Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 524

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

←

→

Incorrect information on page.

Dear Editors and wikipedia people.

I work for a company called Strathberry we used to be known as Strathberry of Scotland and traded under that name. We havre since gone through some changes the original partners have split and we now trade under a new name "Strathberry". I have been asked by the CEO to update the wikipedia page as almost all the information on the page is outdated and incorrect. I have read the term in which you are allowed as a member of a company to edit a page and it seems as though I will not be able to change any information on this page without it being deleted and changed back as I have a conflict of interest with the subject.

My issue is that we are now receiving emails from customers complaining that the shop that we supposedly have as stated on wikipedia no longer exists and the information is misleading. I am unable to change any of the information myself and I need someone who is "impartial" to complete the new updates to this page. I can supply unbiased facts and information about the company to anyone who needs it and I will do my best to help in any way,

Can someone please update this page with the correct information.

Thank you Douglas Douglas McCaffrey (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Douglas. Thank you for respecting Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy and not editing the article directly. I will make the changes you've suggested here, but the best thing to do in this circumstance is leave a message on the article's talk page explaining any errors, so an uninvolved editor can fix it. You will need to supply references because we can't accept information that isn't verified by published sources. You can also include {{request edit}} with your message, which will mark the page as needing attention. Joe Roe (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Since you have been asked by your CEO to do this, I will assume you're being paid to do this. According to the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, you must follow additional policies outlined in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, especially the How to disclose section. When making any edit requests, please also be sure to say that you are being paid to update the article. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverts

Hey, I want to ask something, When I make an edit to a change,someone change it to its previous form. Even though I provide reliable source with the edit and update the article to its present time, but still someone Change it to its previous form,why thi s happens?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam Teri Kasam (talk • contribs) 07:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Read bold, revert, discuss. I don't know what your edits were, but they were probably reverted either because another editor disagreed with the source or another editor disagreed for some other reason. You edited boldly. You were reverted. Discuss on the article talk page. If that is inconclusive, read the dispute resolution policy and follow a dispute resolution procedure. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: OP has been blocked by a Check User as a sockpuppet of Ishq Hawa Mein. -- Gestrid (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Where to request removal of a redirecton?

I want to request removal of the redirection of Software Toolworks to Mindscape, so that Software Toolworks can be documented separately. I have a conflict of interest so can't do it myself, although I did draft a suggested article on my sandbox page.

I put the request on the Edit page of Software Toolworks. Was that the right place?

Bilofsky (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Bilofsky. Thanks for declaring your conflict of interest. Although COI editors are discouraged from writing about their closely connected topics in the main encyclopedia, there is another way to add content: You can submit your draft to the WP:Articles for Creation project. When the draft is ready, just add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft and save. After a while (the length of time depends on how many drafts are waiting), the reviewers there will either move your draft to mainspace, or temporarily decline it until specified improvements are made to meet Wikipedia's policies. However, before you do that, make sure that your text is supported by independent, reliable, published sources rather that material written by those closely connected with the subject. For your topic, there are plenty of book references, such as: ^[1]^[2]^[3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Delong (talk • contribs) 04:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

References

^ John Arnholz; Edward E. Gainor (9 December 2015). Offerings of Asset-backed Securities. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. pp. 7–. ISBN 978-1-4548-7420-1.
^ InfoWorld Media Group, Inc. (29 February 1988). InfoWorld. InfoWorld Media Group, Inc. pp. 36–. ISSN 0199-6649.
^ Ziff Davis, Inc. (31 October 1989). PC Mag. Ziff Davis, Inc. pp. 418–. ISSN 0888-8507.

Thanks, Anne. Then do you suggest that I remove my edit request from the Software Toolworks page and submit my own draft?

Are the newsletters I scanned^[1] considered published, even though they're not online elsewhere? The public corporate filings with the SEC?

Are SEC filings considered reliable references? They're written by the corporation but are subject to strict standards and are usually more accurate as to dates and events than other sources. (For example, your useful Arnholz reference mischaracterizes a secondary stock offering as an IPO.)

Bilofsky (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

References

^ "BUSS Newsletter #21, January 1980" (PDF). p. 2.

Seems someone's already removed your request, as it actually was in the wrong place. -- Gestrid (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Beginner editor question

I am a brand new "editor". I placed a name Alan Miller American songwriter on the the page of various Alan Miller(s) and it disappeared overnight. I have not created the actual page for him yet but his name as co-writer of numerous songs is now highlighted in blue. Whereas, before it was in black. What happened? When I last saw it, it appeared in red letters and when you pressed on it, it said "would you like to create a page for him now? He is a legitimate professional songwriter and has had over 100 major label cuts. Help!

DanEStrimer — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanEStrimer (talk • contribs) 02:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dan. Please read Help:Page history. If you do you will see how to look for yourself at the page history of Alan Miller and view the diff removing your edit. The edit reverting you was uninformative because it did not leave an edit summary. The likely reason for the removal by User:Boleyn was that we usually do not include red links to not-yet-created articles in disambiguation pages, although they are sometimes warranted. See MOS:DABRL. By the way, it would be great if you fixed your signature by going to Special:Preferences, and then unticking the box under signature next to where it says "Treat the above as wiki markup." Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@DanEStrimer: I see you have made a lot of edits linking the songwriter to plain Alan Miller which is the disambiguation page. Those links in track listings should be to Alan Miller (songwriter), red until you or someone else writes the article. And only one link per track list, not every song. Then re-add him to the disambiguation page but include a blue link to a page where he is mentioned. Or write his article first before linking to it. Hope that helps. @Boleyn: for info. PamD 03:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, DanEStrimer, it wasn't good that I forgot to addd an edit summary. I would have put 'removed per MOS:DABRL. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Red box

When I try to edit a biography, just above the edit box, a light red box has a long quote "Notice about sources. This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy,_________Contentious material about living persons that is_______subjects of this article and need help, please see this page."

I don't see this in newly created biographies. I thought adding the category Living people will create this red box which appears when editing. I added the category in one article but couldn't see the red box while editing. Marvellous Spider-Man 02:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marvellous Spider-Man. Maybe it take a while to propagate? Or maybe you were seeing a cached version? Yes, when you add Category:Living people or Category:Possibly living people then {{BLP editintro}} "is injected into the edit URL by MediaWiki:Common.js." Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: You didn't give an example or state the sequence actions precisely so it's impossible to tell whether something is wrong. The feature requires JavaScript in your browser. It works by altering the edit url's of the page to add &editintro=Template:BLP_editintro, so Template:BLP editintro is loaded when you click edit. It doesn't work when you preview. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Username changing

I would like to help out at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. However, does a user need special user rights for this? I'm pretty sure it doesn't have to be an admin, as User:K6ka isn't an administrator. Thanks, Wiki Pancake ^{✉ 📖} 12:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi WikiPancake You're right that you don't need special rights to assist as a clerk there. Please read Wikipedia:Changing username/Assistance. Some broad familiarity and experience may be necessary though, as many of the tasks require knowledge to perform and even to know what is being asked to perform (e.g., in order to check an editors log entries, as asked for, you have to know how to do that in the first place; or it asks clerks to "Check the creation date of the requested username", which can be done in various ways, but might be easier to do if past experience has already informed you of the existence of Special:ListUsers). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi WikiPancake. As mentioned above, you do not need any user rights to start helping out on the pages. Please do keep in mind that the authority to close a request only lies within a global renamer or steward, so please do not mark requests as {{Not done}} when you're a clerk. You should also be familiar with the global account system and know how to use Special:CentralAuth; accounts are global and Special:Listusers only shows local account information. Lastly please be open to receiving advice from other, more experienced users, because the last thing we need is a user being driven away by an ill-behaved clerk. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

info box

Hi, For some reason my infobox isn't showing up as an info box. It's showing up as text on the top of the page. Does anyone know how to fix this? Much appreciated! magic4950 (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you missed a ] in wikilink. Fuortu (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

How to combine two maps

Can you tell me who might be able to combine the pink areas on the two maps on Cemaes Rural District into one pink area on one map? The original uploader is not a current editor. Thanks. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tony Holkham: you can try Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Image workshops and ask if someone will combine the two for you. Nthep (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you very much. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

What happens when you click "thank" and send a public thank you for an edit?

A pointer to the documentation for this feature would be appreciated. Is it the same on an article as in a talk page? Thanks in advance KSci (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The editor you thanked will simply recieve a notice saying, "Xxx thanked you for your edit to giraffe" or whatever page. I know that if you look at an editor's statistics on Wikimedia's tool labs, you can see how many times they've thanked others. I'm not sure if you can see how many times they have been thanked, but I bet it is possible because the software asks if you want to send public thanks. I believe articles and talk pages would work the same. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi KSci, welcome to the Teahouse. Special:Log/thanks shows who thanked who and when. The only non-public information is which edit they thanked for. See Wikipedia:Notifications/Thanks for more about the feature. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding Family Members to Wikipedia

Could I add entries on my own family and its members?

173.23.208.67 (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Read the conflict of interest policy and the notability policy. I don't know if the members of your family are notable; if they are not, Wikipedia will not cover them. Even if they are, Wikipedia strongly discourages conflict of interest editing, including creating articles about yourself, autobiographies, and members of your family. If you are notable, someone who is neutral is likely to create an article about you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Encouragement to New SPA Editors to Diversify Editing ?

Very often, when I look at the editing histories of the authors of AFC submissions that are waiting for review, I see that the author has limited their editing to the single article that the new editor is trying to have accepted, and possibly to asking here or at the AFC Help Desk or on a reviewer's talk page for help. In other words, the new editor is a single-purpose account. I am wondering whether it would be useful to have a welcome message or welcome-like message that encourages new editors to help Wikipedia out in ways beyond trying to do the most difficult of Wikipedia tasks, getting a new article approved. I am aware that a significant portion of these editors are COI editors who are not here for the good of Wikipedia, but we should assume that some of them are good-faith editors who simply think that they need to write one article for Wikipedia. Does anyone think that some sort of encouragement to diversify editing would be helpful to new editors, some of whom really want to help but think that creating one article is what they should do? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Something like {{Welcome-COI}}? Or a variation of that? -- Gestrid (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, something like that, but that doesn't imply COI. I am assuming that many of the editors who would get welcomed with it would have COI, but we assume good faith at least for a while. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What about {{welcomespam}}? If that's not a good one, you can look through Wikipedia:Welcome templates to try to find one. If you don't see one you like, you can probably create one based off of one of the ones we already have. The first template I linked shouldn't be majorly changed because Twinkle uses it.

Also, I'm not sure how the first template I linked doesn't imply COI. It says in the first paragraph: I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. It goes on fro there to describe submitting a draft, userfication, the COI usernamee policy, and WP:PAID, among other things. Although, I do understand that that particular template looks a little biting. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Another template could be {{Welcome-COI-acc}}. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion is a personally wriiten customized response to every editor who shows promise. It seems to me that any editor who comes here for the purpose of writing a new article about "X" can be called a single purpose editor regarding "X". Back in 2009, after only a handful of edits, I wrote a biography of Dirk van Erp. So, I was a Dirk van Erp SPA at that point in time. But my first article was welcomed and I was welcomed. So after that friendly response, I set out to write other California biographies and quickly branched out to write and significantly expand hundreds of articles on a wide variety of topics. Maybe 99% of editors who are out to write a new article are "one and done" editors, but we must welcome all of them and encourage them, in the hope that 1% will become productive long-term generalist editors. A canned, brusque, formulaic response is a turn-off. If I had a secret technique for separating the wheat from the chaff, I would share it. My only technique, which is not a secret, is to do our best to be as welcoming and helpful as possible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

How do I find out if my page was ever approved?

Hi,

I have developed my page but I don't understand why I cant find it out when I search of Google.. How do I find out if it was ever approved..

thanksSwankaposh (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note editor blocked for spam / promotionalism. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

suggestion needed

can anyone please check my page general knowledge questions and give me suggestion to remove it from speedy deletion Knowledge sharer (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Knowledge sharer. General knowledge questions had no place as an encyclopedia article. It was not a notable subject and strikes me as the purest of original research. A series of questions of your own design, followed by answers, is very far from an encyclopedia topic or article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Would it be okay for Knowledge sharer to put the info on his User page? __209.179.36.56 (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

IP editor, see Wikipedia:User pages, our guideline on what a user page (and its subpages, such as User:RandomUser/Sandbox) can and cannot have. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the information , i would be careful in the future Knowledge sharer (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

why is it so hard to attach a picture to an article

I'm not a goddamn computer scientist, all I want to do is attach a picture to an article, why does Wikipedia make it so difficult, can someone just do it for me because I'm to fucking stupid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawson WEA (talk • contribs) 06:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dawson WEA, welcome to the Teahouse. You successfully uploaded File:View South of Substation at Bear Mtn. Wind Park.jpg. Your code to display it was just a little off. I fixed the syntax and added a caption and alt text in [1]. A colon in front of the image is used to only link the image instead of displaying it. |thumb displays it at a reasonable size for most readers. See more at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

All Rights Reserved

I found a whole lot of pictures of Klára Koukalová on flickr, but all the photos say All Rights Reserved. Is there a way to ask the person who took that picture if you could use it on Wikipedia, or do you have to find pictures that say Creative Commons? Bryson483 19:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Bryson483, and welome to the Teahouse. There's a handy graphical guide to licence compatibility at the top of Commons:Flickr files. You could always ask the Flickr user whether they might consider changing the settings on an image so that it is compatible. By the way, your signature does not include a link to any of your user pages, and so is in violation of WP:SIGLINK. The most common cause of this is that the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box is ticked in your preferences. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

How do I save something without it being published so I can finish it later? (KEKUL (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC))

(KEKUL (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, KEKUL.

You can work on articles in your User space without exposing them as being "published". They are still visible to others, so you can invite people to collaborate with you on creating an article, and they will still be patrolled, but it will be understood that the work is not finished. If you are talking about the article you have in your Sandbox, that is already in your User space, so there is nothing else you need to do but come back and continue working on the article until you are ready to submit it. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox failure - I thought it was just a draft

I'm trying to create my first page/article about Loft9 Consulting. I was in the Sandbox which I thought was a safe place to try and learn how to develop my information but the page was reviewed and approved for quick deletion. Where can I go to just draft content but not have it reviewed? Jteal (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jteal. It's true that we give people some leeway in drafts and user sandboxes to work, but this is irrelevant when there's a copyright violation. You cannot violate copyright anywhere on Wikipedia and we delete such pages immediately. Please note that even if you wrote this content and own the copyright, you cannot use it here without releasing the copyright, irrevocably to the world, under a suitably-free copyright license. This is academic however because the content was blatantly promotional and could never be used as the content of a Wikipedia article. That is to say, even if there was no copyright issue, this content was properly deleted as pure advertising.

It may be possible to write an article on this topic – one that does not violate copyright, and is written in a neutral manner – but I suspect (based on a search of sources I just attempted) that this is a non-notable subject that does not warrant an encyclopedia article and no amount of editing will overcome the fact that there simply are not enough reliable, secondary sources, entirely independent of the topic, that treat it in substantive detail (not just mere mentions) to establish notability. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

tried to make archive

I created an archive for a talk page, but the page doesn't show up in the archive template for the original talk page. How do I rectify this? Verified Cactus (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Verified Cactus. Pages are cached for performance reasons. I have purged Talk:Jeju uprising. This rerenders the page and the archive is now linked. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

How to manage what seems to be obstructionist "guards" who show up only to reverse edits.

I'm trying to improve an article that is controversial but also needs a lot of cleanup. What appears to be happening is that folks who are not contributing to discussion or developing the article pop in with minimal comments and reverse changes. When a talk discussion is created to gain consensus the party (one in particular) who did the reversal either doesn't show up or doesn't otherwise engage. The two people I've been working with have been great, its the "guards" that make things difficult.

One problem may be that I was encouraged to be bold with edits, but what I proposed in talk may have been too bold for the controversial topic.

In one case it may, perhaps, warrant a complaint, but I have no interest in going that route and would rather work in cooperation. Maybe there are common mistakes new people make or other etiquette mistakes that are well known to more experienced folks where I may have precipitated this type of response. I'd like to know how I can manage this type of situation better or more optimally. Slow down? Leave and come back? Switch to a different topic? Give it up? Different approach?

Any advice, pointers, or tips would be greatly appreciated. :)

Thanks in advance. :)

- New to Wikipedia and getting frustrated.

KSci (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what article you are talking about, but ... here's my 2 cents worth. If someone you want to respond on a talk page doesn't, ping them by typing {{u|their username}} somewhere in you comment. That will alert them to the discussion. For the controversial topic, whatever it is, you have to obey neutral point of view. It sounds like you're trying to do that already. ~~If your changes continue to be reverted, you can set up a sandbox in your userspace and write out the article as you want to look, then let others look at it and give their opinion.~~ Ok, you seem to have done that already. If you get too frustrated, you could try editing on a different topic, maybe something not controversial. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about pinging. That's very helpful.

The article is a "criticism of XXXX topic", which really complicates neutrality. Nobody likes their views criticized and on passionate topics the opposing views tends to feel that the criticism is wrong.

It may be that I just picked a bad topic as a new editor. ;)

Thank you for contributing suggestions.

KSci (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I made an error moving userpage to article space; how do I correct this error?

I used the template which appears with "Move" and had trouble filling it out correctly. I wanted to move my User Mitzi.humphrey draft of Susan Joy Share to article space, but instead I created the article Mitzi Humphrey/Susan Joy Share. How do I remove my name from the title of the article and how do I avoid making the same error again when moving a draft or user page to article space? Please help me remedy this situation.--Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the page to its intended title. I suggest a read of WP:MOVE (specifically this section). I wish to impress the importance of making sure that all the information is as you intend. The namespace dropdown along with the following box are exactly the title of the page. You need to remove any unintended words from the title manually while viewing the move interface. Otherwise, the page will wind up at an unintended target (as happened here). -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, User talk:The Voidwalker for your prompt response. You've saved my day. Is there a way to save your reply for easy reference next time? Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, when you need help on a certain action/wiki related thing, type WP: followed by whatever you are looking for help on. In this case, it would be WP:MOVE. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the difference between cite news or cite article in a reference

In the article Castellanus, the AWB changed cite article to cite news where the reference is about an article in a peer reviewed journal and not from a newspaper. Maybe I miss something. Could I get some help on this issue? Thanks. Malosse (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Malosse. Template:Cite article is a redirect to Template:Cite news so the result is exactly the same and I see no reason to object. Template:Cite journal is a different template which could be used here. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Stubs

Hello, experienced editor. My problem is sum-what short and simple. I just want to know if the Polyhymnia wikipedia page is long enough to be a normal wiki page and NOT a stub. It currently has the stub template, but I am trying to get it removed. Do you think it's big enough?GrecoRomanNut (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Done @GrecoRomanNut: Polyhymnia could still do with some expansion, but it is not a stub any more.--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, Thank you SOOOOOO much. I am fairly good at referencing and adding info in the right places, but I am lacking in the area of finding the information in the first place. SO thank you so much. You made my day :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrecoRomanNut (talk • contribs) 04:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Inadvertent page zoom

Hello, twice already I'd been editing WP using my Asus notebook's touchpad, when all of a sudden the page zoomed in. What'd I do wrong, and how do I fix it? StonyBrook (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@StonyBrook: You could try the instructions here: "How to Zoom Out in an ASUS". Techwalla.com. --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The tech page had the best solution, Ctrl key and + key. What a relief! Thanks mate! :-) StonyBrook (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Glossary style

Hi all, I am starting my first glossary page (and have used Glossary of architecture as a guide), however I am unsure whether I should be prefacing term definitions with a definite/indefinite article or not (eg "House = A type of building..." or "House = Type of building ...").

The Architectural glossary seems to mix both styles, with some definitions employing a leading "A ..." or "The ...", while many others don't, e.g:

Aisle
Subsidiary space alongside the body of a building ...
Arch
A curved structure capable of spanning a space ...

If there's a preferred style I'd be keen to know - I can't seem to find any mention in the WP:MOS! Thanks ❮❮ GEEKSTREET ^{Talk Lane ❯❯} 05:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Geekstreet, and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you seen WP:GLOSSARIES yet? -- Gestrid (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gestrid. Yes I did read through WP:GLOSSARIES but all it really says about glossary Definitions is that they should be in encyclopedically descriptive manner without explaining what that is (I tried searching but no help). Plus all the examples within that article are of the form "Definition of term 1", etc without giving an example. Finally, it refers users to the Glossary of architecture, and yet that glossary uses a mix of definitional styles. Ugh :( So I'm still in the dark. ❮❮ GEEKSTREET ^{Talk Lane ❯❯} 05:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Two things may be learned from this.

a mixed-style glossary is allowed.
careful examination of the entries may show a certain logic to some of the ones that start with articles. For instance, entries may use an article at the start to match the use of articles later in the entry, or entries may use an article at the start to avoid misreading a leading word that could be mistaken for a verb.

Of course, when a glossary has contributions from multiple editors, styles may get mixed. You can propose additional style rules and, if they catch on, they might be added to WP:GLOSSARIES. I suggest proposing and getting consensus before boldly adding them.

One thing I would avoid is a style, which is occasionally seen in the Glossary of architecture, which needlessly repeats the defined term in the definition. Nor do I think it important that entries form complete sentences. But other editors have other opinions as evidenced by what they've added or let stand. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks jmggnh, that's given me some good info to go on. I will aim to follow your advice. ❮❮ GEEKSTREET ^{Talk Lane ❯❯} 07:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the complete review process for Wikipedia editing?

Hi, there are not a lot of topics that I would spend my time on, but I think that it is important to maintain credibility or at least do no harm to the reputation of Wikipedia. In particular, I find that there appears a certain amount of bullying, perhaps out of ignorance, around the September 11 attacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks In particular, this appears to come from MattChatt18, who seems to characterize anything outside of his personal thoughtstream as Conspiracy Theory. Whilst I don't know the full details of Matt's problems, I do know that the page in question attributes the attacks along highly visible political lines which he appears to support. The fact that a talk cannot be held in a civil manner about the results of studies by American Architects and Engineers, either demonstrates that this page, or Wikipedia is not Neutral at all and like the Sugar Industry, and the Cigarette Industry, a potential cancer upon the American public, or the planet in general for that matter. I hope not. APResearch (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, APResearch. Wikipedia's core content policies require that our articles adhere to the neutral point of view, that all of our articles are built on summarizing verifiable content published by reliable sources, and that they avoid any original research not previously published by the highest quality reliable sources. These policies are non-negotiable and forbid adding any content that states or implies that fringe conspiracy theories are true or credible. There are many credulous websites where conspiracy theories can be discussed at great length. Wikipedia is not such a website. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it`

Hi APResearch. There is an article called 9/11 conspiracy theories where such information may be more appropriate to add. It appears from the archives of Talk:September 11 attacks that this subject has been discussed many times before in the past by many different editors so singling out an editor like you have done above seems a little inappropriate. FWIW, there's nothing wrong with trying to initiate further discussion on the matter on the article's talk page and perhaps you may be able to establish a consensus for including such information. I do suggest, however, if you do so that you try and avoid making personal comments about other editors like you did above since such a thing could easily be seen as a personal attack and is certainly not being very civil. Moreover, accusing other editors of bullying, etc. is not really something you should be doing unless you are willing to support your accusations with diffs at the appropriate venue. Editing is a collaborative process where we try to bring articles more inline with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. Articles are not a place to try and right great wrongs and the editing of contentious topics can in particular often be the source of great disagreement among editors. In such cases, your best bet is to try and express your arguments in terms of policy and guidelines and stick to commenting on article content. Try to follow the steps outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and avoid commenting on the other editors involved in discussion as much as possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

International sources

Hi, I have submitted my first article for review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:CloudMounter. However, most of my references are international: Sweden, Russian, Italian, German, Spanish and only a few English.

Please let me know is it Ok, or should I include more English sources to backup the same points in the article. Also, please let me know if there are any other mistakes in the article. Thank you. AlexEltima (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, AlexEltima, and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, foreign sources are allowed, though English sources are preferred. For more information and guidelines, see Wikipedia:Foreign sources. -- Gestrid (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way to deal with a stubborn and possibly incompetent editor?

I had a recent run-in with an editor that nearly had me pulling my hair out. I won't go into details here (unless someone wants me to) but after wasting an inordinate amount of time on his nonsense I decided to take a cursory look at his editing history. I realized that this person falls into a class of editors that is all to common on Wikipedia, and it would be nice if there was some way to deal with these type of people. I know there is a place to report and deal with vandals or the borderline psychos, but I'm thinking more of a peer review board, who could look at what a particular editor has done in the past, and would be able to clue him him in and even temporary block him to help him understand what it takes to be a good editor. I could of course tell him (which I did), but for those editors who-think-they-know-everything-but-don't-really-know-that-much, they won't listen to what just another user has to say. But if some Wikipedia sanction board said something it may help him get a clue. While these type of editors don't wreak the type of damage unrepentant vandals do, they leave of trail of edits that hurt, rather than help, Wikipedia.

The other problem with some editors I've noticed is the reluctance (or perhaps the inability?) to engage in a thoughtful discussion (like the "discussion" I recently had the above referenced person). One important fact that many editors have apparently forgotten is that once you revert someone's edit, you are not done; it is merely the first step of a process. Many editors think that all they have to do is push the undo button and that's it. The idea that they must now engage in a discussion and thoughtfully work on a resolution is foreign to them. That is why some kind of peer review board (a dauntless task, to be sure) is needed, otherwise these troublesome editors will continue to cause problems. Is there a solution?__209.179.36.56 (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello IP editor 209.179.36.56. I read your discussion with the other editor and I think that you have the better argument regarding the facts. However, my opinion is that both of you quickly adopted a combative tone, so I do not think that you are entirely blameless in this matter. Please be aware that if you file a complaint against another editor, your own behavior will be scrutinized as well. So my suggestion to you is to try at all times to display a friendly, collaborative attitude when interacting with other editors. The fact that you edit from an IP address may have contributed to the other editor's prickly response. There are experienced editors who have concluded that IP editors tend to be more disruptive than registered editors. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Why create an account?. In my opinion, editing with an account offers many benefits and no disadvantages.

The Aministrator's noticeboard/Incidents is the place to file a complaint about chronic editor misbehavior. But I suggest great caution. Things can get ugly there. Try diplomacy first. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Cullen. If you plan on going to ANI (Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents) about this, please read Wikipedia:Civility first. It's a policy page that basically says to remain civil in conversation with other editors (especially at ANI!), how to do that, and how to deal with incivility.

Another suggestion: Don't go into ANI with guns blazing. While that place is full of editors "shouting" at each other, many of the regulars there try to get things done in as calmly a way as possible, though that may not always happen. Someone who goes in there with guns blazing may not be well looked-upon. Present all your facts in as calm a way as you can. This all goes back to being civil.

I should also tell you that ANI does not help with content disputes ("This should be in the article!" "No it shouldn't!"), and it only deals with editor conduct toward other editors. If you want help with content disputes, go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, but you must you both must have attempted to resolve the content dispute by yourselves first before requesting any sort of volunteer help there, or that reqquest will be immediately rejected.

Another thing in this growing list: Don't expect your issue at ANI to get resolved quickly. Some disputes can be resolved pretty quickly if it's a blatant issue while others can take a week or more.

One more thing: Cullen was able to read the conversation you described because literally every edit you make is saved to 209.179.36.56|Your contributions, aside from edits to now-deleted pages and edits that, for whatever reason, an adminn has hidden from public view.

And, I think that's it.

-- Gestrid (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Gestrid and Cullen328 for responding. I guess I didn't say out loud I never intended to go to ANI, as that forum is really meant for people who commit felonies, and I was wondering what could be done for misdemeanor offenders. The thing about the aforementioned incident is that I went to great lengths to document myself, much more than average users. Instead of just a terse three word edit summary, I left a rather concise one. I even put  inside the edited change, just in case somebody came along a year later and make the same mistake some time in the future. And I left an thorough explanation on the Talk page. So what does Other Editor do? He presumably looked at the edit change, without considering the documentation I left, and pressed the Undo button. Satisfied for what he thought was a good job, he moved on to the next item in his list. I submit this is a case of a bad editor doing a bad job. And for the sake of Wikipedia something should be done about it. (I also can't help but note in one of his postings with me, he said that he didn't care if the change was correct or not. Doesn't care if it's right? Does the Wikipedia community want editors with that kind of attitude?)

This is an example of what I call (for better or worse) a "machine gun editor". By that, I mean he thinks he's done a good job because he's knocked off a long list of edits - in short, quantity over quality. To me this is an example of a bad one. If you look at his editing record, you'll notice he has a very long list of edits of questionable value. If you look at the note I put on his Talk page, I pointed out some. Believe me, this is just the tiny tip of a very large iceberg. This kind of editor hurts Wikipedia not with a hammer blow (like a vandal) but instead by a thousand tiny cuts that over time eventually add up. Does anybody here think this a good thing??

In addition to violating a number of Wikipedia's policies, he also refused to thoughtfully discuss the matter. No Wikipedia editor has the right to waste another's editor's time, as he did. If he had done what Wikipedia requires all editors to do, the issue could have been quickly resolved. But that is one of the problems with these bad editors: they are refuse to listen and discuss, or perhaps they are simply incapable of thoughtful discussion. How do we get through to these people?

Maybe I should add here that I'm no wet-behind-the-ears newbie. I've been editing on Wikipedia off and on for more than 10 years now. I gave up on large scale editing several years ago, mainly because I got tired of this kind of behavior. For the last several years I've continued to read article and make minor changes and corrections and mostly offer advice and suggestions on Talk pages.

And every editor should know that, "The fact that you edit from an IP address may have contributed to the other editor's prickly response. There are experienced editors who have concluded that IP editors tend to be more disruptive than registered editors," is a violation of policy, as Wikipedia requires all editors to assume good faith edits, as long as it isn't vandalism. So there is no excuse for that.

BTW did you notice how I made it a point to discuss every point the other people brought up? That's what editors are supposed to do. And I can't help but point out that no one said anything about my idea on a peer review board. If no one says anything, even to call if a bad idea, I have no way of knowing if people just ignored it, or they forgot to say something, or what. Thanks again. __209.179.36.56 (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

209.179.36.56, as for the peer review board idea, I think it's a hard-to-implement idea. Everything we do on WP is effectively subject to peer review, but if you ask editors to take time away from what they see as their editorial activities, to do some other task that they are not so interested in, you get less of that task.

Another member of WikiProject:Disambiguation Pages with Links and I did an experiment recently. Uanfala had been advocating for some auditing of the "contest" activity, after several complaints about less-than-proper disambiguations (another instance of quantity vs quality). I suggested that we do an exploratory trial. We each took a sample of disambiguation transactions from the other and critiqued them. This critique generally took more time than the original dab transactions did, so I think it can only ever be done on a sample. (The results of our experiment can be seen at User talk:Uanfala#Dab audit results.)

Whether what we did could be considered peer review or mentoring, it was voluntary on both sides. And although other members of the project were invited, none (so far) were interested enough to participate. To get the result you want, it would seem to be necessary to convince the incompetent editor into a) recognizing that they may have a problem, and b) agreeing to work with a mentor. Only when the incompetent editor's actions rise to the level where you feel the need to file an ANI report, is there a mechanism that brings the possibility of enforcement. For now, that's your de facto peer review board.

One of the beautiful aspects of WP is that an editor can jump in and improve the encyclopedia with no delays and no permissions. An alternative approach would be to have editors undergo some set course of instruction, which likely would take weeks to complete, so that they avoid making newbie mistakes, before they are allowed to touch the live pages. I can't be certain, but I have a strong impression that this latter approach would result in driving away newcomers more than it would yield a net improvement in editing quality.

I hope I've respected your idea with this response. As an alternate use of the resources that your proposal would require, I might advocate that there be a task force that searches for examples of excellent editing and provided some recognition. We have something like that already with Wikilove. My initial impression was that it was a bit silly, but it seems to be popular and can be used to encourage other editors to keep on doing good work. The RCP folks don't need extra tasks, and I'm not sure that really excellent editing vs merely competent editing can be discerned at that level, but if a little extra encouragement helped with retaining editors, WP as a whole could benefit. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear good faith IP editor: When you quote me when I say: "The fact that you edit from an IP address may have contributed to the other editor's prickly response. There are experienced editors who have concluded that IP editors tend to be more disruptive than registered editors," and then conclude that my comment "is a violation of policy", you are 100% wrong. I am observing and commenting on some common editor behaviour here, neither agreeing with it nor disagreeing with it. I have a well established record of welcoming and supporting productive IP editors. I recommended that you set up an account, linked to a page explaining why, and that is in no ways a violation of policy. I do not appreciate your misrepresentation of my comments. Please desist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me concur with User:Cullen328 in restating what he said and in taking issue with the original poster's criticism of him. He was saying that some editors are critical of unregistered editors. He was simply reporting that as a fact that he and I have observed, and it was unfair for the original poster to say that he, Cullen, was violating policy, regardless of whether other editors may be subtly violating policy. If you are start out by snapping at other editors simply for making good-faith observations, you aren't getting off to a good start in Wikipedia. I will comment that a few IP editors, including this one, adopt a very abrasive tone in response to the advice to create an account. I don't entirely know why, except that they may think, contrary to fact, that they preserve their privacy better with an IP address than with a pseudonym, when the opposite is true. I will also comment that the idea of a peer-review board has been discussed many times, and there is no consensus on how it would work. The idea hasn't been ignored; it just hasn't been accepted. In any case, I will again advise the original poster that it would be a good idea not to start off by snapping at other editors who are trying to help. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

re Kenneth Horne: how to expunge misinformation and keep it expunged

In March I consulted Wikipedia's page about Kenneth Horne and found that the 'Legacy' section had, for two years or more, contained total misinformation regarding the stage show 'Round the Horne... Revisited' and specifically regarding the first actor to play Horne in that show (together with the TV film spun off from it and various other incarnations). Rather than citing Jonathan Rigby (as Wikipedia previously did before the overhauling of the page circa 2014), the section now cited Stephen Critchlow. That the actor was actually Rigby is verifiable via innumerable sources, including every single newspaper review of the West End run from 2003-05, the on-screen credits of the BBC Four version (which is available on YouTube) and the official website of the Royal Variety Performance. Rigby is even quoted several times in Barry Johnston's 2006 Horne biography, a book that is regularly cited elsewhere in the Wikipedia article. I made the necessary corrections and, to prevent any further misunderstanding, added numerous cast-iron citations, including some of the ones mentioned above. Incredibly, on looking at the page again today I found that a Wikipedia contributor called SchroCat had scrapped all this, including the unarguable citations, and reinstated the incorrect account! Of course I have duly restored the factual version but I'm wondering if there's any way of preventing such misinformation reappearing in future? After all, these events are from not much more than ten years ago; they're hardly shrouded behind a veil of antique mystery. The real situation can be verified from a host of very recent sources. By the same token, the SchroCat version is flatly contradicted by those sources. Any help in this would be gratefully received.Clamias (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Kenneth Horne. Discuss your edits and the accuracy issues on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, read the dispute resolution policy and follow a dispute resolution procedure. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

How to receive email of events that happened on this day in history.

I used to receive email of "events in history on this day" on my old computer and can't seem to find how to set it up for my new computer. Any help would be greatly appreciated. CELLC (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi CELLC. Please see the Daily article mailing list, which includes emails from the "on this day", selected anniversaries. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Question About Use of Email Feature

I have a question for other experienced editors about the use of the email feature. The background is that I declined an AFC submission, and received an email from the submitter asking for advice on how to get a draft autobiography accepted. I have generally thought that the email feature is meant to supplement the use of talk pages rather than be a substitute for them, and that email is appropriate when a certain degree of sensitivity is involved. I have thought that draft declines should be discussed on article talk pages, on user talk pages, or on drafts, in public, so as to get the possibly useful views of other experienced editors. Do other editors here agree that draft declines warrant discussion in public rather than via email (and that email does imply a reasonable expectation of privacy)? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with you on that. Email is mainly for confidential information or questions including confidential information. For example, someone might email an admin saying, "So-and-so outed me on such-and-such page! Please delete it!" It can also be used in more controversial matters, like evidence for ArbCom, etc.. In short, yes, email should only supplement, not replace, talk pages. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree as well. I try to avoid using email to discuss article content and make it clear to anyone who sends an email inquiry that it is best to discuss articles openly on their talk pages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. In this case, the request was for advice about acceptance of an autobiography, and I think that the submitter was asking in good faith but doesn't understand the conflict of interest policy, the notability policy, and the autobiography guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I can see how a new editor could think that "email this user" is the default way to message someone, rather than the unfamiliar talk page system, too. Joe Roe (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that comment, User:Joe Roe. A new editor might, as you say, think that is standard, rather than a special feature for use occasionally. It doesn't mean that a reviewer should respond by email, but should explain that the talk page is the usual place to discuss declines or edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Help with Article Submission (Michael Drapac)

Hi,

I'm having some trouble getting editors to respond to me via their talk pages, even after several messages weeks apart, so I'm coming to you guys as my last resort. I created an article on Michael Drapac (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Drapac), the co-owner of the Cannondale-Drapac Pro Cycling team and notable real estate investor/developer. It's been declined on two separate occasions, but I cannot seem to get reviewers to explain to me how I'm not meeting the notability guidelines and what I need to include in order to get this article approved.

All of the sources that have been cited are reliable secondary sources, and there is significant coverage of his works in pro cycling as well as real estate spanning more than a decade (radio, print, TV). I've cited fourteen sources because that's all I needed to create the article, but there are dozens and dozens more about him.

Any insight you could provide would be very much appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time. Kfidler0823 (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Robert McClenon and SwisterTwister, the declining reviewers, to help answer the question. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

My issue is that you resubmitted the draft essentially as it had been rejected, rather than either addressing the request of the first reviewer for more sources or discussing it with the first reviewer, either at their talk page or here. I didn't do a de novo review, because when I see that a draft has been resubmitted as it was declined, it annoys me. Perhaps I should have reviewed it more thoroughly, but perhaps the author should have discussed it rather than resubmitting it. On looking at it again, it does look to me like a draft that I would have neither accepted nor declined (that is, I would have taken the easy way out and left it for another reviewer). I will take a third look at it. However, please don't resubmit drafts as they were declined, without discussing with the reviewer. It looks to me like an effort to game the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I have taken another look at the draft. I have a few comments. First, it does appear that the subject is at least marginally notable. However, second, I think that there are tone issues with the draft. It appears to be non-neutral, written to praise Drapac as well as describe him. Third, it doesn't have any links to related articles. I suggest that it be revised to neutralize its tone, and that links (brackets) be included to facilitate navigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Writing and contributing my first article successfully

Hello Teahouse, I want to contribute an article on a socio-cultural phenomenon among the Yoruba cultural group in West Africa, Nigeria; and would like to show how local corporate organizations are latching on it to build for themselves commercial success. Pls any help on how to write and have it accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZachSuby (talk • contribs) 08:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ZachSuby, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved your question to the top, because that is where new questions go on this page. I'm afraid that, from what you're saying, this is not an appropriate article for Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles do not "show" anything: that is not their purpose. They summarise what reliable sources have already published on a topic, but they should never present an argument or a conclusion, unless they are reporting that a particular single source has presented that argument or conclusion: please see our policy on original research for more information. More generally, you might find Your first article useful to read. --ColinFine (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)