Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 659

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 655←Archive 657Archive 658Archive 659Archive 660Archive 661→Archive 665

new article

I created new article Jeremy McLellan keeping in mind WP:GNG. I saw similar good articles and created it like that. How can I know if it is accepted?--47rx374rgx36 (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi 47rx374rgx36 as you moved the page into mainspace yourself, there will be no formal review for acceptance as such. If a New Page Patroller (NPP) gets around to checking it and finds it to be acceptable, the NOINDEX code blocking it from being indexed by search engines (such as Google and others) will be lifted, or the block will automatically expire after 90 days of the page being created in mainspace. The article is currently accessible within Wikipedia but cannot be found by external searches. If the NPP check does find problems they will be tagged if minor, or the page will be submitted to a deletion process if the problem is beyong fixing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I have received review notification. I thought I made some big mistake by moving it myself.--47rx374rgx36 (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi 47rx374rgx36. I'm assuming somebody else patrolled the article because I have that permission and didn't see the notice to mark it as patrolled. I gave it a quick read and you have nothing to worry about. You have good sources, wrote neutrally, and chose a notable subject. By the way, Articles for Creation isn't mandatory for new articles. Anybody may use it if they wish, or they can do as you did and release straight to mainspace. When I write new articles, I generally work on it in my sandbox and then move it straight to mainspace. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
If you want to find out who reviewed an article, you can check the log. Mduvekot (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Can I have some help?

I'm working on writing and improving an article in my sandbox. Before I submit it for review, I would like some advice/help on how to improve it or what to do. Here's my sandbox. I can do the work if someone just tells me what to do. Thank you! Ramesty (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You need to read the advice at WP:Your first article. The first thing is to determine whether the subject is notable, meaning that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources independent of the subject. If not notable, there cannot be an article on the subject. If the subject is notable, you need to use those reliable sources as references, see Help:Referencing for beginners. You would need to remove the misplaced external links from the body of the text. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Would I need to reference those external links? (create a section for references, I mean) Ramesty (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Ramesty you would need to add a section named "Notes" or "References" (personally i prefer the former). If you are using the referencing system of footnotes with with <ref>...</ref> tags, you need add nothing beyond {{reflist}} to that section -- content will be automatically copied from the ref tags. (Other systems of referencing have different requirements.) The existing external links on User:Ramesty/sandbox can be considered for use as references, but on a quick look, not all of them are to reliable sources that support content in the text. In any case additional references and content supported by them would be required for this to be considered notable and so qualify for a stand-alone article. A reviewer has suggested merging this content into an existing article, and you might decide to act on this suggestion. But that is up to you. Remember that any such addition to an existing article would also need to be supported by reliable sources. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
All right. What's the other article by the way? And would it make it notable that since it's being broadcast on the ESPN and DisneyXD Tv channels (which are both watched by lots of Americans)? (also this for disneyxd) Ramesty (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@DESiegel: - I think you'll find that the merge suggestion was when the draft being reviewed was on an entirely different subject. The OP has subsequently reused his sandbox for a different subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, David Biddulph. I had missed that. My apologies, Ramesty, there was no merge suggestion about your current sandbox text. I have removed the misleading reviewer comment, which applied to previous text on a different topic (Mario Kart).
As for notability, if you have a WP:reliable source which shows that these races are being broadcast, that would help, but some actual detailed discussion by independent published reliable sources would still be needed. (It doesn't really matter for notability whether they are being watched in the US, or in some other country instead.) An announcement from the league, even if repeated by someone else, is not independent and so does not help with notability. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you saying that these sources aren't reliable and I need more reliable sources to prove that it's being broadcast on TV? (and by the way, is something notable if it's being broadcast on national television?) Ramesty (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
How about I give you a list of websites and you tell me which ones are reliable? Ramesty (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I am saying, Ramesty, that merely being broadcast is not, or not always, enough to establish notability, although it helps. A reliable source for the fact that this show is beign broadcast could simply be a published broadcast schedule. I am also saying that http://droneblog.com/2017/06/12/drone-racing-league-drl-announces-international-partnerships-for-2017-race-season/ is not independent in this case, and so does not help with notability, even if it is generally reliable (which i have no opinion on) I am also saying that additional reliable and independent sources are needed that discuss the subject in some detail, not a passing mention, to fully and firmly establish the notability of the subject. Mere passing mentions or directory entries are not sufficient. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Putting together an season/episode table?

I'd like to make a table of all of the seasons and episodes of Bob Ross' "The Joy of Painting". Since the episodes all have known broadcast dates, episode titles, etc., it would be helpful to put this all in one place. Also, since all of the episodes are available on YouTube, it would be helpful to have links letting people know that this content is free to access. I thought it even might be cute to color-code each season with the colors that Ross used (titanium white, sap green, prussian blue, etc.) Does anyone know how to make a table for seasons and episodes?

If anyone can help me get this started, I'd really appreciate it. Deliveryreviled (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)\

Hello, Deliveryreviled and welcome to the Teahouse. You raise an interesting sugestion, that has several issues to be setteled.
  • The first question is, does anyone (besides you) want such a table in Wikipedia? It might be well to ask at Talk:The Joy of Painting.
  • The second question is, where would such a table (or tables) go. It might overwhelm the existing article The Joy of Painting. But would it be notable enough for a spin-out article? perhaps, we do have many such season and episode lists. List of Episodes of "The Joy of Painting" perhaps?
  • The third question is, are those YouTube videos posted by the copyright holder, or with permission from the holder? If not, they are copyright infringements and it is against policy to link to them.
  • Use of color such as you suggest is a somewhat controversial issue. Please read WP:Color. A table should be so designed that the use of color does not overly decrease contrast, and that no information is conveyed solely by color.
Only after all that has been settled is the format/layout of the table really important. However, i will do a short mockup for you. Please read Help:Table for further advice on table syntax. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Deliveryreviled, I have created Draft:List of Episodes of "The Joy of Painting" as an example. Feel free to use it and modify it. It has no real content, merely placeholders, for one thing. If you have questions about the table syntax please do ask, but please do not neglect the other issues that I mentioned above. They really should come first, before any significant work is done on the table. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi DES,

Thanks for your message. I'll try to answer the questions you posed since they are the first order of business:

1. I believe anyone interested in the show would benefit from an accurate and concise guide, especially if they are looking for an episode with only vague info to work from. That said, I think taking a poll of some sort would give a more accurate sense of demand. How would I create that?

2. I suggest splitting the difference: on the main page, a table with just the season number, the number of episodes in that season, and the air date of the first and last episodes of that season. Then, on a spin out page, a complete table with the title, air-date, and YouTube link.

3. As far as I can tell, all of the YouTube videos are posted on the official Bob Ross channel. My understanding that all of the videos have the standard YouTube license, but since we would not be posting the videos themselves, and that the links to the videos are for informational, non-commercial purposes, that it falls under Fair Use.

4. The color-coding was just something that I thought would be helpful to the reader, by using the same color names as Bob Ross does on his palette. This is entirely speculation on my part, I just imagine that it would be a simple way of organizing the information about the subject, that also describes an aspect about the subject itself.

I appreciate the mock-up, thank you for doing it. I will try to learn how to make the type of guide that I am thinking of as practice, and if everything else is ok with the above issues, maybe it can be used as a template for something in the actual article.

Thanks again! Deliveryreviled (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Seeking second pair of eyes

Hello

I'm hoping to have someone take a look at an article I've been writing. Draft:South_Australian_State_Emergency_Service

I'm not quite ready to publish it just yet, but I'd appreciate someone having a proof-read, checking grammar, spelling, clarity, etc.

Also, how is my citing? I've raided my library's archives & referenced some news paper clippings from as far back as the 80's. Do you think I need to add any more?

Thank you muchly KaiRAWR (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello KaiRAWR and welcome to the Teahouse.
First off, the notability guide as it applies to organizations is what will be used to decide if this article should be created at all. I think you may have achieved this.
One thing I'd be concerned about is how much overlap there is between the draft and the organization's website. Direct copying would be bad.
Was the logo uploaded and released under a very broad license by its creator? That's sometimes a newbie mistake, to claim something as ones own work to satisfy the upload mechanism (I realize the uploader used a different username).
Working against you is the previous deletion history of the article. It still looks pretty promotional to me, triggered by the appearance of the phone number in the lead. Aside from the promotional tone, there's also a tendency to use extra connectives for sentence transitions that leave the prose sounding unencyclopedic, however you want to define that. Here's one example:
As every community is different, the services provided may differ from unit to unit. For example, a rural unit is more likely to attend a car accident than a metropolitan based one. Conversely, a city-based unit is more likely to respond to a request for assistance relating to storm damage.
Many of your references used accessdates without there being a URL to access. The system complains about this and it would look better if you fixed these. Other than that, your grasp of inline references looks okay, though there are some swathes of material that, at least at first glance, looks unsourced. Still, I can imagine someone might see this draft as containing too much detail, that editorial judgment about what is noteworthy and what is trivial might need to be improved.
Overall, I'd say you were close to ready to submit the draft for more formal review if you can reduce the promotionalism. Are you connected with the organization? Please see the conflict of interest policy. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi jmcgnh.
Thanks for your input! I'll go through what I've written & try to make it less promotional. In the mean time, do you think you could clarify a few things for me?
A lot of my citing come from old newspaper articles, which don't exist online. I know the access date for a website should be the day you actually visit the page, as it may be edited after the fact. How does it work for newspapers? Is it the day the article is printed? Or should the access date just be left blank?
In regards to the logo, that existed on wiki commons before I began creating the draft. I saw it used on the National State Emergency Service wiki page. I was unaware that there may be anything wrong with using it, as it was already used. How do I go about ensuring the proper credit is given?
Lastly, I was unaware there was a deletion history for this article. As far as I knew, I was the first one to try & make it. How do I go about looking at the previous (now deleted) version?
Thank you again for your assistance.
KaiRAWR (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
KaiRAWR the accessdate is only used for online sources, and is really only needed for online sources that never existed in a print format, as opposed to online versions of a newspaper or book, say. The main purpose of the access date is that if the URL stops working or the content hosted there changes significantly, the accessdate can be very useful in finding an archive copy. Also if the online content changes from time to time, the access date can be used to pin down exactly what version was being cited. Do supply the publication date (which uses the |date= parameter) when it is known. It often isn't for web sites, but usually is for newspapers and similar publications. Similarly, use the page= or pages= parameters to specify the page of a publication on which the cited text appears (use pages if it extends across multiple pages). Most web sites have no page numbers, but almost all newspapers do. If there is a byline, supply this info please. Parameters that are not used can be left blank or removed from the citation template completely -- the effect is the same.
Only admins can see deleted pages, including pages previously deleted and now recreated. However the deletion log will show you wen a page was deleted, by what user, and what the listed reason was. If there was a deletion discussion, it should link to that discussion, which should be available. In this case it seems that it was twice speedy deleted as promotional, on two successive days, by the same admin. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Most published works are fixed in their content as of their publication date, so no accessdate applies. The content does not change from one year to another (unless you're living in 1984 world). Web content, however, is very much more fluid, so accessdate is useful and desirable to include in the citation.
I'm not an expert on how to resolve problems with images. There may be other Teahouse helpers who can give more specific advice. The file that is on commons now will possibly be deleted because the claims made by the uploader don't seem right. You can click through on the image to see the status.
It might be possible to get a look at the deleted articles from two years ago. You would apply at WP:REFUND. I don't think you need to took at them particularly; they were deleted for being too promotional or blatantly advertising. So one of the things you'll be working on is drying out the prose so that "G11" reason can't be used to delete your article. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft published before I was ready

Hello,

I had a draft page for Paolo Casali, M.D. I received a message stating that it was moved from Drafts to being a published page. This page still needs some work done to it. How do I pull it back to Drafts?

KAustin (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@KAustin: Hello and welcome. If you wish, it can be moved back to Drafts, but if the draft was accepted and moved by someone, in this case SwisterTwister, it means they felt it was good enough to be in the main encyclopedia. All articles here are never finished; if you need to work on it, you can do so even if it is formally in the encyclopedia. There are tags that can be put at the top of the article while you edit it, if you wish to indicate work is being performed. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi 331dot,

Thanks for your quick reply. My boss doesn't want it published, just yet. He would like to review the information and make some tweaks. How do I go about pulling it back to Drafts? KAustin (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @331dot,

Thanks for your quick reply. My boss doesn't want it published, just yet. He would like to review the information and make some tweaks. How do I go about pulling it back to Drafts?

KAustin (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


@KAustin: Several editors had worked on the draft before acceptance and still more have contributed after it was moved to mainspace. The normal practice at AFC is to accept a draft into mainspace as soon as it meets the minimum standards, not to wait until it is "complete". I do not think unilaterally returning it to draft-space is advisable. Rather work on improving it as and where it is now. I'm afraid your boss (presumably the subject of the article) has no say in the matter. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
(ec):@KAustin: If you are editing for your boss, you need to ASAP review and comply with the paid editing policy(click those words to review it). It is highly discouraged for an article subject to edit the article about themselves; please see WP:AUTO. Does your boss understand the nature of Wikipedia and that articles may be edited by anyone? 331dot (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Am I missing something here, or are we talking about content created, without disclosure, as a part of somebody's paid employment? That is a violation of out Terms of Use. I suggest that either the page should be moved back to draft, or the inappropriate COI content should be completely removed and the article left ready for non-conflicted editors to develop as and when they wish (Dodger67, what do you say?). The subject is surely notable, but this is a perfect example of what happens when a paid editor is allowed to edit here – a hopelessly inappropriate page is created, and then volunteers spend their (valuable) time cleaning it up. SwisterTwister, may I make a personal plea to you: please do not accept articles in such a poor state as this one. For reasons which I've never been able to understand, we allow COI editing in draft space; we rely on AfC reviewers to make sure that those pages conform to our standards before they are moved to article space. This one most certainly does not.

KAustin, if you do not want the page to be in mainspace, you can try adding {{Db-g7}} or {{Db-author}} at the top of it. Whether that works or not will depend on the admin who looks at it – it might or might not go through. You can always ask for your draft to be restored. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers I'm afraid {{Db-author}} cannot be accepted as the OP is not the only substantive author, there were already three authors involved when it was accepted. The subject is clearly notable per WP:NACADEMIC so there is no valid cause for deletion. Draftification will have to be proposed through AFD. I'm afraid the involvement of multiple authors preclude shortcut alternative processes. The TOU violation by the initial contributor does not invalidate later contributions by others. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I apologize I inherited all of this from another. I am happy to comply to COI terms. I'm still trying to figure that out. I've been trying to find out this entire time how to get the draft restored. I never meant for this to be published, yet. Who do I ask and how do I ask them? I am a first time user.

KAustin (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi again KAustin I'm afraid what your boss wants or doesn't want is of no consequence, as the subject of an article the only real right he has here is not to be libelled. The "small print" next to the button used to save edits includes "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". I'm afraid the only way to have something to be "not published" here is to not write it in the first place. If you wish to work on a draft by yourself without the input of other editors you need to do it in userspace, not draftspace. When you are satisfied with the draft you can submit it for review, the reviewer will usually move it to draftspace, at which time you no longer have sole control over the content. However in this case that's all water under the bridge, the article is published and getting it removed from mainspace is not a simple process, if it is at all possible. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
By the way, even though it has a few flaws and issues, it's actually pretty decent for such a new article. I don't see anything that looks like the subject would have reasonable objections to. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
HI again, sorry if I'm not responding correctly. At this point, I don't care if it goes back to Drafts. Now, I want to ensure that I am compliant with Wikipedia Terms of Use and COI. I believe I disclosed everything properly.

KAustin (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this would be successful at AfD(Articles for Deletion) as the rationale is insufficient, as any work needed can be done to the article now. KAustin I'm sorry to say it but I think you're stuck. If the article needs more work, you will have to do it where it is now. To make the appropriate paid editing declaration, please visit WP:PAID (click on that) for instructions. Basically, you need to post on your user page a statement to the effect of "I am editing Wikipedia at the request of my boss/employer, boss/employer name here, as part of my duties." To access your user page, you can click your username on this page(it is in red) or at the top of the screen if you are using a computer. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
This is a quite acceptable article in my view. Much better than most new articles from most new contributors. (Though it's much easier to write an acceptable article when the topic is actual notable, and so there's no need to turn to gallons of puffery to prop up the subject—not that that stops a lot of people.) I've done a copyedit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers I don't see anything hopelessly inappropriate about the page. It was properly accepted into mainspace, and should not be returned to draftspace or deleted. As a content contributor to the article, i would object to a db-author deletion, and would indeed restore any such deletion. If this should be brought to an AfD, I will be arguing for retention, unless someone presents a better argument for deletion than I have yet seen. Had I come on this in draft, i would have accepted it. Nor do i see anything about it that "fails to conform to our standards". Nor is extirpating contributions of editors with a COI one of AfC reviewer's defined functions, unless that content is inaccurate, unencyclopedic, promotional, or requires sourcing. In general, if a text would pass an AfD, it should be approved by AfC, and "created by a COI editor" is not a valid deletion reason. Should anyone delete sections of this on the ground that they were inserted by editors with COI, i stand ready to revert. I have already added source cites to the article, and expect to add more. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I agrees with DESiegel that this is one of the more innocuous examples of paid editing--we shouldn't be unpleasant about cases like this--just tell the person how to properly declare. As for withdrawing it, I can't see any reason--its a reasonable article for a very important scientist. I assume a good many of our articles on scientists have similar origins, and unless they use puffery or excessive detail, they're not a priority. The article was in an adequate state when SwisterTwister accepted it, and I cannot see why Justlettersandnumbers thinks otherwise. . In fact, it would have been very wrong for ST not to have accepted so--the standard is that it will pass AfD. The key purpose of AfC is to vert article like this. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

HTTPS vs HTTP

Hello, folks. Earlier today, an IP address modified URLs in two different articles to change them from "https" to "http". In both cases, the changes were not accompanied by an edit summary of any sort, so I reverted both of them. A few hours later, a different IP address reverted both of my reversions. The two IP addresses geo-locate to different countries (India and Dubai). Can anyone here think of any good reason why the original "https" protocol should not be used? Thank you for any assistance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi NewYorkActuary. Did you try the links? The http link [1] works for me via a redirect while the https link [2] is broken. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. Yes, I did try the links (I wouldn't have reverted without doing that). But, they don't work for me now. For completeness, here are the other two links that were the subject of the reversions: [3] and [4]. When I posted here, I thought that there might be some general policy at play, but things look a tad more case-specific now. What's even more bizarre to me is that, if you start with the "https" link that takes you to the "Page is unavailable" result, remove the "s" and refresh, not only do you get redirected to the "https" address, but the new "https" address remains viable when you refresh it. I feel that I definitely do not understand what is happening here and I'm inclined to leave well enough alone. Thanks again for the response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@NewYorkActuary: As I said, the http link works via a redirect. http://online.wsj.com/articles/new-ceo-cfo-chosen-for-banco-espirito-santo-1404582001 redirects to https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-ceo-cfo-chosen-for-banco-espirito-santo-1404582001 (online.wsj.com changes to www.wsj.com). Changing the former link to https doesn't work. Changing the latter to http does work. If you want to test whether a link works then click the actual link. Don't click a similar link and manually change the url afterwards. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Could this behavior be related to a problem discussed earlier at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 646#Dead WSJ links? The odd behavior may be at WSJ rather than WP. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems to be exactly the same problem. It appears that the combination of the "https" protocol and the "online" element of the URL was no longer being recognized by wsj.com. Changing the protocol to "http" causes the web site to re-direct to a new address that looks almost like the original one, but slightly different. I've gone back to the two articles and rescued the original "https" links, continuing to use the "https" protocol but also using the actual new location. This seems to solve the problem. Indeed, Bender Bot was making precisely these corrections earlier this month, but these two articles somehow got missed. Thanks for your input here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

what are the steps for undo-ing revert when you have the references that the revert asked for?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign - Legacy addition of Gallipoli Memorial Wattle Grove was reverted before I got the references - there's reams of refs. tried talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AustralianRupert, what now? Zbunyip (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Zbunyip and welcome to the Teahouse.
Normally, you would use the talk page of the article, not the talk page of the user, when discussing potential additions to the article content. If you had been adding unsourced material, one response is for another user to revert those additions. Now that you have sources, add your new content again with proper referencing. Use the article talk page to work out any remaining issues, if the new material is challenged again. You can certainly wait for the other user to respond to your offered sources, if you think there is likely to be some disagreement. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Can I post information about my website ?

Hi, I have a website with the address www.turantcall.com and want to post about its content. It has an aim to provide information to different types of people through website and call center. The call center is available 24*7.

Following services can be availed 1. Information about all types of service providers 2. Rent and Sale of all type of properties 3. Buy and sale of old products. 4. Hiring of taxis, autos, e-rickshaws on call

Kindly help people know about us so that they can use our services and save time and energy and get information easily on click of mouse. 27.34.49.216 (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, unless your website is notable, you cannot "post about its content". What you've done above is unfortunately considered promotion, which is not what Wikipedia is for -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Question About Statements of Christian Faith

I have recently, in the past week or so, been seeing several new articles which are simply statements about faith in Jesus Christ as the key to salvation, or something like that. My question is: Has there been an on-line challenge of some sort, asking people to make these statements publicly? If so, it would explain what I have been seeing. Second, please don't post such statements. Read What Wikipedia is not, and it isn't a soapbox or web host for statements of faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything on the net about that. I've seen enough people leave prayers on talk pages for religion articles, as well as messages addressed to celebrities on talk pages about them and complaints addressed to companies on the talk pages about them, that I'm just convinced that a significant portion of our readers don't understand what an encyclopedia is. Then again, I worked at a Walmart in a really bad neighborhood for a year, so my perception of the masses is hopefully skewed. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: are you repeatedly seeing text from this book? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes! I am seeing quotes from that book. That answers a question that I asked in another forum, which is what to do with the "articles", and that is to tag them as copyright violation of the book. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
They could also be tagged as POV, if the quote was not large enough to be listed as a copyvio, Robert McClenon DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
User:DESigel Yes, but.... Tagging them as POV is appropriate but insufficient. These are pages being created in article space, and they have no place as Wikipedia articles. The question is how to get rid of them. Copyright violating statements are speedily deleted as G12, copyright violation. POV is merely a tag for an article that needs improvement. These pages don't need improvement. They need deletion. Sometimes they have been deleted as G11, as religious spam, which is all right. There isn't a specific criterion for speedy deletion based simply on What Wikipedia is not, so that some things that are not for Wikipedia have to be deleted by other deletion processes, and I don't really want to wait a week to get rid of preaching (even if it is preaching with which I largely agree, but want to hear only in my church). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd almost be willing to bet money that it's members of the book's author's church who are posting quotes from it as "ministry." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
A few years ago, several accounts tried to add articles about the author to Wikipedia, so I would not bet against you. --bonadea contributions talk 10:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Autowikibrowser

Is it possible to use autowikibrowser offline? for instance could i make a bunch of pages from a template, then use them as the base to paste in when making pages on wikipedia? the autowikibrowser bit would fill in basic information, infobox, and some basic references from a csv i have made from public gsi data. I believe it is possible to use other non-wikipedia related tools for this if this is not possible. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bot policy#Mass page creation before you go any further with this idea. A mass page creation of the type you describe will get you blocked instantly, unless you go through the correct channels beforehand to discuss exactly what you want to create and exactly what method you plan to use. ‑ Iridescent 15:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes that is why it would be offline all the articles would be created by me manually at some later date(s). A Guy into Books (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. however it would probably be easier (for me anyway) to make plaintext files with a bash script and create pages manually. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Is the subject I have chosen, notable enough?

I have chosen Cleeng(video broadcasting) something that I use regularly, as my subject. But, the review said, the article sounded like an advertisement. I am not much aware of this aspect. I have also asked for the reviewer to enlightenn me, on the same. I am sure I will receive some help from him.

My question now is that, can anyone help me know, if this subject meets the notability criteria? Aurick Shaffer (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Asked and answered on my talk. See also User:Aurick Shaffer/sandbox. TimothyJosephWood 12:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I want to edit a pge with incorrect information, but the creator keeps overwriting it.

hi, i want to edit a page, with in-accurate information, like they claim the person is a cathlic, and she is not, they claim she is part of a criminal's family, but she ain't. i changed the page's info, and the original user keeps reverting it back.

What can it do? Hgit (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hgit: Hello and welcome. The information you are removing is being put back because it seems to be sourced with reliable sources. For example, this story very clearly states the person is Catholic. If these sources are somehow incorrect, you should discuss the matter on the article talk page (click "Talk" at the top of the article) along with any evidence you have. It isn't enough to say "the information is wrong", you need to explain why and come to a consensus with other editors. Continually reverting a change(especially removing sourced information) is considered edit warring and not permitted. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

evidence ALTLEFT

this article says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-left

Unlike the term "alt-right" (which was coined by those on the extreme right who comprise the movement), as noted by Washington Post writer Aaron Blake, "alt-left" was "coined by its opponents and doesn't actually have any subscribers".[1] According to George Hawley, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama, no such label has been adopted by any members of the progressive left.[2]

but i have evidence that trump , the experts and the media are wrong but the wiki editors reject it observe that robertlindsay coined the term in 2015 what do i do the editors wont listen or think or even consider the evidence i put in front of thier eyes they just say nonnotable, nonreliable, OriginalReasearch its hopeless https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/ https://altleft.com/ https://www.facebook.com/alternativeleft/ https://altleftjournal.wordpress.com/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeLeft/ http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.il/2016/09/a-proposal-for-alt-left-political.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey anon. Since most/all of the references you have provided here appear to be to social media and blog posts, I would say that those editors are probably correct. These types of sources generally do not meet our standards for reliability, which requires that sources have a long-standing reputation for accuracy, fact-checking and editorial oversight, none of which things like facebook, reddit, and run-of-the-mill blogs usually have. I'm afraid your only recourse is to find better sources. TimothyJosephWood 13:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

look read the links check the dates and just keep them in mind, of course trump is going for a false equivalence strategy concerning the antifascist organisations but the altleft existed as a movement as early as 2015 but "notnotable" "nonreliable" here means "dontreal" unless your a professor a multi million dollar organisation or a big journalist it seems then you are notable and perpetually truthful , this is classism straight up. to sum up the altleft article says there is no alt left because important people said so even though i have the evidence here and its ignored if you value voltaire read the links 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The altleft article says there is no alt left because important people said so In the sense that people who publish in reputable publications are "more important" than people who write on reddit and self-published blogs, well... yes... In fact, that's exactly what the article is supposed to reflect. It's not a bug; it's a feature, and is at the core of our policies on reliability. We do not base editorial decisions on subreddits and facebook profiles. TimothyJosephWood 14:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The altleft.com site is obvious satire, the reddit thread is just random netizens and the rest are blogs from non-notable people; i.e. just random netizens. A handful of people talking about something on the internet doesn't make it a real political movement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

but robertlindsay coined the term years before the media and trump ever used the term ,so should he not get a mention as the coiner of the term 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

First, using a term (i.e., using certain words in a certain order) is not the same thing as coining a term, where the phrase along with its distinct meaning pass from one individual in-tact into the popular lexicon. Second, yes, he should certainly get a mention if it is the case that reliable secondary sources cite him as the originator of the term. But if the only evidence of this is a self published blog, then he should not, because there is no evidence that he actually coined the term, rather than simply using those words in that order by happenstance, out of the surely millions of words published on wordpress. TimothyJosephWood 14:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

more links https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/liberal-race-realism-precursor-to-the-alt-left/ http://altleft.com/2015/11/14/a-clockwork-greenshirt-introducing-the-alt-left/ https://web.archive.org/web/20151119073815/http://altleft.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The place for such discussions is not the Teahouse, but Talk:Alt-left or WP:Articles for deletion/Alt-left. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion issue about Nagarukhra, West Bengal and Ukrah

due to the wrong information, the Ukrah/Nagarukhra,_West_Bengal article can't be deleted from wikipedia. Please help us t permanently delete the both articles & its sources.

We want to publish new & correct article about Nagarukhra after the deletion of those articles.

please expert friends help me.

(Thank You) Iamakashnathsarkar (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The discussion is at Talk:Nagarukhra, West Bengal#Merge discussion. As is stated there, we don't delete existing articles and write new ones, we merge the relevant contents. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

How to welcome a user

I want to welcome a new user, SamuelTheHorrible. I want to welcome him, but what should you first do? Help me with welcoming new users!Todd 17:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monosodium23 (talk • contribs)

@Monosodium23: You can go to the user's talk page, and post {{subst:welcome}} ~~~~
The four tildes (~~~~) is how you sign your posts on any page except articles (I repeat, do not sign articles). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I already welcomed the new user. Todd 17:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Monosodium23, either you are not signing your posts using four tildes, or there is something wrong with your signature settings. Try unticking the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box in the signature section of your preferences. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I need help on article that keeps getting rejected

Hi,

My article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Moving_Pictures_Media_Group) was rejected on this basis:

"This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time."

This is the SECOND time it's been rejected, and I'm starting to get really frustrated. I need some highly specific instructions on what to do to get this specific article to fit the parameters.

I feel that I've provided significant coverage - for a relatively short article I'm providing three references. Furthermore, there's links within the article to other extensive entries about the principal people featured in this article.

These references clearly demonstrate that the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion - the CEO of the organization is an Oscar winning filmmaker. He's internationally known for his award-winning contribution to some of the most legendary films of all time.

And two out of the three sources provided are published, reliable, secondary sources - one of them is The Wrap!!!

I don't want to keep going round in circles, so if someone could please tell me EXACTLY what changes need to be made (specific changes, rather than general guidelines) that would be extremely appreciated!!!Christianfilm (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Christianfilm. Of the three sources provided (which is not very many at all), one is to the official homepage for the website, one is to a press release, and the other is to a single passing mention in a very short five paragraph articles which is mostly about the person and not about the company. None of these really contribute materially to demonstrating notability. For that you need to include in depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. TimothyJosephWood 17:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Christianfilm, since your username includes the term "film", this question bears asking: Are you in any way associated with this company? John from Idegon (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) Look for professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of and unaffiliated with the subject but still specifically about it.
@Christianfilm: Before you say you did that, no, screencaps on the subject's website that don't like to the original don't count. We live in an age of digital manipulation and my initial assumption was that the screencaps were fake because that's how things work these days.
Take those sources and summarize them, sticking the citations at the end of the summaries.
Combine those summaries into paraphrase that merges overlapping material. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I saw a misstatement in a person's profile how do I send proof to Wiki to have it corrected.

I saw a mention that someone "lives in State X" in their biography but the fact is that they have a homestead in another state and only visit their State X home in fall/winter. How can I submit a copy of the Tax Collector's records for each state that proves the correct "place of residence?" I do not wish to be an editor or become involved in editing, I simply want to see the correct facts reflected. Is their a corrections desk at Wikipedia that will take this information184.89.226.196 (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, anon editing from IP 184.89.226.196. At Wikipedia we try to rely on secondary sources wherever possible. Tax collectors' records are considered a primary source, and only used when there is no secondary source available (and typically only when the information in the primary source is uncontroversial). If the tax records in question are available online, please provide links so that the information in them can be verified. The place where you should propose the changes you think you should be made is on the Talk page of the biographical article in question; to get there, just click the Talk tab at the top left of that article, then click "new section" and remember to sign with four tildes. If you tell us the name of the article in question, we will be able to help you better. Thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia! —GrammarFascist contribstalk 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

When does someone become notable?

I'm excited to be part of the wiki community! I just created my first page for Rajat Bhageria; I read one of his Forbes articles online and thought wikipedia could be better by having an article on him. But some other editors say that he doesn't meet guidelines. Wondering why not? I don't want my lack of wikipedia know-how to prevent him from having a page. Biker1932 (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

One isn't ordinarily supposed to edit another editor's comment, but I took the liberty of wikilinking the name of the page you created to help other editors navigate to it. In response to your question, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajat Bhageria (3rd nomination) is the place for supporting the keeping of this article. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Can I reinstate an edit that was removed?

I edited a page, Jim Ward's wikipedia page, with factual information that includes valid sources from newspaper clippings and someone removes my edits can I reinstate them? How does that work? Iwachtel (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Iwachtel. See WP:BRD. Generally, when someone challenges an edit through reversion, both editors should to go the article's talk page and discuss the changes and try to reach a consensus. If they cannot, they should consider using one of the options in the dispute resolution process. TimothyJosephWood 21:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iwachtel. Another user has reverted the removal of the material you added (reinstating your edits). Please note the edit NZ Footballs Conscience made here, transforming the opaque, raw URLs you had used into transparent citations. Don't get me wrong: I commend you on including sourcing verifying your additions in the first place! That take your edits 90% of the way home. Nevertheless, making verification accessible through transparent sourcing is important. I recommend WP:CITEHOW as a place to start. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Getting auto-confirmed?

Hello!

How can I get my account auto-confirmed, in order to edit semi-protected articles? I've done approximately 12 edits so far (and my account has existed for about two-three months), yet it hasn't been auto-confirmed yet. Is there a reason for this?

I'd like to edit the sources of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_fetishism and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_(musician), hence asking you.

Thanks,

- MessagesPhoneMessagesPhone (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MessagesPhone, and welcome to the Teahouse. I checked your contibution history, and you do seem to have the minimum 10 edits and 4 days. (I'm only able to confirm that your account is about a month and a half old based on when you made your first edit, but that should be more than enough.) My apologies if you have already tried these, but first be sure you are logged in when trying to edit those pages, and if that wasn't the issue, try clearing your cache and cookies. As always feel free to return to the Teahouse if you need further assistance. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 16:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, MessagesPhone I am not sure why you were not marked as autoconfirmed. i have just set you to be confirmed, which has the same effect, and which any admin can do. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

what's the best way to ask someone to check new content?

what's the best way to ask someone to check new content? This page states it is a current "featured article candidate" so want to make sure I've not made any bloopers. Hope it's okay, have put in references with the addition and tried to give it some relevant shortish quotes. Could someone please take a look and double-check that I've put in enough references and got it set out properly? Thanks heaps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign#Legacy

On 7 September 1915, .... their duty to pay due homage to those who had fallen. Zbunyip (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Zbunyip and welcome to the Teahouse.
The first place to ask for other editors' feedback on proposed changes to a page is on that page's "Talk" page. If nobody responds there, you can try asking on the talk page of one or more of any WikiProjects whose banners are on the talk page of the article. In the absence of any response, you are advised to be bold and go ahead and make the changes you are proposing. If someone objects, they can easily revert your changes and you can then begin a discussion on the talk page about what should or should not be changed in the article in question (referencing BRD).
You can also view an article's history and determine if there is an editor who seems to be particularly active and interested in it. Pinging them in your talk page comments is likely to get their attention. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

When to use {{Ja-Stalayout}}?

When does Japanese platform list require {{Ja-Stalayout}}?

Miyaginohara Station appeared in Lint errors: Table tag that should be deleted with "table" as Table tag that should be deleted and "Output not from a single template"; it had two {{ja-rail-line}}, preceded by {{Ja-Stalayout}} but not followed by anything; I removed {{Ja-Stalayout}} (to solve the lint error) and it still displayed reasonably.

Nigatake Station uses two {{ja-rail-linem}} and brackets them between {{Ja-Stalayout}} and {{S-end}}. The display looks good. If I remove {{S-end}}, the display is bollixed, but the display was OK in Miyaginohara Station before I edited it, which also was missing {{S-end}}. If I remove both {{Ja-Stalayout}} and {{S-end}}, the display is bollixed, but the display is OK in Sendai Station (Miyagi), which uses four {{ja-rail-linem}} and does not bracket them with other templates.

Rikuzen-Haranomachi Station uses two {{ja-rail-linem}} and brackets them between {{Ja-Stalayout}} and {{S-end}}. The display looks good.

Sendai Station (Miyagi) uses four {{ja-rail-linem}} and does not bracket them with other templates. The display looks good.

This is very confusing. I believe that {{Ja-Stalayout}} theoretically requires {{S-end}}, but sometimes you can get away without it. (Why?)

Are {{ja-rail-line}} and {{ja-rail-linem}} supposed to be bracketed by {{Ja-Stalayout}} and {{S-end}}? Where is this all documented? —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Hello! I was going to suggest asking this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations, but I think MChew can offer quicker and better answers. Alex ShihTalk 05:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Should this page Sark, Razavi Khorasan be deleted as nn and should I ask creator first

My prime interest is around the Island of Sark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sark . One battle I have been having is with Facebook who have been refusing to correct their City list for years to include Sark. Tonight, a fellow Places Editor has pointed out that Sark, Razavi Khorasan has been added to Facebook and has quoted this Facebook page as evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sark,_Razavi_Khorasan

This appears to have been added from a 2006 census but there is no other info. I don't want to deny their existence but it is frustrating to have this stub article based on old data to be used as a reason for not adding a proper entry for Sark in Facebook. And I don't want to trample over another editor. Should I try to contact him or just mark for deletion as not notable? Have I understood not notable correctly?

Oh, and can any Farsi speakers advise if "Sark" is the correct transliteration for that place? (There's a link to the census on the page and I have seen a reference to Sar Kariz, Razavi Khorasan on this page https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5867013

Thanks MikeSarkID (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@MikeSarkID: Can you please clarify what you are asking? We have no control over Facebook content. RudolfRed (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@RudolfRed (sorry, can't work out how to get the replyto properly) Thanks. I am trying to correct the Wikipedia entry according to Wikipedia guidelines so that the reference is correct. Then I can discuss on Facebook Places Editor forum for them to take corrective action.

I have, since first posting, found that if you follow the GeoNames link given as a reference in the article, that the correct spelling is "Sarak". Would it be in order for me to make that edit using that reference as a, well, reference? MikeSarkID (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, MikeSarkID, Sark and Sark, Razavi Khorasan are very different places. In general, the notability bar for inhabited places is low. If there is even one reliable source showing that a place exists and is in fact inhabited, an article is normally permitted.
As to changing the name of the Wikipedia article, that would be done with the move function. Be sure that you have found multiple reliable sources to suport an new name -- I would not think one surce enough, usually. but you could sugest a move on talk:Sark, Razavi Khorasan DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@DES OK Thanks. I will attempt to find at least one more reliable source and then revisit. MikeSarkID (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

How can an administrator or sysop identify a troll?

How can I tell if a user account is acting as trolling? The answer is the definition of a user account as a troll and secondly the means to identify it. Please do not tell me to simply read meta:What_is_a_troll... I need practical and applicable ideas to address my answers above. -- Ktsquare (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ktsquare: This page is meant for users new to Wikipedia to ask questions; as an admin you might want to ask at the Help Desk or the Administrator's noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

.....which isn't to say you can't ask here, just that you might get better answers there. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey Ktsquare. I'm afraid that is probably always going to be a fairly subjective assessment that involves probably quite a bit of cultural nuance. Since it seems likely that English is your second language, it may be advisable to look for a second opinion in particular circumstances before handing out blocks. But I'm afraid there is probably no blanket response of particular things to look for that will necessarily be applicable to all or most situations. TimothyJosephWood 13:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_659&oldid=797459507"