:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Siddharth, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can request RD1 redactions ("Blatant violations of the copyright policy") with the {{Copyvio-revdel}} template. The easiest way to do this is with the User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel user script, which lets you choose the exact edits you want to see redacted. You can also request a redaction manually through the {{Copyvio-revdel}} template, as described in the copyright violations policy. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 07:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Newslinger: thank you for a detailed introduction to RD1 I appreciate it <3, now I'm trying it when I see something copyrighted is being contributed. --Siddharth Talk To Me!! 07:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Siddharth! You might also be interested in Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which is a tool that scans articles for copyright violations. There's a way to get to Earwig in one click from any article: just install the MoreMenu gadget by going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, scroll down to the "Appearance" section, check the box for "MoreMenu", and click "Save" at the bottom of the page. You can then access Earwig from any article by going to Page → Tools... → Copyright vio detector through the menu at the top of the article page. — Newslinger talk 07:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Newslinger: I know about the Earwig's CopyVio but I used to do it via visiting direct link, thanks for that Direct gadget information :)) --Siddharth 🤙🏻 Talk To Me!! 07:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About SockPuppetry

Currently, I'm using Airtel Internet connection and now I'm getting better and faster speed so the IP will be changed, so Basically, I want to know that will I be considered as Sock of anyone who has used that IP before which I'll get in some time? I'm getting Hathway Broadband I have read at WP:SOCK Checkusers considers Sock if the same IP address is being used or ever used by two different users (not Specifically) but by reading it sounds like that only. I can share in Userpage my previous and Current(new) IP address when I'll get connection today in some time. --Siddharth 🤙🏻 Talk To Me!! 11:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SidPedian: OK, that's a lot of questions packed in one. In any case: you absolutely do not need to provide a list of your previous or current IP addresses, and I would even encourage you not to do it because people you know might then link you to the edits you make (cf WP:IRL).
On the technical aspect: some (most?) ISP rotate IP addresses between customers (see DHCP). Checkusers and admins involved in sockpuppetry investigations are well aware of this.
On the policy aspect: sockpuppetry is the use by a single person of multiple identifiers (accounts or IP addresses) with the intent to pretend to be a different person. Editing while logged out of your account is fine (as long as you do not claim to be a different person), same for having a changing IP address (you cannot control it, and we do not expect you to monitor it either).
On the enforcement aspect: admins/checkusers should never check an account's technical identifiers (IP address, user-agent) without previous evidence of sockpuppetry. Unless you know something I do not know after a quick look at your talk page, you (SidPedian) are not at risk of being investigated for sockpuppetry, even if you share your network or even your computer with someone who does sockpuppet. Most IP blocks do not prevent to log into an existing account from blocked IP addresses. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IBAN

What is 'IBAN'? Please explain in simple. Thanks! CptViraj (Talk) 11:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IBAN - basically, it's a prohibition on users from interacting with each other, or (in the unusual case of a one-way IBAN), from a particular user from interacting with another user. It's a way of trying to stop disruption between users who have a history of not getting along well. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You need to specify context. In banking terms see IBAN. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CptViraj: IBAN is also an International Bank Account Number. --CiaPan (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CiaPan and Martin of Sheffield: Thanks 😃 - CptViraj (Talk) 12:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything like a 'Not to be confused with...' template for articles?

Hi - I got a bit confused when looking at Maria of Enghien and Mary of Enghien, who have nearly identical names, and who were both born in the 1360s - at first, I thought it was two articles about the same person. Is here any sort of 'Not to be confused with...' template, that could be put at the top of the page, in case someone trying to research one of them ended up at the wrong page? CheersGirthSummit (blether) 12:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: See {{Distinguish}}. :) CiaPan (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are also various redirects (see a LIST) with {{Not to be confused with}} and {{Did you mean}} among them. --CiaPan (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely - that'll do nicely! Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft submission from a user page

Can anyone help me out. I have a draft article in a user page (not in the sandbox) and I wanst to submit it. I have read the instructions on the help page, but they are no help.TheDoDahMan (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Never mind. I did something right. I don't know what but the article was picked up. TheDoDahMan (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheDoDahMan I have moved it to draftspace and reviewed it. Please see the review text for advice on how to improve it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Kindie Rock page

Hey folks!

I'm a radio DJ for kids with interest & expertise in properly representing & theorizing about independent kids' music, AKA "kindie." I'd like to completely overhaul Wikipedia's "Kindie Rock" page, because as of now it's just a series of advertisements for bands, & that just stinks. I just want to make sure that the extensive deletions & edits that I will make won't be flagged as vandalism or anything of that sort. :-) Here's the relevant page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindie_rock

Thanx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.193.253 (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you start it in Sandbox and then submit it. If you need more assistance let me know --XTMontana (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits disppear

I made edits to the Christopher Wood(Biology) page. However the page is back with the original format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadellsr (talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nadellsr. The reason it was taken off is as follows: Your addition to Christopher Wood (biologist) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Material is copied from: https://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~woodcm/Woodblog/wood-bio/ Wikipelli Talk 22:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC) --XTMontana (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confused whether the source is acceptable to refer the information

Hello,

I cam across an article on dailymail.co.uk discussing about the issues of limerence and a solution to that. A guy researched on this topic and provided some valuable information. So, can I update the Wikipedia page with the recent research made by him by supporting it with online references like: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6383473/Married-father-two-earns-thousands-dollars-ex-coach.html or any research journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Dharani (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what article you want to add to, and what you want to say that you would support with this ref? We would probably want other references to support it as well, the Daily Mail isn't regarded as a reliable source for most things. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=898146529"