Wikipedia:Teahouse

Melecie, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

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.

Help Wikipedia

(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.)

Why are there so many rude, condescending people on here?

Why is there so much rudeness? Aren't we all here for the sharing and gathering of knowledge? I expected more professional and polite attitudes from the most well-known encyclopedia on the internet. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your posts, like this one. People are expected to be civil, and rudeness has no place here. You can ignore those being rude, warn them later, and in severe instances, report them at WP:AIV. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 23:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for not signing. I tend to forget. Thank you for the advice, I will do so. :) --Vigilante Girl (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vigilante Girl. You freely chose a clearly controversial username, and you chose to write a mildly confrontational userpage, and you chose to involve yourself in highly controversial topic areas like the Kiev/Kyiv naming controversy, apparently without studying the extensive previous discussions about this issue. So, I am not sure who you are accusing of rudeness, but did you really expect to be greeted with flowers? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Vigilante Girl, I'm sorry to hear that you have encountered problems with some editors. Unfortunately, considering the number of people who volunteer on Wikipedia, I suppose it is inevitable that some would be unprofessional and/or impolite. On the other hand, I won't name names, but I think back to two editors whose encouragement kept me working on here when I all but gave up soon after I started. They patiently explained how to navigate difficulties that had frustrated me almost to the point of quitting. As a result, I am now in my fifth year of contributing in my small way to this work-in-progress encyclopedia. I have also found many useful comments in the Teahouse and Help pages that have aided my work. Please don't let some bad experiences turn you away from Wikipedia. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The only rudeness I noticed on Talk:Kiev came from Vigilante Girl. I advise editing in good faith, sans emotion.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vigilante Girl: Like you, I see no reason for rudeness when engaging with other editors here. Sometimes "tone of voice" is extremely hard to discern in another editor's post, and we all need to assume good faith, and not over-react. I fear that this diff of yours rather rather undermines your concerns and only serves to escalate issues. I'd have hoped you'd have seen that raising an issue that had been raised and dismissed many times before without showing any intent to read and understand those past discussions is almost inevitably going to elicit the firm but nevertheless polite response that you received. If you can meet what you perceive as rudeness with politeness of your own, you will be playing your part in keeping our editing environment 'safe and pleasant' for everyone. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Quisqualis:I do edit in good faith, and I was no ruder than the person being rude to me. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328:You are a perfect example of a horribly rude and condescending attitude. My username is not controversial and my userpage is not meant to be confrontational. I wanted to stop vandals like the guy who vandalized the Sea Otter page. Also, I'd rather not be greeted with rudeness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers --Vigilante Girl (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The word "vigilante" has the connotation of acting outside the law and may easily be seen as signifying a lack of respect for rules, regulations, and proper procedure. An impression that you seemed to confirm with the statement "why should I check edits from the past" when it was pointed out to you that this had already been discussed and decided against (many times, including one quite recent discussion). Your seeming unfamiliarity with move procedures ("And what do you mean by "non-formal requests"? Is my language somehow not formal enough for you?") also shows, at the very least, a lack of knowledge of the rules. --Khajidha (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And it can also mean a server of justice who isn't law enforcement. Also, me not knowing stuff doesn't give anyone the right to be rude to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers --Vigilante Girl (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And vigilantism is generally held to be illegal and vigilantes are looked upon as criminals. The term is not one that inspires confidence. And, as several others have mentioned, no one has been rude to you. Your user page injunction that "there's no need to explain to me what Wikipedia is. ", on the other hand, comes off as rather dismissive and shows an unwillingness to learn. An unwillingness that you continue to display here. Not to mention the fact that if you really know what you're doing, then you don't really fall under the category of newcomer and your constant quoting of "don't bite the newcomers" (with no evidence of any actual "biting") is inappropriate. You can't have it both ways.--Khajidha (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

So what? Vigilantes can also be heroes who help people. And yes they have been rude to me. And what I meant by that was no need to explain that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and all that. I'm not being anymore dismissive than you are. You and them are being rude to me and I will NOT stand for it. If Wikipedia really is filled with rude, condescending people, then I'll just quit. I will NOT accept your hypocritical hierarchy and I will NOT be bullied by people who always get off scot-free. I have enough crap to deal with in my life, I don't need more. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I you have experienced "so many" rude people here, I am very sorry. I've been around since 2008, logged in, and as an IP even before that. I cannot fairly say thet I think there are "so many" rude people. But there are indeed some. Nobody is supposed to get away with it. The ones who do are well-connected with others of the same ilk who will defend them no matter what they do. Consensus rules with no regard to justice, i.e. if a majority of such people hate you for some reason, you're in big trouble. Some even swoop in from other language projects, just to argue some pet peeve of theirs, in groups akin to packs of wolves. Others who get away with being rude are such sarcastically skilfull and hard-to-handle bullies that hardly anyone has the energy or guts to stand up to them. There are very few rude people here, in my opinion. The ones there are should always be reported when evidence of rudeness is crystal clear. More of them should get blocked than traditionally are. We all deserve an inspiring working envoronment. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, "so many" was a hyperbole. Thank you for your advice and info. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Vigilante Girl I don't know if this parable will help, but fwiw, here ya go:

A traveler came upon an old farmer hoeing in his field beside the road. Eager to rest his feet, the wanderer hailed the countryman, who seemed happy enough to straighten his back and talk for a moment.

“What sort of people live in the next town?” asked the stranger.

“What were the people like where you’ve come from?” replied the farmer, answering the question with another question.

“They were a bad lot. Troublemakers all, and lazy too. The most selfish people in the world, and not a one of them to be trusted. I’m happy to be leaving the scoundrels.”

“Is that so?” replied the old farmer. “Well, I’m afraid that you’ll find the same sort in the next town.

Disappointed, the traveler trudged on his way, and the farmer returned to his work.

Some time later another stranger, coming from the same direction, hailed the farmer, and they stopped to talk. “What sort of people live in the next town?” he asked.

“What were the people like where you’ve come from?” replied the farmer once again.

“They were the best people in the world. Hard working, honest, and friendly. I’m sorry to be leaving them.”

“Fear not,” said the farmer. “You’ll find the same sort in the next town.”

Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Though I certainly recognize good intentions in this story, I cannot support a thought that looks like an excuse for unacceptable behavior, the excuse being that well-behaved people also exist. Good people should be encouraged and thanked. Incorrigibly bad ("rude, condescending people") should be blocked. No exceptions. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you missed the entire point of the story. It isn't excusing unacceptable behavior at all. It is stating that your own nature/behavior is a major factor in how you perceive the behavior of others/how others behave towards you. If a person is a jerk, they will often find the world around them to be full of jerks. --Khajidha (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I share your feelings and experiences. I've come to believe that all of the references to "community" in Wikipedia were put there by a handful of optimistic users who have probably long since left or been run off by attackers. I have not had a single pleasant interaction with another contributor over two years and many have actually been hostile. I had silly dreams of collaboration and group learning which have all been replaced with a general fear, similar to a person who won't answer their phone or front door. Every user I have spoken to sternly believes that THEY ARE WIKIPEDIA and I am a homeless man with a sharpie marker and a slice of cardboard. A great recent example: someone dug into challenging something I put some work into. They wrote pages and pages of ranting fussiness about every possible lack and weakness in my article, tags and more tags. They even went on to hassle the five or so people to approved and defended the piece and called all of them idiots. I corrected and improved every detail they mentioned, and they just kept cutting me down. I considered that they probably spent at least 5 hours complaining and never edited one character. Great community. So, I actually asked them directly and honestly: you spent many hours lecturing and soapboxing, why couldn't you take 5 seconds to fix something? What are you contributing here exactly? pages more of angry defensiveness and a big "It's not my responsibility". Sweet. I looked into my friend in hopes of discovering he was a 13 year old in treatment...only to find a top 1,000 editor with awards and history galore. This IS Wikipedia folks. So I read through some of his recent work, and guess what? I found several things which needed correcting right away...even some heavy bias in political matters and living bios. So I took my friends example and I "alerted him to the issues" and tagged the pages (but didn't touch a word). Dude lost his freaking mind and almost made me feel unsafe for a couple days. How dare I? .....and then he fixed the problems, lol.

I stay here because I love to write and research and I'm looking forward to library card privileges after 500 edits. Wikipedia community? thats rich. Luke Kindred (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Geez, overly dramatic much? If you and VigilanteGirl find the environment here so hostile, I have to wonder how you function in society. --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

That is a welcoming and encouraging response. I am certain that they can handle it especially of their exercise in WP is to not let it become accepted to them as personal. Why encountering attitude? Look at the world. What has been done to avoid "X" and then after the fact we find out that "X" was not avoided. It takes a lot of training to always be pleasant and sometimes people intentionally or unintentionally let it out. No one has yet figured just how to unbite the apple that Eve gave Adam. Another example just because of it being more recent, communism, just like any other system supposedly was to solve a prior fault then we find out that the fault was not avoided but just surpassed. With every additional layer there is not some avoidance of inconvenience and disappointment but just another means of exhibiting. Oh, the internet--the whole life blood of what is intended WP, uses an impersonal, anonymous means of reacting to others that provides only as a means of damage someone's mind rather than physical being. It is like the use of a nuclear bomb with a nearby black hole; potential to destroy and not leave a mess to clean up until we find out what happens to stuff in a black hole. Can a Utopia really exist without there being a puppet master?2605:E000:9149:8300:193B:3F53:BB51:A254 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Just want to point out an error. (Can't figure out editing.)

Is this where I'm supposed to write?

I happened, in looking up an anatomical term, to peruse a Wiki article called "Anatomical Terms of Location". I noticed a minor error and wanted to correct it, but I am from the 1950s (b.'46) and only have a PhD, so I can't understand the editing instructions. Learning computerese continues to be gruelling (Canadian spelling) and I have other things to do, so I thought maybe I could just point out what I believe to be an error in the hope that some computer-/Wiki-literate person could correct it.

In the second illustration in this article a 4-legged animal is referred to as a "quadriped", and although I was certain it should have been "quadruped", I did my due diligence or whatever you call it and consulted numerous dictionaries of high repute: this endeavour supported my strong suspicion that there is no such word as "quadriped". Thass all, folks. Thanks for whatever you can do to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyroob (talk • contribs) 03:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zephyroob. You can be WP:BOLD and correct the error yourself. You can also be WP:CAUTIOUS and point out the error on the article's talk page and see what others think. You don't need to be an WP:EXPERT in order to edit the article, but you should at least make sure to leave an edit summary explaining why you made the change if you do decide to be BOLD. This will let others know why you're making the change. If, by chance, another editor disagrees with the change and WP:REVERTs it, just follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and discuss things on the article talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zephyroob, and welcome to the Teahouse. The error is in the illustration, not in the text. Latin is a different language, but the only example I can find of the spelling to which you object is in an ancient document where it might be a misprint. Wikitionary does have an entry for wikt:quadripedal, perhaps because a few modern authors mis-use the word, but it seems to be a very marginal variant. We need to contact the uploader of the image, or change it ourselves. Thank you for pointing out the error. Dbfirs 07:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

... later note ... The illustration was from a text book by Tom (LT) who is a prolific expert editor here and who has kindly contributed the illustrations from his own book. Thus I was hesitant to make any changes, and I hope I haven't offended him by uploading a temporary modification of the image. I am quite happy if he deletes my version and updates to the modern standard spelling himself. Dbfirs 07:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the wonderful compliments! I just want to clarify @Dbfirs, I haven't written any books and therefore would be happy whatever happens here :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you not upload the pictures from a text book claiming own work? Perhaps the text book is an old one and out of copyright? That would explain the strange spelling. Dbfirs 06:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how Tom (L.T.) got brought into this. I don't see his name as a contributor to that image. It is from an OpenStax text book and is quite new. But any source can have occasional typos. --Khajidha (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sidebar

How do I create a sidebar with basic personal information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Careystevens (talk • contribs) 2019-09-21T17:43:37 (UTC)

@Careystevens: What do you mean exactly? I think you should check Template:Infobox user. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 19:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Careystevens: If you're referring to your own user page (User:Careystevens), please consider Wikipedia:Personal security practices and WP:UP. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

OP was a notable person editing his own article. Cluebot reverted all the WP:AB edits. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

How

How can I add my blog articles on Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.29.231.213 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You cannot. See WP:NOT. RudolfRed (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Well you could use the sandbox to do as you please, although there would be those at WP that would find that disruptive. But it would not necessarily be uploaded to the general content area of WP. And if it was uploaded to the general content of WP then it probably would not there for long as those at WP would say that is not what they intend for WP. Blogging and WP are not a match.2605:E000:9149:8300:48BF:1B93:B5D4:3F0D (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for inviting me to the the teahouse. What can i do to help wikipedia?

Thanks for wanting to help, you can do whatever piques your interest! There are articles that need updating, typos that need fixing, just about anything you can think of. Start by checking out the tutorial and online interactive learning game at WP:TUTORIAL and WP:ADVENTURE. If you have any questions, come on back and ask away. RudolfRed (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Aside from what User talk:RudolfRed posted above, I also suggest that you do some minor changes or copyediting first. That is how I started. Back then, I was not yet familiar with the interface, format, style, and referencing requirements, among others. Doing small changes will not only allow you to start improving articles with less chance of making mistakes but also help you get a feel of how things are done. You can take a look at these pages needing copy edit. Good luck! Darwin Naz (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Sharing of facts available but not included

Preface:I am an incident investigator and HSE Systems Lead in the Oil & Gas Industry. As such, I spend considerable time and effort taking second (or third) looks at "disasters" (not always the word we use because of its pejorative connotations) in various industries - O&G and otherwise. Often we find that what happened and how it happened are not accurately reported in the media - which is where much of the citations in Wikipedia come from, especially with regard to industry disasters.

Question: Is discussing the facts discovered in these post-investigation reviews and how these should be cited best held on the talk page of an event's wiki? GrantAdamCole (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, GrantAdamCole, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, an article's talk page is the best place to discuss this (please don't refer to an article as a "wiki": The whole of Wikipedia is one of the many thousands of wikis on the internet!). However, please have a look at the core principle of verifiability. Wikipedia is consciously and intentionally based on reliably published information: unpublished information has no place in it. Unfortunately this does sometimes mean that somebody knows that information in an article is inaccurate, but cannot get it changed because that's what the reliable sources say. In order to challenge such information, you would have to get the different information published by a reputable publisher - and even then, it would be up to a consensus of editors to decide how to handle the disagreement between sources. Often the best you could do would be for the article to say that sources A, B, and C say XYZ while source D says PQR. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Howdy ColinFine, You shared some specific information with me. I found it most helpful. You have my gratitude. I read and re-read verifiability and reliable source. I think that these articles - apologies for using the common vernacular of wiki initially - answered my question in full. Your last sentence regarding compare/contrast was also a salient and useful piece of information. I shall trudge onto the breach armed with these tidbits. --GrantAdamCole (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi GrantAdamCole. It's not really Wikipedia's purpose to correct content reported by the media (see WP:RGW), but it can cover retractions or corrections made by media about events such as a "disaster". Wikipedia isn't really intended to be up-to-the minute like news which is why editors are generally encouraged to wait a bit until the dust somewhat settles before creating articles about certain things (see WP:RECENTISM). However, when something happens and there's a fair amount of significant coverage about it, some editors want to get it on Wikipedia asap. This isn't necessarily a bad thing per se because a Wikipedia article is always pretty much a work-in-progress and issues generally get sorted out when there are a number of editors working on a "hot topic". It's also likely that new information will be made available after much more time has passed which can be used to "correct" things originally added. Basically, it's going to depend upon whether you're going to be able to provide reliable secondary sources in support of the changes you wish to make that are not WP:UNDUE. If you're simple going to rely on your personal knowledge of events or what "official" investigative reports have to say, then you're probably going to have a bit of hard time per WP:NOR,WP:PRIMARY and WP:VNT. Finally, even if the "real" cause of a "disaster" was subsequently reported upon by reliable sources at a later date, removal of the older "incorrect" content might not be as preferred as tweaking it in some way to which not only incorporates the new content but also shows that mistakes in determining the cause were initially made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Howdy Marchjuly, perhaps I was not clear in expressing intent. There is very little that is up-to-the-minute about the information our investigations and investigation reviews reveal. We are normally conducting these 5-7 years after a fact. For example, Captain Francesco Schettino of the Costa Concordia is thought to have left 300 passengers on board the vessel when he pre-maturely departed it. This is a verifiably inaccurate statement for many reasons. When Schettino departed the Costa Concordia, he was the only person left on the starboard evacuation deck (verified by CCTV video of the evac deck) and he only departed the vessel because the last lifeboat which had been overloaded with ~300 passengers was stuck between the Costa Concordia - which had listed 55 degrees to starboard by that time - and the lifeboat davits. Schettino identified these hazards and notified the Italian Coast Guard that he was leaving the Concordia b/c there were 300 passengers stuck in a lifeboat that was in danger of being crushed by the Concordia. This fact is why he only got one year in prison for abandoning ship before all passengers were evac'd. After this occurred, Italian Coast Guard and Army helicopters only recorded removing 87 more passengers from the port evac deck, to include the first mate and engineer who were on the port side evacuating personnel on the Schettino's orders. The intention is to obtain the proper citation information for the documents and videos that contain this information. The question was if the talk page of an article the proper place to discuss theses issues and present citations before editing the article and figuratively pissing in the Wheaties of the editors who worked hard to enter the information currently in an article. --GrantAdamCole (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

If the findings of any subsequent investigation were things covered by secondary reliable sources, then it should be OK to update the relevant article's to reflect such information. Whether that means that older information should be removed, however, isn't so clear and it might be possible to incorporate both the old and new. However, if you simply want to update the information based upon primary sources such as investigative reports or other documentation, even official stuff, then care probably needs to be taken. Editors are not really supposed to be adding their own interpretations to sources cited in the article and presenting such content in Wikipedia's voice per WP:NOR and WP:SYS; moreover, primary sources can be somewhat tricky to use, particularly when it involves claims about living persons per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS. Even what you posted above about the ship's captain might seem a bit suspect per WP:BLP unless it's what secondary reliable sources are reporting. For reference, WP:BLP applies to all Wikipedia pages, including talk pages and noticeboads. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Is a field goal an attempt if it results in points or only when it is missed or blocked?

MOVED

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football#Meaning of "field goal attempt" since it seems unlikely to be resolved through further discussion here at the Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could I find out why is it that WP allowed a confusing use of terms when it concerns field goals in the sport of America style football. Many times it can be found expressed as grammatically correct that "X" made "field goal attempts" yet in the same sentence or article it can be said that they had "X" average which includes the comparison of competed versus their total output. What is going on?2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Situation: in the sport of American style football there is a scoring move called field goals which has a team member kicking the ball over the field goal to make points in lie of a touchdown or in addition to a touch down. Every time that ball is kocjed in a foeld goal action it is kicked but it may not always go over the field goal therefore it is incomplete. A field goal kick that goes over the goal is not an attempt because it has been completed yet there seems to be an adherence to the term "field goal attempts" as an accurate description of "field goal kicks made". Thid appears in both textual references and statistical charts. Are field goal attempts an accurate description of field goal kicks completed, i.e. resulting in the rewarding points in either text or charts?2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• To clarify the issue under discussion, this is one of multiple, similar examples [1]. It's not ungrammatical or inaccurate to refer to field goal attempts, and this is the traditionally accepted terminology. It seems the impetus to change this in multiple articles revolves on a sort of grammatical original research. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

If it is traditional then it should be used in all examples? Or only those that are approve on an as of yet disclosed policy. And before anyone jumps to the issue of disruptive editing, just when has it been WP policy to accept what is grammatically inaccurate when something is not in all instances expressed as such? Are we to take a number count of use to decide? There are many article on sport in WP that if confusing terminology and expressionare use does not benefit the purpose of WP or the readers that consult it.2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. I don't think Wikipedia determines whether a "missed kick" is counted as an "attempted field goal"; Wikipedia really only refers to it as such or should only refer to it as such if reliable sources are referring to it as such. If someone tries to do something but is unsuccessful, then I think it wouldn't be too out of the ordinary to refer to it as an "attempt" or more specifically a "failed attempt". If missed attempts weren't counted in field goal statistics, then pretty much every kicker would have a success rate of 100%, wouldn't they? So, this seems to be more of a question as to how best to present this type of information, which might be something worth discussing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football. That's where you're likely going to find people who edit articles about American football who might be able to help sort out whether a change is needed and to best ensure consistency among this type of article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to and a missing word and correct spelling (both changes are underlined). — 11:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)]

Hi, Marchjuly. As far as I know, the statistic has always been 'attempted field goals' or 'field goal attempts', just as we refer to 'attempted passes.' The unilateral decision to change this in multiple articles, in favor of the repetitive 'field goal kicks' (not a terminology I've encountered in 59 years) to refer to attempts, is a new one. While reverting many of the new user's edits, I've also posted several warnings. An editor may not disrupt standard usage and claim to be making grammatical corrections. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this is a competence issue. The user has three times accused me of 'cheap shots'. Really close to going to ANI. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Normally, when you're in a dispute over content with another editor, the best way to try and resolve things is to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and discuss things with this person on the relevant article's talk page. However, when the dispute has the potential to affect lots of article, even if it's something like changing a word like "attempt" to "kick", then it's probably better to get more editors involved. So, my suggestion to you would be to first try the article's talk page and seek assistance from a WikiProject like WP:AMF (since this would cover all genre of articles about American football) by adding a Template:Please see to WT:AMF to let others know about the discussion. (Make sure to avoid any problems with WP:CANVASS) If an inappropriate change is being made to lots of articles, then getting more people involved increases the chances of things being sorted out in a way that's best for Wikipedia. Trying to "correct" things on your own is only likely going to lead to edit warring which you won't win no matter how right you believe you are. If the other editor continues to motor on as before even after multiple editors are advising them to stop, they will be eventually dealt with by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

If you're thinking about going to ANI, you should be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. Most administrators will look at your edits as well and look for attempts made by you to try and resolve this disagreement. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, only that ANI can turn out to be a bit unpleasant for everyone involved, not just the person being accused of violating policy/guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

See PFR, a reasonably popular source, which is consistent with other sites and my experience.

• FGA = Field Goals Attempted
• FGM = Field Goals Made
• FG% = Percentage of Field Goals Made = 100 * FGM / FGA

E.g. Titans have attempted four field goals, of which they made three (and missed one), for a FG% of 75. I.e., field goal attempts include both successful and unsuccessful events. Note that kicked points-after-touchdown (XPA, XPM, XP%) and punts (Pnt, Blk) are separate types of plays – they are not "field goals". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I guess someone has already reverted the about 5 articles that the statistical charts have been edited? And who ever said not including both missed and completed field goals in the textual statistics structured grammatically as "attempted" even if they were successfully completed. I have always had the understanding that in common understanding, especially in polite society and cocktail conversation an "attempt" was something that did not quite get there. I take a word at its entendre especially if double or colloquial. But it still remains to be discussed if "attempt" will be accepted as both missed and scored field goals. Instead it seems to be shimming in about what should have been done and what penalties should be applied. And this is not an ANI environment, normally. So what i see if the example provided shows what is important with this discussion is about a statistical chart then is than difference with text which may not have all included that would be found in one area what that information pertains so there is less ability to strain just what is being said.

The analogy of batting scores in American style baseball may best show a cross comparison. Someone's hitting average is determined from a variety of aspects but we do not call home runs the same as strikes or stealing a base. The whole point of WP is for those to consult. That is far more significant to those who do not know rather than those that have to confirm. It serves both groups but it does not help to confuse, unless that is the unintended result. What gets interesting in figuring out for the uninitiated is just what is a field goal action when it contains a divide, better known in the US as a fraction say of .5 field goal attempts? Yes, I know that averages can be any result but it has to be a common measurable thing. The only common thing of missed and completed field goals is that they all start with a kick because once a field goal has reached it intended target of getting its reward it is no longer an attempt. If "attempt" was so applicable to the textual expression of the activity in WP then every mention of field goals, missed or counted for point, would include the expression. It does not in WP. I can hear it already. This lack of uniformity is saying that WP is wrong. I did not say that. I pointed out that WP is inconsistent. Inconsistency does not help establish credibility unless the point is to impose something on others. I can hear it already. He is saying that WP intends on imposing on people. Most of the people in the world do not have a consistent and readily available power source to access WP. Grammar has a consistency about it or an explanation for its exception. The rule for field goals is that they have to be achieved by a kick. They cannot be tossed into the field goal zone. They cannot be bounced into the field goal zone. They cannot even fall short of the field goal zone. If they do, they are a missed field goal. We can forego a consideration of blocked field goals except to know that if it does not go into the field goal zone then it is a miss. A missed and a completed field goal are two different animals. One gets you a point and the other one does not.2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Both a home run and a strike out are counted as an at bat; one may be considered to be a quite successful at bat and the other a failed at bat, but they are still counted as an at bat. Now, in baseball there are certain things which aren’t counted as an at bat (e.g. a walk or a sacrifice), but these are well agreed upon and specifically designated as such in the rules of the game.

If you were WP:BOLD in making a change, then that’s perfectly OK to do; however, when someone reverts your change, then you’re going to be expected (unless the revert was clearly a case of vandalism or some other clear policy/guideline violation) to follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (aka WP:BRD). You don’t revert back to your preferred version and then expect the other person to discuss because that’s WP:BRRD (i.e. bold, revert, revert back, discuss) and that’s how small things often become unnecessary problems. So, my advice to you is the same as I gave above to the other IP: discuss on the talk page and if necessary seek assistance from one of the relevant WikiProjects which cover American football articles. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

What is this idea of expectation? If you decide to overrile someone without talk page discussion or an explanation of why you think is it one way and not sanother even in situastions where there is a statsticasl chart uwage and a textual usuage then if someone expected to ber followed then maybe they should understand that someone does not alwaysd know that the right person has yet to complain about somethuing. This did go on for several days and other editors edited the articles as if all was well? Again, a missed field goal is not the same as an attempt becaisde an attempt is not a completion of the ultimate action--a point(s) from the field goal being completed. If a completed field goal and an attempt were the same then both would get point(s). They don't. Nothing is going to change that. The only thing they have in common is they result from a kick. "Attempt" is being used to express the only thing that an attempt and a completed field goal share in common. You cannot have a field goal without a kick. You cannot have a missed field goal without a kick. But an attempt to make a field goal stops being an attempt when it is a completed field goal. An egg stops being called an egg when you cook it into a soufle. You do not continue calling it an egg even if the shell is included."2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football § Meaning of "field goal attempt"

 – Marchjuly (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A project i need help on

Hello, everyone. my name is bill cage. i am a large fan of the cartoon network series regular show, and i am sure there atleast some other fans here. i started trying to write articles for episodes and characters, the only problem is that the show has 261 individual episodes, and i don't if i can do that by myself. so i ask you, will some of you help me in my project, which will involve me and one other person writing articles about characters, and we all pitch in to write for every single episode?Bill cage (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bill cage. I don't think each individual character or episode is notable enough to deserve its own article. Anyway, they are already mentioned on their respective show. Also, tell me what is the show articles you want to work on. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 14:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

i would simply like for at least the main characters to be written about, and if not every individual episode, then at least the most popular episodes.Bill cage (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bill cage: Oh, okay. I just want you to tell me the name of the TV series for clarification. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 15:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Regular show. Bill cage (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Bill cage, you might find interested editors to collaborate with, on relevant WikiProjects. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 15:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That is, Regular Show. Or maybe Who's on First? . —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

no, regular show Bill cage (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Rasmus Jensen — anything more I need to do?

I submitted a draft once before. I have more recently written Draft:Rasmus Jensen. Is it already submitted, or is there something else I still need to do? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

To submit it, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do that. Also, one other question I have is that I copied the infobox from Alfie Bowtell, but only to adjust it. There's no issue with that, right? (I gave credit, of course.) I used other articles' speedway rider infoboxes to work out how to do this one. My reason for bringing this up is that I believe WP:DRAFT says you cannot copy content from elsewhere. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: - copying infoboxes to amend the data in a new draft/article is probably the usual method of doing it. You said which article you grabbed it from so all's fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Good. Thank you! --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Strange link(s)

While researching Teck Resources (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teck_Resources&diff=next&oldid=914472351), I found a strange link - footnote 11, which I undid

Out of curiosity, I looked at some of the other links and found one that has apparently been there since 2007. Footnote 16 link leads to an escort service webpage.

"Red Dog top toxic polluter". Siku News. 2007-03-31. Retrieved 2007-12-31 goes to http://www.sikunews.com/?artid=2873&catid=3

I am an occasional editor at best and I don't know what to do with this. Should I delete the link? Siku News doesn't keep article for that length of time.

Should I leave it alone - do nothing? Does not seem like a good option.

My personal preference is to let somebody more experienced deal with it. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilvrHairDevil (talk • contribs) 16:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Working on it ... —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I did: Special:Diff/917189339. The first change (the Globe and Mail cite about the merger) was correct – I just expanded the original some. The second change just had the "wrong" title (it actually came from the last heading on the page). The last change was weird – probably a bug at the Sun's site – redirecting to a totally different article. That happened unintentionally when Scatterjoel expanded the cite in June. I updated it to use the archive.org snapshot from 2012. I'm changing the inconsistent dates next... —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@SilvrHairDevil: I spent some time rescuing some more cites from archives and updated the infobox from the 2018 annual report, which I cited. A couple of the sources are dead and there was no archive snapshot, so new sources should be found. The article text could use some updating from the annual report and progress on things like the pollution lawsuit. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Correcting typo in article title

Need help correcting a typo in the title of this article.

Transactionalism: An Historical and Interpretative Study should be Transactionalism: An Historical and Interpretive Study.

Interpretive is mispelled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactionalism:_An_Historical_and_Interpretative_Study?wprov=sfti1

2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:BB (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

sheridanford (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I've moved it; you could have done so yourself as nothing was preventing the move. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Trying to communicate with an user

Hi. I had a discussion with an user here, things got a little "complicated" and I decided to write to him to make peace, but he called me "asshole" and told me to "fuck off" without an apparent reason. How should I deal with it? I just wanted to be polite but I don't know how should I behave now. I would be glad if someone could help me. Thanks, Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 18:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Mazewaxie Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I understand what you were trying to do, but sometimes it is better to let things go and move on from them. If it were me I might not have made the last post that you made on their page(which does not justify what they said, just some advice) What the other user said was inappropriate(and I've told the other user that), but they do have the right to request that you not post on their user talk page. If the dispute about article content continues, there are dispute resolution methods available. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: Ok, thanks for helping me out. I wish you a nice day. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 19:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: I'm writing this here because I don't want to potentially worsen the situation. I just saw what he replied and I don't understand why he's acting that way. I mean the most "rude" thing I said to him it's that he was wrong, and when he said he felt attacked for that, I went on to apologize multiple times. I'm really sorry for what is happening, it was not my intention to make him feel that way and I think the accusations he's made are far too excessive. My concern is that since I'm editing The Irishman and I plan on improving it in the next few weeks/months, I'm worried that this thing could continue. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 20:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the issue that user has is. They clearly feel wronged somehow, but I'm not sure why or what is causing them to react as they are. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: I only interacted with him on his talk page and on The Irishman talk page. I don't understand it either but to me it looks like an overreaction. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 20:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyway thanks for trying to mediate. I appreciate it. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 20:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It is a natural reaction to want seen that which is believed wrong to be corrected. Understand that the internet is probably the most anonymous and impersonal means of communicating of people that may best to left to their own selves. There may be underlying unexplained circumstances that play into the situation. Your experience and practice may not be prepared for the reaction. I cannot emphasize this enough. How someone react in public around others may be different and less severe than what someone may in an anonymous setting. This very well may have been what you experienced. Obvious;y, it does not happen all the time to every one but it can happen. It is disturbing because you do not expect it or may think that it is not appropriate but it is out of your control and you may never experience it again (thank god). The reasons the other person reacted as such may never have a plausible explanation or ever been in a state of mind to say that it should not have been done. The best thing it seems is to limit as much as possible your actions in the situation. All you can hope is that the other party is relying on themselves for entertainment and forget about you. If they start to bother you by initiating action toward you without you bringing it on, then by all means bring it to the attention of the WP community. It should not get to that point. I hope this assures you of your well being.2605:E000:9149:8300:48BF:1B93:B5D4:3F0D (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Mazewaxie, Regardless of whether they could have interacted better, I can see where they're coming from. (My reading, sorry for the mind-reading:) You were having a nice cordial discussion which led them to assume an amount of mutual respect incompatible (in their view at least) with the use of the revert button. Not only did you revert them, you left them a message about the revert at their talk page, instead of continuing the discussion you were already having on the article talk (a revert notification on talk page has connotations, not all of them positive). They obviously took it as a personal insult (either the revert alone or revert+user:talk posting). They were still civil enough, and asked for cessation of "edit-warring" and continuing dialog, at that point. Your use of the word "wrong" was seen as an assertion rather than an argument In future, saying "you're wrong" instead of explaining what the problem is and giving reasons for what you want might risk the perception of a personal attack. (in contrast to theirs, where it was a part of an argument). They threw the ball in your court when they wrote: There's still nothing wrong with the way I would have edited it, but if you are determined to revert my future edits on this no matter what then I accept it as a matter of consensus. You had a choice between taking your spoils and forgetting about them or making a gesture:

1. You had gotten them to accept your version, no matter their feelings. This was your victory. You could edit the article exactly as you liked it and forget about them. They had left disappointed from the conversation, so this meant you weren't going to be best buddies going forward, nor did they want any quarrel with you, obviously they couldn't wait to forget about you and that article. Or,
2. You could have said, "I didn't realise at the time that using the revert button would be a big deal. I will never do it again when in the middle of a discussion and propose my objections here instead. How about we restore it to its original before we began, and ask for a third opinion on what would be best?" They might have agreed, or left anyway, you might have gotten your version or have had it rejected in the end, had they agreed to stay. Whatever might have happened, that was the last moment to salvage your relationship with the editor.

You tried to have it both ways. That's why they got annoyed, and it only escalated from there. Whatever gave you the impression that you could reconcile, after your exchange ended disharmonious, the day before, and you hadn't made any concessions despite them clearly indicating that they were only agreeing to your version (more like withdrawing in frustration) because you were " determined to revert [their] future edits (...) no matter what"? Demanding an apology from them, by visiting their talk page was a particularly poor way to go about trying to mend the relationship. Considering that they had clearly withdrawn from the article talk the day before, and wanted nothing more to do with it (they even gave you the last word there), whatever did you really mean by Can you please stop the pointless discussion on The Irishman talk page?, when the last post on that page is by you which hadn't been replied to by them for 27 hours at that point (not that they have since).

Just hoping this helps make sense. Let me know if I missed something. Feel free to redact anything that crosses the line in my mind-readings.

Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 12:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Your explanation makes enough sense to me. However, I asked him to apologize because he started making jokes, like adding a pointless citation template here. I asked to him to apologize only to make peace, and because he got offended from my use of the word "wrong", when he was the first one to use it by saying "I'm right and you're wrong". You wrote that my use of the word "wrong" was seen as an assertion rather than an argument, but I think you could have misread something because I wrote "The way you changed it is wrong because it makes it look like Lumière is a city, when it's not, and you are not specifying the festival names either, so if my "version" is wrong, yours is even worse." I used that word to explain to try to explain myself, not to attack him, but I don't know why he felt that that I used "you're wrong" instead of explaining what the problem was. Also I used the word "wrong" 2 days before my first message on his talk page and I went on to apologize multiple times for that. I understand the fact that he was disappointed from the fact that I got him to accept my version, but my intention was just to clarify the situation, I didn't want to "harass" him, and I don't think I did honestly. Anyway, thanks to your explanation I understood that I shouldn't have continued the discussion. My hope is just that this situation could be resolved, so that we can both (me and him) edit the same article without having to discuss further. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 12:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I meant ""wrong" was seen" as such by them going by the quote, not that it's a fact. Their "LMAO" doesn't matter and could/should be ignored (WP:AGF). The citation needed template is Wikipedia lingo for "it's unlikely enough to just take your word for it (interesting/ extraordinary claim)". Users aren't allowed to edit others' comments on talk/discussion pages, even if not in the middle of a dispute, so they shouldn't have done that. If they had done the same as a reply of their own, that would be fine however, since it's not pointless, but conveys a generally well understood meaning in Wikipedia talk.

The wise words at WP:STICK would be of help here, since its clear it was too early to try what you tried at their talk page and had the opposite effect (they almost definitely saw it as gloating). If you and them both turn out to be good faith editors dedicated to contributing free knowledge for all, you will have future opportunities where you'll find yourselves on the same side of a dispute (one might even have reason to come to the rescue of another) and this will all be water under the bridge, a sort of an overreaction in the past to look back at and laugh about. So, do not worry about it any further. Just drop the stick for now, and hope for the best. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 15:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Thanks for giving me a third person perspective on the matter. I really appreciate what you suggested and I will do as WP:STICK says. Thanks again and I wish you a nice day :) --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Booth Lusteg article

See note below

As per your response, I am NOT part of any company or corporation. I am alone & was simply making corrections to wrong info in the Booth Lusteg Wikipedia article. Also there is no conflict of interest. I am the daughter of the subject & was giving you the facts based on proof. Please make the corrections. Thank you, Lisa Lusteg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtlisa (talk • contribs) 01:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I have added a new section heading above your message as I suspect that your message may not be related to Mazewaxie's topic in which you placed it. I believe that instead you may be referring to WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1015#Wrong info in "Booth Lusteg Wikipedia" article on Google. If you are the daughter of the subject then you do have a conflict of interest; you need to read WP:COI. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Courtlisa. If you know of a secondary source which lists the correct date of birth of your dad, then please post a comment with a link to the source at Talk:Booth Lusteg. It's possible that the Pro Football Reference page currently cited in the article is wrong, but there needs to be some way to verify that, at least for Wikipedia purposes. You might not have noticed, but the Buffalo Bills 1967 year book you have posted on your website here also lists your dad's date of birth as May 8, 1939. Now, it's possible that both of these are incorrect, but we need something which shows he was born in 1938 and not 1939, and it needs to be something other than a WP:PRIMARY source like your website or a personal document. There are newspaper clippings posted on your website listing your father as graduating from high school in 1955. If he was born in May 1939, then that would mean he graduated when he was likely 16 years old, which seems a bit younger than usual but I guess is possible. Are you aware of any old newspaper clippings or books which list your dad's birth year as 1938? If you are, then please add that information to the article's talk page as well. Finally, please read WP:COISELF because you are considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to anything written about your father on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

there are evident mistakes in list of harmoncists?

billford was eliminated. sucker damn hell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Billford (talk • contribs) 02:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Michael Billford: Concerns over article content should be raised on the relevant article's talk page. Random expletives are unlikely to be met anywhere with anything more than disinterest, disdain and mild irritation. 'List of' pages should only contain names of notable people with articles already about them elsewhere on Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking for editor, for Draft:Gerard Reinmuth

I am looking to have a page restored, however the administrator has requested that he would only do so, if i had an external editor edit the page. I was hoping someone here would be able to help. The admin wrote:

I will no longer restore autobiographies. If any editor without a conflict of interest wants to work on it, I will restore it to draft.
—  DGG ( talk 00:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Gerard Reinmuth (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gerard Reinmuth: welcome to the Teahouse. Non-admins cannot view deleted content. Please help us appreciate why someone here might wish to help you create a Wikipedia page about yourself. Just base your anwers and independent sources on the criteria explained in this notability guideline.Nick Moyes (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Moyes, I would be looking at creating and article based on the Creative professionals category of people with notability. In particular under the categories noted: 1. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 2. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums

I have published several books on architecture and the practice (Terroir) architects that I founded with my partner has designed a number of significant buildings. I also teach and a notable Australian university, as well as conducted major speaking events.

I was recently told that I should have a Wikipedia page detailing these contributions to the architectural profession. After trying to create my own page I was told that I should have an external editor review the content, after seeing the tea house welcome message, I thought I would try here for assistance.

I look forward to your response Gerard Reinmuth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gerard Reinmuth: Thanks. That was considerably more general than I was intending! But I've since wandered off and found out who you are. As advised on your user page, you must declare your WP:PAID connection with your company (Directors and CEOs get paid, and are not exempt). Like you, I have written books, worked at notable institutions, been on TV, radio and newspapers innumerable times and spoken at a number of notable events, but I remain unimportant and non-notable in Wikipedia's eyes (but try telling my mother that!). I was hoping you might provide specific links to independent sources that have written about you in detail, or major architectural awards etc you might have achieved. It's possible you might meet our WP:NPROF guidelines, but I would advise you to collate all those sources and post a request for another editor to write about you and post them at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/People in business. If people really are notable, another editor will surely want to take the credit for creating an article about them. Helping them assess your notability (in Wikipedia's eyes) is invaluable there, though there can be a very long wait for the less notable subjects to emerge as full articles. Do read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for an understanding why people are discouraged from writing about themselves. I see you already have a LinkedIn page, so I wont insult you by suggesting you go there too. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

How i can provide reliable sources to admin for editing article

How admin can edit article how i can provide reliable sources to admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punjabier (talk • contribs) 05:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This user has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. It is worth commenting that it is the whole Wikipedia community, through its various policies, and not just admins, who require Reliable Sources to be added to articles. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

chef rakesh sethi article and or page is facing challenge in publishing

Please help me to publish renowned chef rakesh sethis article and or page,he is a know celebrity chef. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyparekh36 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sunnyparekh36 and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to read WP:Referencing for beginners which will show you how to convert your references into in-line citations. Each statement should have a specific reference to support it. Dbfirs 08:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

You had been told that the problem with the previous submission was lack of inline citations. You had been given a link to Help:Referencing for beginners. Why, therefore, did you resubmit without having provided inline citations? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The draft Draft:Rakesh Sethi has been nominated for Speedy Deletion for copyright infringement in addition to being highly promotional and not properly referenced. David notMD (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have looked more carefully at past edits, particularly the hijacking of the older Rakesh Sethi page, before assuming good faith? Dbfirs 10:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Bigg Boss Tamil 3

Hello, Can I edit the page about Bigg Boss Season 3 which is locked ? There are many new details to add to that page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special Editor 2019 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The article is semi protected, requiring users to have 10 edits over 4 days to edit the page. You can either wait until you meet this criteria, or place the Edit semi-protected template on the article's talk page to suggest edits - simply place {{Edit semi-protected}} in a new section, then detail the changes you wish to make. An autoconfirmed user will then either carry out the edits, or detail why they can't be done. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Ajax draft

Ajax draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by REDMAN 2019 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Herllo, REDMAN 2019, welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia that we can help with? (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm sorry to ask this but. could somebody please review my draft? it is the 1971-72 AFC Ajax season and it has been "pending" for nearly 11 weeks I know that some have been waiting longer but I would really appreciate it if someone reviewed it.

REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2019 (GMT)

I notice that, since the draft was declined for lack of sources, you have added just one source (worldfootball.net). I don't know whether this will be considered adequate, but it might be a good idea to add other WP:Reliable sources before the draft come to its second review. Dbfirs 11:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do that REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2019 (GMT)

Thanks for the info Dbfirs I have added several sources and another reference. hopefully the draft will be accepted this time! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2019 (GMT)

I'm not a reveiwer, but I hope your draft will be accepted this time. As I expect you know, there is a long backlog of drafts awaiting review, and any volunteer looking at a draft once declined for lack of references will look for good references that have been added since the last review. Dbfirs 11:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

AfC review says eight weeks, but almost a third have been awaiting a review longer than that, a few as much as five months. David notMD (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

You still have time to read WP:Referencing for beginners, and to make all the references in-line. Should "Retiard" be "retired"? It doesn't say in the reference. You might change "there" to "their" in a couple of places. Reveiwers might decline a badly-written article. Dbfirs 18:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I need help

Hello guys, I need help develop one article. I'm trying update all the information in Loukas Yorkas article and every time I make an edit is undone or reverted. Theere many wrong links etc things on the article and some have to delete or update to the right one. At first I move the article to Loukas Yorkas from Loukas Giorkas because this is the correct name and I want to delete Loukas Giorkas article. Can you help me?Theodorosyiorkas (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodorosyiorkas (talk • contribs)

@Theodorosyiorkas: Because you have stated that you are a relative of Loukas Yorkas [2], you have a conflict of interest and should not edit the article directly. Please don't repeatedly re-add the material to the article after you've been told that it's inappropriate. Such behaviour is called edit warring; it is considered disruptive and can lead to sanctions. Instead, please suggest edits on the article talk page (Talk:Loukas Yorkas) and back them up with links to reliable sources.

The content of an article is not owned or controlled by the article's subject or anyone else who represents them. Wikipedia is not interested in what a person wants to say about themselves or how they wish to be portrayed. Article content is a neutrally worded, paraphrased summary of what independent writers have chosen to publish about them. If there is disagreement about content, a discussion should be started on the article's talk page, where you and other editors should try to arrive at a consensus. If that fails, there are other mechanisms available to resolve disputes. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Any search on Loukas Giorkas is now redirected to Loukas Yorkas. David notMD (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Request to remove the link "This article needs additional verification..." be removed in the the article "Health in Cameroon"

Dear Senior Editor

I hope this e-mail meets you well.

Please I wish the request stated in the aforementioned subject/headline (Request to remove the link "This article needs additional verification..." be removed in the the article "Health in Cameroon") be effected.

I look forward hearing from you.

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Foncha (talk • contribs) 12:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Robert Foncha, and welcome to the Teahouse. Goodness, that template was there for a long time! When it was added the article looked like this, and just before you started improving it, it looked like this. I would be happy to remove it for you. However, although you have put in a lot of work to improve the article, I'm afraid you have not done a good job with adding your own new references. For example, you have made nine separate factual statements, and have left users floundering with just a homepage url to Institute for Health Metrics (not Matrics!) and Evaluation at http://www.healthdata.org. This is not sufficient to allow anyone else to check statistical information you include. You need to use our readily available 'Cite' templates (available in the editing tool) to give individual web page references, access dates and, when it's a long 200+ page pdf publication, or a big book, a page number or numbers of where those statistics can be found. In another place you write about population numbers, thus: "There has been substantial increase from 2.3 million in 1900 through 4.34, 8.66, 11.7, 15.4, 20.1 millions in the years 1950, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010 respectively.[9]" But reference number nine just goes to Gapminder at https://www.gapminder.org/. You must have got the data from somewhere on that site (unless you made it up, or got it from elsewhere), so please could I ask you to return and improve each of these references to that other users can verify each of the factual statements. I can see that you are an expert in your field, but it is very important to all users of Wikipedia content - from students to other medical practitioners - that they can check for themselves the veracity of all statistical and other information provided. Then it would be fine to remove that template, but not before. I'm sorry about that, but I thank you for your desire to see the page improved. You might like to read WP:REFBEGIN which is a rather complex attempt to help beginners understand how to add references to the best of their ability, or see these help notes that I have drafted. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)    

Editor Only Information

How can I give information to editors only with this coding (I don't know the exact so here's the known one to me) -

I also need a page to be semi-protected so help me in that too.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaryangupta23 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't really understand your first question, but a page is protected only where absolutely necessary - there would have to be a significant amount of disruption to warrant protection. I can't say if it is appropriate without seeing the article in question, but if you think it is then you can ask for page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec)Aaryangupta23, see MOS:COMMENT for details on editor-only comments. Follow instructions at WP:RFPP to request protection for a page. Cheers!
P.S. I edited your post to make it fully visible, hope you don't mind. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Aaryangupta23 If you wish to amend or clarify your question, please ask a follow up question in this same section instead of removing your question and its reply. Questions are kept for the benefit of all, including other new users who might have the same question. Regarding your first question, there is no way to communicate with 'editors only'; any user of Wikipedia can see any question or comment. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Protection on Page

I need a page to be semi-protected so help me in that. The page is regularly experiencing vandalism and want that to be protected.

Page Name - Doraemon in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaryangupta23 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Two replies to your original question explained that the place to request protection is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Is there something about those replies which you don't understand? It isn't obvious that there has been regular vandalism at Doraemon in India so you would need to give evidence. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Replies are understandable...Thank You! Aaryangupta23 (talk) 08:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Appropriate way to warn user replacing sourced content with original research?

User:Notfakenews63 has three times now replaced referenced content in article Air Ambulance Northern Ireland with original research. What is an appropriate template to place on a user's talk page to warn about such behaviour? It sort of is vandalism, but I'm not experienced enough to know. Advise here for me and perhaps additional advice placed on that user's talk page might be useful. Thanks in advance. --2A00:23C6:FA02:EC00:F84A:9707:1890:C775 (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I would start with {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}, moving up the numbers if it continues. (the full list is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you --2A00:23C6:FA02:EC00:F84A:9707:1890:C775 (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The templates {{Uw-nor1}}, {{Uw-nor2}}, {{Uw-nor3}} and {{Uw-nor4}} are specific to this situation too. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate Categories?

I've started to notice many pages with categories which are suspicious. I could not find any official statements about the appropriateness of categorization. Do we not care? Several instances where categories are essentially stating things about a person or subject which are:

• Not contained in the article text
• not supported by article sources
• introduce non-neutral, biased, and controversial elements to an article

Essentially people are using categories to label articles in a dishonest or manipulative manner - unsupported by the text. Could someone please direct me to guiding policy here? Or let me off the hook and I'll just try to ignore the cats. Thanks!

(This is simultaneously posted the the support desk (and was vandalized-yay))--Luke Kindred (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The short summary is at Wikipedia:Categorization dos and don'ts. You've described Don't add pages to non-neutral or unverifiable categories, so I'd remove them in the circumstances. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much! This is exactly what I was missing and now I see that I have a pile of mis-categorization to clean up woohoo (I like work) --Luke Kindred (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

A Study in Afrikaans about Opera Librettos

I am busy with a study (it is written in Afrikaans) about the phenomena of intertextuality and intermediality as illustrated in the opera librettos and a few important arias. I was wondering if you would be interested. Dr Anna-Marie le Roux, Windhoek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.182.79.173 (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Dr Anna-Marie le Roux! It's not clear what you mean; interested in what exactly? This is a place for new editors to seek help with problems they come across while trying to edit Wikipedia. Are you interested in adding results of the study to any of our articles? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi 41.182.79.173 and welcome to the Teahouse. You might like to read WP:Original research for guidance. When you have published your study in a WP:Reliable source it might make a good source. Dbfirs 19:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Pay taxes

    Hello, I am a 68 years old. In 2008 I became 100% Disabled. I get 100% rating from VA. Do I need to pay any Taxes at all if not working? I do get SS each month. Thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:7280:10:27D0:45FB:71A1:567E:CD40 (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC) 

This is the Wikipedia Encyclopedia help desk. We can't answer questions about your taxes. RudolfRed (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Folks at the reference desk are good with finding answers to questions like yours. Just follow the link and post your question there. Someone might help you move this very question to there, if you'd like. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Walewijn ( Walewyn ) van der Veen

Hi could someone have a look at the article I have created? Walewijn ( Walewyn ) van der Veen. It was declined and I wonder if some of you have a few suggestions. I have in the meantime made a few changes.

Thanks!

Gabby 20:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Walewijn van der Veen.   Maproom (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

AccessDate

If I visit an old external link on a page, is it better to leave the |accessdate= alone in the citation so we can see how long it's been there, or should I update it to show that it's still valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canute (talk • contribs) 2019-09-23T21:39:04 (UTC)

Hello, Canute. Good question. I would say: if you are willing to take the time to check that the link still works and still verifies the information for which it is cited, then it is well worth updating the accessdate. If you are not willing to make that check, then leave it. If the link is valid, but no longer verifies the information, then see LINKROT for what to do. --ColinFine (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason the vandalism warning tag should have a level one setting?

Vandals, by definition know what they are doing is wrong and having a 'kid-glove' warning level just seems sort of pointless. HalfShadow 20:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@HalfShadow: Level 1 warning is usually for new editors, for "unconstructive" edits, to help get them on the right path. You don't need to start at level 1. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism for options for responding. RudolfRed (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Oh no, I always start with level two, it just seems under the circumstances a level one warning is just ... there. I can't think of anyone who ever uses it. Even the bots don't. HalfShadow 21:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey HalfShadow. I mostly use level one warnings for...well...users who are fairly obviously children, and I mean that literally. Inserting "Hi Wikipedia!" into an article probably deserves a level one. They're probably kids, and they're probably just testing to see if they can really edit. We don't really want to scare them away. We actually kindof want them to stay and figure out how to contribute productively, but we don't want them to keep doing what they're doing. GMG^talk 23:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@HalfShadow: I agree with GreenMeansGo and I, for one, always start with a level 1 warning for the same reason. Put simply: that's where they should normally start. So add me to your list of people you might think of who do use Level 1 warnings! And you should probably also add Clue Bot NG, too, to your list. Just look at its last 500 edits - 200 of of which were Level 1 warnings! So your statement about bots was quite wrong. As I generally feel no need to be unnecessarily obnoxious to other people from the off, I normally only start with a level two warning if an editor is particularly nasty or clearly offensive and has involved some thought and intent in their vandalism, or made multiple successive bad edits in a short space of time. Most vandals are just silly children or immature teenagers, maybe testing out whether they can change stuff about their school or hated football team. Us acting like storm-troopers towards them right from the start seems unnecessarily harsh and genuinely offputting, and may just serve to encourage them more in their bad ways. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Help - protecting a page

Hello, I am looking for assistance in protecting a page. I represent a Grammy Award-winning singer-songwriter who has recently passed away in a fatal car accident. His family would like to protect his page from future edits for people outside his family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojo Pada (talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jojo Pada: You need to declare your conflict of interest, which I will leave further instructions on on your user talk page. Sorry for your loss, but individuals do not own articles here, the community does. It is not "his" page, it is the community's page about him.

Also, our conflict of interest guidelines rather require that the page be edited by people outside his family (and employment). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jojo Pada: We are sorry to learn of your loss. Media coverage of the death of notable people obviously attracts a lot of newspaper coverage, as in the recent case of LaShawn Daniels, who I suspect you may well be referring to. That reporting is often then used by editors here to add content to Wikipedia. Now, if it appears that malicious and unsubstantiated/unverifiable content has been added to an article about such a person, then it is OK for anyone - including you - to delete it immediately, per our policy about biographies of living or recently deceased persons. But only if it is clearly maliciously false and not supported by any reliable, published source (such as quality news outlets or books/magazines). Plain and simple censorship by anyone connected with that person just because they don't like seeing a well-cited story emerging in the press is not acceptable, I'm afraid, as has been suggested above.

However, you may be assured that many people monitor these pages and swiftly remove obviously false or bad faith edits. If they don't, then please come back and tell us. We even have a special place to report issues relating to articles about living and recently deceased persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard), should there be an issue that can't be simply resolved. More commonly, we do temporarily protect articles if they come under sustained vandalism by multiple people, though we never do this preemptively, or if only one user is causing problems. Then we simply block them from editing completely! We do have other mechanisms I won't bore you with. I hope this gives you and their family, some reassurance that Wikipedians here take very seriously any interference with articles, especially of living or recently deceased persons, and always want to protect their interests if unsubstantiated content is inserted without good cause.

It might be worth me taking the opportunity to mention that there is potentially an opportunity for a friend, family member or, indeed, business colleague to upload a photograph of that person, should their article not have a photo of them already. It would need to be a photo that they, as photographer, personally own the rights to, and are wiling and able to freely release into the public domain, but this can sometimes be one way that someone close to a deceased person with a page about them on Wikipedia can help provide a suitable image which may forever be a part of that independent memorial to their legacy of achievements. We can offer advice on how that is best done, should you ever require assistance. I do hope I have not spoken insensitively on this matter. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)  

Purple prose

On my Edit pages, much of the type has turned purple. How do I turn it back to the way it was before? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi BeenAroundAWhile. I replied at Wikipedia:Help desk#Weird purple type. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

How can I get the status of an article I published?

After publishing an article about Cassie Premo Steele today I noticed that the article appears to be live on Wikipedia. However, I did not receive a notice saying that the article was being reviewed by editors. Can you provide information on the status of the article? Thank you. ITLRosanna (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Cassie Premo Steele is one of over 5000 articles awaiting review by WP:NPP, which means that it is currently NOINDEXed and not visible in search engines such as Google, but it is indeed a live article in Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting - I had a completely different answer! I tried to say: Welcome to the Teahouse, ITLRosanna. If you visit Cassie premio steele, you will see that you placed a deletion request on the article. At the time of this reply, it has not yet been deleted, but may be very soon. At a quick glance, it looks like you did not submit it to Articles for Creation, but created it directly into mainspace. As you've requested deletion as the sole editor of the new page, it won't get anyone reviewing it, or 'new page patrolling' it. But you should get a notification when it has been deleted. I then realised you'd made two articles with very similar names! I'm glad David beat me to a reply. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Unsure of how to request protection for a page (Anti-Iranian Sentiment) which make be under attack by one or more vandals

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Greetings, while I have exercised good faith to the best of my abilities, it appears that the Anti-Iranian sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page is under attack. User User talk:UCaetano engaged in Edit-Warring by removing a revision that brought back a controversial and well-documented (across several mediums) fact that DC_Comics 's well known Batman: A Death in the Family story arc involved a plot point where the Joker_(character) gasses the UN Assembly on behalf of Iran, as its ambassador. Various sources have stated that this was done during peak strain between the US and Iran. It led to the creation of the fictional nation-state Qurac as a replacement for Iran in future prints. This fact (undeniable as comic prints of it have been scanned, DC staff interviewed, etc) was in earlier versions of "Anti-Iranian Sentiment". User AntiRacistZwei (who brought this to my attention) had brought back the information and clarified various tid-bits in the article. Soon after, UCaetano began an edit war and accused AntiRacistZwei of "Weasel talk" (eventhough the given sources were already a part of the article), and after several edits (including my own to fix grammar), accused myself of "Edit-Warring". I initially had chosen to engage peacefully and to de-escalate, explaining my relation to Anti-Racist-Zwei and our aim to clean up/verify the article. The user ignored the message and soon after, undid the entire edit. I once again looked at UCaetano's page to contact them, however, I noticed something alarming on their Talk page and it appears that this individual has vandalized other pages then threatened to report users for "Edit-Warring". [[[User talk:Tim.thelion]] brought this up with UCaetano on May 2018 on their talk page, which resulted in UCaetano claiming that UCaetano had reported Tim and that Tim the Lion should avoid "edit warring", eventhough UCaetano was being questioned by Tim on possibly-hostile Re-visionary behavior (IE, Vandalism). Having said that, it is alarming that this user would edit a page that is centered around discrimination against an entire Population. I am unable to install Twinkle as I do not have Java on my computer, however, I have done my best to place a protection request on the page. Please assist me if possible on finding a way to seek protection for the page, if I have not done an adequate job (or let me know of a proper method outside of Twinkle). Thank you for your time, in advance. Rodianreader (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rodianreader and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you seem quite new to Wikipedia editing (perhaps you're not but your account is only a couple of days old), the best thing to do when you are faced with a content dispute is to typically try and resolve it through talk page discussion per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Immediately labeling other editors as WP:VANDALs is not always productive as explained in WP:USTHEM.

The next thing is that page protection is only applied when there is some serious disruption going on and only typically after attempts to resolve the matter in other ways have been tried and proved to be unsuccessful. Only an administrator can protect a page and a request to do so needs to be made at WP:RPP; you don't make requests like you tried to do here. Whether there enough disruption to warrant page protection is something that the administrator reviewing your request will determine, but with none those involved currently trying to resolve things through discussion on the article's talk page, there's a good chance the request will be declined (at least in my opinion). -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight! This was attempted, however, the User began making threats towards Anti-Racist-Zwei and falsely accused myself of Edit-Warring (I had fixed some grammatical placements). Unsure of how to move forward other than to request assistance. Rodianreader (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Rodianreader. The proper place to discuss the content dispute is Talk:Anti-Iranian sentiment where no conversation has taken place since May. Please be aware that political hostility against the Iranian regime is very different from ethnic hatred against Iranian/Persian people, many of whom oppose that regime. That distinction must be kept clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Being part Persian, I do my best to avoid biases. And while I am aware of the distinction, I myself have experienced many painful instances of discrimination as well as physical beatings by (shall I say) racist individuals. The post-Bush propaganda has not helped. I will however, point out, that DC Comics as well as the 300 film(s) have not helped as in my experience, it has fueled psychological dislike towards my secondary ethnic group (and on a personal level, myself). As an academic, however, I must point out instances (such as the ones AntiRacistZwei brought up) where Iranians are targeted and made fun of. An example was Saddam's usage of the word yellow. I have relatives in Iran who are of asian-Iranian descent and I am aware (through study) of discrimination by other ethnic groups in the region (not necessarily Iranians, but other tribes, etc). While I am keeping this short, I will say: It does not help that there are those who censor these things for political gain. It hurts people and it creates academic blackouts (removal of information). Rodianreader (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Please read through WP:RGW because Wikipedia is not really the place to resolve this sort of matter. I also suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG, WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:OUTING now that you started a discussion about this at WP:ANI. —- Marchjuly (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Rodianreader, Wikipedia is not an advocacy website and it never will be. The neutral point of view is a core content policy. Following that policy is mandatory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Cullen, as mentioned, I clearly stated that I avoid personal biases, though I have experienced the very dangers of misinforming a population about an ethnic group. My complaint is that UCaetano erased entire segments of the article including clarifications and grammatical fixes. When asked why, he escalated. Lastly, I've done my best to verify and re-check sources on the article. Would you please visit the page and verify my claims? Surely, you will notice why I'm concerned and/or alarmed. Thanks Rodianreader (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Rodianreader, what I notice is that you are not discussing this matter at Talk:Anti-Iranian sentiment, which is the proper place to discuss the content dispute. Why are you unwilling to discuss this issue in the proper place? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Both Antiracistzwei and Rodianreader have been blocked for sock-puppeting. UCaetano (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I can't figure out how to add a reference and keep getting the error that <ref> has too many names

This is the page where I've been trying to edit a birth date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Clark_Davis#Personal_history Roland Clark Davis, according to the City of Cambridge Registered Births was born on 30 Dec, not 20 Dec. This is the reference "Massachusetts Births, 1841-1915," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FXHJ-3BT : 10 March 2018), Robert Clark Davis, 30 Dec 1902, Cambridge, Massachusetts; citing reference ID #p345 ln1376, Massachusetts Archives, Boston; FHL microfilm 2,057,388. Whatever I'm doing, I'm doing it wrong. I've read the directions, and just don't understand what I'm doing wrong. Thank you for any help you might be able to give. 47.151.179.232 (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Tricia

I have fixed the message for now. see what has changed. The error was that it must be <ref name="someName">content</ref>, not <ref name="someName" content</ref>. I've filed the ref with the content you gave Above. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Schmidt mobil (talk • contribs) 05:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit war and sabotage of articles

How do I report and edit war and the sabataging of articles? Specifically Managed Intensive Rotational Grazing— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redddbaron (talk • contribs) 05:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Redddbaron. There appears to be a disagreement over content, etc. at Managed intensive rotational grazing, but there also appears to be some editors discussing this on the article's talk page; so, I'm not sure what happening would be considered "edit warring" or "sabotage" per se. Perhaps further discussion will resolve things. If things get really out of hand then you can file a report at WP:AN3, but I don't think doing so now will lead to anything other than administrator basically telling the same as what I posted above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Correction of page about All Aboard, John Denver's last page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Aboard!_(John_Denver_album)

Apologies for not creating an account - looking at all the talk here means that I don't think I have any hope of editing a page succesfully.

On the page in question several references ar mad, but none of them show the track listing as it appears in the article. Track 1 should be Jenny Dreamed Of Trains. The listed track 1 is actually track two, and all others move down one. The final (15th) track is Jessie Dreamed Of Trains (and is a bonus track.) This can be verified at the Discogs reference , the Amazon link . The World cat link has the first 14 correct but misses track 15. Regards 203.219.44.129 (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)PeterB

References

There can be multiple editions of an album, with variation in which songs appear and in what order. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Editta Braun ‎

Hi, my article Draft:Editta Braun has been declined. How can I prove the notability of a living artist? I added many sources (press articles, texts in books) and I could add much more, but I am not sure what is necessary Lagardet (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Lagardet, the draft was declined because of the quality of the sources cited, not the quantity. Please DO NOT add "much more". Try to find a few good independent articles that discuss the subject, add those, and consider removing many of the sources which Theroadislong considered inadequate. (I can't tell you why they were considered inadequate, I know very little German.) Maproom (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

clarification

am new to wikipedia and i have been hearing about wikipedia monuments but has no idea as to what it is. there is also one of them which is wikipedia commons. can someone please explain to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fibrinogen Gh (talk • contribs) 10:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fibrinogen Gh and welcome to the Teahouse. You might like to read Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Monuments and Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons. Ask again here if these links don't answer your questions. Dbfirs 10:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Re Paul kelly afl player for sydney swans,

Paul Kelly (Australian rules footballer)

In the general text his place of birth is recorded as wagga wagga, however in his summary box his place of birth is recoprded as west wyalong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiejack57delly (talk • contribs) 10:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Katiejack57delly. Good spot! West Wyalong was added in 2011, without any citation, in this edit. Wagga wagga had been cited as his birthplace since the beginning. Assuming these two place are completely different, I suggest you remove the location given in the infobox and replace it with Wagga Wagga, and give a brief explanatory edit summary why you're doing that. But it's first probably well worth doing a bit of online research to look for other biographical sources to help you determine correct information. If in doubt, just leave your concerns on the article's Talk page for other editors to address. Hoping this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

How to add references to information provided by me

How I can add references to paragraph written by me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kundan Ravindra Dhayade (talk • contribs) 10:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Kundan Ravindra Dhayade and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm glad you recognise the importance of adding references to support all content that you might add. We have what is meant to be a helpful page for beginners called Help:Referencing for beginners (or shortcut: WP:REFBEGIN). I find this a little confusingly written, so you may wish to read these notes of mine about how to use the 'Cite' button in the editing tool you're using. You add the reference right after the factual statement you've added (i.e. 'inline), and these citations almost magically appear in the References section at the bottom of the page. You don't actually add the references to the bottom of the page. Let us know how you get on. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia - Need help

The only thing I've used Wikipedia for is to edit things.

I now need to enter citations and change the photograph but I really don't have a clue as every time I try the help part, it sends me all over the place and then it's not a need.

Is there an easier guide on how to attach citations and photographs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapper1 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Allow me: User:Yunshui/References for beginners, User:Yunshui/Images for beginners. Simplified versions of the simplified versions... Yunshui ^雲_水 12:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thornhill, Dumfries page.

Hi, having read the info on the above page I can't agree with some of it, Thornhill goes back a lot further than 1717 for a start and New Dalgarnock was situated up at Townhead Street which is known as the Auld Toon, not on the A76. All this information and more is in the book, Thornhill and it's worthies, by Joseph Laing Waugh, [1913]. How do I go about editing the page to correct the misinformation?

Cheers, Tam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totebal (talk • contribs) 13:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Tam. You're welcome to go right ahead and edit the article Thornhill, Dumfries and Galloway directly, especially if you've got a published source for the information you want to add. (Look at Referencing for beginners to see how to add the references). But if you're unsure, posting a suggestion on the talk page Talk:Thornhill, Dumfries and Galloway would be a good start. --ColinFine (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia page update assistance / 2018 data updates for info box

May I get someone's help in updating the information box for Interactive Brokers?

Here is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_Brokers

The 2018 statistics have not been added.

As I work for the company - and to be honest am not 100% familiar with Wikipedia regulations and formatting - I am requesting 3rd party assistance as the updates I made directly were reverted.

These are the 6 info box updates:

1) Revenue $1.9 billion (2018)

Source: 2019 10-K p. 35 https://investors.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php

2) Operating income $1.2 billion (2018)

Source: Website: https://investors.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=2334

3) Net income $1.1 billion (2018)

Source 2018 10-K p.35 https://investors.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=2244

4) Total assets $60.5 billion (2018)

Source: 2018 10-K p.36 https://investors.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=2244

5) Total equity $7.2 billion (2018)

Source: Press Release 1/22/19 4Q 2018 results: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190122005875/en/Interactive-Brokers-Group-Announces-4Q2018-Results

6) Number of employees 1,413 (2018)

Source: 2018 10-K: https://investors.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=2244

Thank you very much for your assistance. Kalenholliday (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Kalenholliday: Actually it was all in the 2018 10K, which I cited with the more specific link that goes directly to the document. I did the same for the 2017 10K. This allows readers to go directly to the source without having to navigate through menus as well as making successful archival (at archive.org) more likely. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• • Kalenholliday. Two things. One, as you are an employee of the subject of the article and you are making edits as a part of your job, you are a WP:PAID editor and are required to make certain declarations about that. This needs to be taken care of immediately. Second, every source you've provided is based on press releases from the company. You need truly secondary sources. John from Idegon (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Page

Why can’t I edit Janhvi Kapoor Page? It has prevented for vandalism and I would like to know when will it be open for other editors as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poddiya (talk • contribs) 14:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Poddiya:, The page is protected to prevent vandalism. You can edit it when the protection expires. I consider adding it to your watchlist and you will know when the page gets unprotected. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 14:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, Poddiya, you can make an edit request on the article's talk page Talk:Janhvi Kapoor. --ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

A question on formatting.

OK, I recently saw a list of names in the article for Redding, California, and it was set up in a format I could not understand why it appeared as it did, especially why the second line looks darkened. I pasted the list below, and am just wondering what makes it look so. Thanks for the help. "

• Leo Perez

      • Principal

• Heath Bunton - Assistant Principal
• Shane Kikut - Assistant Principal
• Scott Tyler - Activities Director
• Brian McIntire - Athletic Director
• Travis Bassham - Attendance

" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulstev (talk • contribs) 16:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It was actually in this article Shasta High School and I have fixed it, you were using the wrong symbol for the list a"•" instead of a "*". Theroadislong (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Gronk Oz and Graham87

Sir,

Thank you for your invitation. Just to let you know that on the controversial Telfer mine & Jean-Paul Turcaud 's pages, I have provided to Messrs Gronk Oz & Graham87 a most thorough & comprehensive answer.

In such, I pointed that such Wikipedia articles were biaised by wilfull & successful attempts to delude the Free Encyclopedia & derogatory presentation on a page called: Jean-Paul Turcaud ( my name) which was badly documented and a deliberate character ' assassination indeed. Completely brushing aside the outmost Geology acumen of said Turcaud in bringing the whole Great Sandy Desert to life for the good of 1000s.

I wish a proper review of such documents could take place, both for the sake of fairness and the respect of the Truth.

I gave in my recent mails all due references & noted respectable people in WA to call upon.

Yours sincerely
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Exploration geologist
Australia mining ⚒ Pioneer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basalt3711 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Telfer Mine, Jean-Paul Turcaud. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The reverts of you additions to Telfer Mine and Telfer, Western Australia by Graham87 had nothing to do with his knowledge of the topic, nor any attempt to suppress what you hold to be the truth of the matter. Rather, any content added to these articles must be in Wikipedia format and citations be reliable sources. For you and many, many other editors, the fact that truth without verifiability will not be allowed is a severe disappointment. There may well be people in WA who would confirm your position on this topic, but that counts for nothing. If you can provide published documents, do so. P.S. All Gronk Oz did was explain to you what happened. David notMD (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Article Ratings

Most articles have ratings. Stub, A, B, C start etc. but this one - a fairly major one has unknown - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrosion_engineering . I assume because this was done so long ago before the ratings system came in on Wikipedia. Anyway, I am generally curious. I assume it is not a big deal - or is it one that does need rating? GRALISTAIR (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey GRALISTAIR, welcome to the Teahouse. The ratings and tagging system is supported by various Wikiprojects that use the system in various ways. For some Wikiprojects, like the Military History project, the rating system is heavily used and is important to the project. Other wikiprojects don't place as much of an emphasis on the actual ratings. All articles should at least have a Wikiproject tag, with or without a rating. You are correct that many articles were created before the current tag system, meaning that they haven't been tagged yet. I've added the Wikiproject Engineering tag to the article's talk page. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Update to a Wikipedia Page

Hello,

I work for an ad agency, and one of our clients has asked us to update their Wikipedia Page. We have all of the content approved and we are ready to update the page. Can someone please tell me how to do it?

Here is the page that needs the update:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyenovia

Thank you!

Sheree Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shereemartin2010 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Shereemartin2010: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Before you do anything else, you must review and comply with the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy; the latter is a Terms of Use requirement and not optional. I would give you a short answer to your question in that you should not attempt to 'update' the article(not just 'page') yourself. You can, however, make a formal edit request on the article talk page, detailing the changes you feel are needed.

I would caution you, however, that the Wikipedia article about your client does not belong to your client, and your client has no more rights to it than any other editor. Though we welcome their input, the article will not reflect how the subject wants to describe themselves, but how they are described by independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Per what 331dot wrote, you must declare 'paid' on your user page. For the article in question, KeEvans, the creator did exactly that. You could copy/paste to your User page. With that done, the next step is to create a new section on the article's talk page. There specifically describe what you want to change and what you want to change it to. Other editors will review and either implement the change, or not. David notMD (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramrxrx3 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The teahouse is not the place for a draft article, so I have collapsed its display. If you want to submit User:Ramrxrx3/sandbox for AFC review, the way to do it is to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Article blocked

Hello,

I wish to put my draft article back in the sandbox so I can modify it because it is not ready for publication, please can you help me

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatmanSA1 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't need moving back to your sandbox. You can edit it at Draft:Richard Phelps Gough for as long as you need to before you submit it for AFC review. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@PatmanSA1: Your draft will be safe there, and would only be liable to be deleted were you to abandon it completely and not edit it for 6 months. Stale drafts do then get deleted. But I must say, as a first draft for a new editor, it's looking really good. I'm assuming you're working off microfiche records of the newspapers? Is there any chance of you including page numbers in each of the citations? The key thing I feel you'll need to do is to tease out evidence to show how he meets our notable people criteria, rather than it being a well-researched biography of a non-notable sea captain. I'm sure you can do it (though why you started work on it on French Wikipedia, I really don't understand) But when it is ready to go into 'mainspace' I would really like to encourage you to consider submitting it for our Did You Know...? slot on the main page of Wikipedia. It's a great way to showcase brand new articles like this, and you would have seven days from the time it goes into mainspace to submit it for DYK. It can be a bit of a nightmare to understand the rules at first, but it's rewarding to see great articles being showcased. I could imagine a hook along the lines of: "Did you know...that Captain Richard Phelps Gough became a sailor at 14 and went round Cape Horn at least ten times during his 50 year career at sea?" Good luck with it. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

One of the things you'll need to do is to remove the large number of misplaced external links from the article text. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Good point about the external links. The article WP:In-line citations explains how to format your citations using citation templates, so that they appear in an orderly fashion at the end of your article.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

How do you create a wikipedia page?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Bubbles (talk • contribs) 22:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bob Bubbles:Here's the info you need Help:Your first article. (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.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Bob Bubbles. Welcome to Wikipedia. Creating a new article on Wikipedia is one of the hardest tasks any editor can achieve here. It's often well worth newcomers spending quite some time doing simple editing first, so that you slowly get a feel for how things work, and how references are deployed. Every new topic has to be 'Notable' according to Wikipedia's own standards. So you'd first of all gather together all the independent, detailed and [[WP:RS|Reliable sources] that you can find, and use them as the basis of writing a new page, completely in your own words without any copy/pasting of copyrighted text. I can point you towards The Wikipedia Adventure for a fun tour of the basics of editing, plus Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Tutorial for the basics guidance you'll need. We could drown you in guidance pages and polciy documents, but those should see you on your way. Creating a 'Draft' article and then submitting it for review when it's ready is the best way to go, and avoids the disappointment of having your work summarily deleted if it fails to meet our editing criteria. We're here to help with difficulties in editing should you need us. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Bob Bubbles. I noticed that Nick Moyes forgot to add a bracket, so here's the link to the guide about reliable sources if you're interested in checking it out. Clovermoss (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand

I don't understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.230.129 (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 72.95.230.129. Is there something about Wikipedia or Wikipedia editing that you don't understand? If there is and you can be more specific, then perhaps someone can try to help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to how to create a disambiguation page for my page

I want ot publish my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laksanmd

but dont know how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laksanmd (talk • contribs) 08:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Laksanmd Your draft (which is on your userpage and would probably be better suited for your sandbox) contains no reliable sources to support its content, and almost no prose. As such, it is a long way from being suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It is also an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia(though not completely forbidden). I would suggest that you read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about what new articles require and the process involved. You can then submit a draft for review and feedback using Articles for Creation. Successfully creating a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia, even more so when attempting to write about yourself. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Your page at User:Laksanmd does not satisfy the requirements to be a WP:user page; it does satisfy the requirement for speedy deletion as an attempt to use Wikipedia as a web host. If it were intended to be an article, it would fail there too, as a 5 year old would not satisfy the notability requirements at WP:NSPORT. WP:Disambiguation doesn't come into it. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Not autobiography, as the subject of the article is five years old. More likely parent. Regardless, the content created on the User's User page, and should be Speedy deleted rather than moved to Sandbox or Draft space, as there is no reason to believe this meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. David notMD (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: - As you agree that it should be speedy deleted, could you explain why you removed the U5 tag and replaced it by an apparently invalid {{redirect}} hatnote? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Suman Pokhrel

In Template:Suman Pokhrel, the "songs" section(?) has audio clips of songs written by Suman Pokhrel. I guess Suman Pokhrel wrote the words, but does he have the right to give us perm to a final product of which his words are just an ingredient (without showing proof that he also holds the rights to the final product)? Or if he does, did anyone from Wikimedia actually verify that it was indeed him, before accepting the files? The second part of my question also applies to these, also linked from the template. Thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Whats wrong with this

<misplaced draft redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwaipayangreenreef (talk • contribs) 10:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a draft, so I've deleted it. All you needed to do was to link to Premjit Sen. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

editing Title

I'm wondering how you edit the spelling in the title. Article is about a person and the first name has letters inverted. "Ronald" should be "Roland". This can confuse anyone looking for this individual.