Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 832

Archive 825

←

Archive 830

Archive 831

Archive 832

Archive 833

Archive 834

Archive 835

Disruptive administrator - what to do?

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

---

In recent days, a specific administrator has, in my view, been performing some disruptive edits.

I will not name the administrator here, because the purpose of my post is not to embarrass them but is rather to ask other Wikipedians for advice about how to best respond to the situation. Unfortunately, their identity will be obvious from the diffs, and I am not aware of any way to avoid this.

Examples include (but are not limited to):

1. I created a redirect from Master locksmiths association to Master Locksmiths Association per WP:RPURPOSE. (The former is simply the lower case orthography of the latter, but because MediaWiki is case-sensitive, it regards the two as different pages, so without the redirect, a user visiting the former page might never learn that the latter page exists.) Despite the redirect's accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, and despite the fact that the typo is very plausible (because it is just the lower-cased version of the original article's title, and because most people do not use capital letters when searching websites), the administrator deleted the redirect as WP:CSD#R3 ("Implausible typos").
2. In this edit and this edit, the administrator overrode a WP:BLP objection to the inclusion of an unsourced claim about a living person. Neither of the administrator's edit summaries included an explanation of why they believed WP:BLP to be inapplicable, and the second one rather uncollegially dismissed my concern as "nonsense".
3. In this edit, the administrator changed the meaning of a sentence from being true and in accordance with the cited source, to being false and not in accordance with the cited source. The administrator also marked that edit as minor, despite the fact that WP:MINOR says, "Any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it concerns a single word".
4. The administrator marked as "minor" this edit which added a visible template to an article, despite WP:MINOR#When_not_to_mark_as_minor_changes, which states that "Adding or removing visible tags or other templates in an article" should not be marked as minor.

The edits have the following things in common:

• they involve either reverting my work, dismissing my concerns without providing justification, or adding non-minor changes to pages that I have edited, under the guise of "minor" changes;
• they concern pages to which the administrator had never previously contributed, and which they only started editing following this interaction in which I called them out for being not WP:NICE (following which they blanked the page).

As such, this feels to me like a plausible case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, albeit in early stages.

I would like the administrator to stop making disruptive edits, and I would like the WP:WIKIHOUNDING to stop now, lest it worsen. Fellow editors, and uninvolved admins, I would appreciate your advice. Zazpot (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I would note (as stated at the top of its page) that WP:MINOR is not a formal policy or guideline, but merely information. Also note that WP:MINOR states "Administrators and rollbackers can semi-automatically revert the edits of the last editor of a page; all such rollback reversions are marked as minor by the wiki software." 331dot (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I would also state that I don't think you are being singled out per se- it's not as if once the user in question interacts with you, they can never do so again. If you wish to pursue some sort of grievance against the user, you can do so at WP:ANI, though be aware that you must inform that person of the discussion and your own actions will be examined as well. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

331dot, the significance of minor edits is that, because they don't show up in some editors' watchlists, they are less likely to be noticed. (In the worst case, an editor might see my "major" edit as having been the most recent one, despite the fact that a subsequent "minor" edit exists that has changed the meaning of the text. I.e. they may, if in haste, mis-attribute the erroneous content to me.)

As for your point about semi-automated edits: it doesn't look to me as though the non-minor "minor" edits I mentioned above would have fallen into that category. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Thanks for the reminder about WP:ANI. Unfortunately, I can't guarantee a block of time to devote to this, so ANI doesn't seem a viable venue. If avoiding the hounding comes to a choice between not editing or having to take them to ANI, I'd therefore probably just have to just stop editing. This would be pretty upsetting, frankly. That's essentially why I came to the Teahouse, to look for more manageable approaches. Zazpot (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I would certainly encourage you to take in some other opinions and not just rely on me before making a decision. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and agreed. I will probably put Wikipedia aside for a few days, before coming back here to see what others may have suggested in the meantime. Zazpot (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Zazpot, this is a help forum for newer editors to ask about how to do things on Wikipedia. Despite you not directly naming the involved editor (and her status as an an administrator is irrelevant here, as she performed no adminstrative tasks), the diffs you've added clear identify them, and you are accusing them of a serious policy violation. That belongs at a noticeboard, not here. I see no policy violation (IMO), but rather a content dispute. Content disputes should be discussed on the talk page of the affected article, not user talk pages. Administrators have as much right to edit in a normal fashion on any article as any other editor. Their administrative role only becomes an issue if they perform adminstrative action (block, page protection) on an article where they are actively involved as an editor. See WP:INVOLVED. Warnings are not administrative actions. Checking another editor's contributions is not administrative actions. You want advice? Talk it out. John from Idegon (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Zazpot: I second what has been stated by John from Idegon in regards to these being serious allegations in an inappropriate forum. I recommend that the advice of both John and 331dot be taken into consideration. If you do not wish to talk it out, then WP:ANI is the appropriate venue to take this to, the Teahouse is not. Before filing at ANI (if that does become your chosen route, I would recommend reviewing Wikipedia:BOOMERANG; that is not to imply anything against you or a comment about whether or not it would happen in this case, just an essay to be aware of as it does ring true in a lot of cases (just like at ArbCom, ANI can blow up in ones face if one is not careful). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: @TheSandDoctor:, thanks, but WP:ANI says that it is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems", and that if unsure whether to post there, asking at the Teahouse is recommended. As such, the Teahouse does seem to be an appropriate venue for this discussion.

On John from Idegon's remarks about the relevance or not of the editor's status as an administrator, I agree that Administrators have as much right to edit in a normal fashion on any article as any other editor, and I was not suggesting otherwise, nor was I alleging WP:TOOLMISUSE. However, the editor's administrative status is relevant to this discussion, because:

• administrators should be held to the highest standards in their editing;
• raising a concern about an administrator is arguably a "bigger deal" than doing so about a non-admin editor; and
• administrators might well tend to support each other (even with the best will in the world), in the case of a concern being expressed, making it harder for a concern about an administrator to receive an unbiased hearing from other administrators, e.g. at WP:ANI.

Also, as can be seen from the diffs (or from later diffs in the edit histories), I have indeed tried to Talk it out on a case-by-case basis, in each instance. This is not necessarily sustainable though, hence my starting this thread.

Anyhow, thanks for the suggestions, I do appreciate the effort to help. Zazpot (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Zazpot: You ask "what to do?" - I'd say "nothing" as you have no grounds for complaint. Having used the Editor Interaction Analyser Tool, and checking the edits made by you and the person you have accused here of Wikihounding you, I see nothing to suggest anything of the sort. I would certainly advise against going to WP:ANI, and I feel the subject title of your post is not at all justified. What disruptiveness do you perceive? You've shown no evidence of it at all. That the two of you have had slight disagreements over what is and what is not notable, and that you have both made very minor errors of judgement is self-evident. We all do that. There's no disruption or hounding here that I can see, and your sensitivity expressed here could indeed boomerang and be interpreted very differently were you to choose to pursue it. To avoid lengthening this somewhat pointless thread any further, I've collapsed my more detailed observations on your concerns and your diffs below. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

A redirect you created from Master locksmiths association to the capitalised version seems completely unnecessary to me, too. In which search scenario would a user fail to find Master Locksmiths Association here? Do we also need a Royal society for the prevention of cruelty to animals and ten thousand other lower case redirects? I agree with you regarding one BLP edit - I see Joe Roe has resolved that one sensibly - though you could have made that obvious edit yourself, of course. Your accusation of this edit not being a 'minor' grammar change is plain wrong. The tiny change was not to a direct quote from the source, so seems perfectly justified. The source actually states: ...referring to it as a digital form of “dead dropping.”. You are quite right that adding a template to an article is not defined as a minor edit, but I and perhaps many other editors might well think this acceptable for a brand new page which has only really been worked on by one main editor. So I've learned something useful from all this. You and the other editor certainly disagreed over the notability of SigSpoof - a page you created - and which I might just as equally have draftified myself (an a non-admin), as it was short, technical and unclear to a layman as to its significance/notability. As a New Page Reviewer, I often follow up by looking at other edits made by an editor. Indeed, I believe I once left a comment on your talk page about concerns I had over the bare urls you liked to use on new page creations, though I think we ended up by agreeing to differ. You seem to imply page blanking is being used as a way to hide talk page edits, yet that editor's talk page history clearly shows they only archive en masse once or perhaps twice a year when their page exceeds well over 100,000 bytes; `yours archives far more frequently than that. I see no attempt to conceal anything (you can find it here). To repeat, I would be very wary of making an accusation of WP:WIKIHOUNDING against any editor and simply try not to be so sensitive in future. I think we've all spent enough time on these relatively trivial matters this evening. But I hope this genuine attempt at an independent assessment of your concerns is of value to you, and that you won't feel the need to raise similar concerns or accusations again without considerably better evidence, and that you do it in the right forum next time. That you were upset by the interaction is obvious, but sadly this sometimes happens here, especially when we all care about what we're doing, and both sides believe they're doing the right thing. I'm sure you both were. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Inquiry for the suitable subject

Hello, It is sub-article for Trump-Kim summit: under aftermath, Please refer to the related summary information below and let me know suitable subjects below.

• Possible subjects:
• Delay in peace declaration leads to hostile rhetoric.
• Inside the dispute delaying resolution of the nuclear issues.

On August 29th, the Atlantic reported on an interview with Moon Chung In who is the special envoy from South Korea. His understanding is that the diplomatic team of Mike Pompeo is having difficulties discussing with the defense team National Security Adviser John Bolton; This divided stance between the US Diplomatic team and the US defense team may have played a significant role in the delay of the signing of the promised peace declaration. Diplomatic Team Secretary Mike Pompeo is strongly in favor of adhering to the agreement set out in the summit, whereas John Bolton insists that a complete denuclearization of the DPRK must be established first before a peace treaty can be formally imposed and thereby ending the Korean War. Also on August 29th, The Hill reported on the U.S. presidents verbal agreement with DPRK to end the Korean War, on both the June 1st meeting at the White House, and during the Summit held in Singapore. However, soon after the Summit meeting, the U.S. demanded denuclearization from North Korea before signing on the Peace Declaration document which eventually leads to an ever more hostile rhetoric from North Korea.

The deadlock above between U.S and DPRK was the repetitious events for over 25 years based on the report by USC Korean Studies Institute Director David. He summarized the previous efforts resolving the North Korea's nuclear and Military Challenge, there are several trials of agreement between the U.S. and North Korea in 1994 by Agreed Framework, 2005 and in 2007. The fundamental reason for the stalemate between the U.S. and North Korea's stance; the U.S. requested North Korea - “DPRK should disarm first; then we'll discuss security guarantees.” However, North Korea's position is - “we need the security guarantees from the United States first, then we will disarm. It appeared over 25 years ago, but it is happening again this year.

References

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Goodtiming8871. The purpose of the Teahouse is to answer questions about Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and the various techniques of editing. We do not get deeply involved in content issues, except as they relate directly to the purposes of the Teahouse. Content issues should be discussed on article talk pages, and there are various forms of dispute resolution available if you do not come to consensus there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Creation of an entry (or article): 'Akihiro Yamada - Wikipedia'

Dear Administrative Editors,

I am glad to find online a Japanese entry about me: ‘山田昭廣 - Wikipedia’. However, I think that an English entry would be of more use since I am a specialist of English literature, especially Shakespeare.

I know that I am not entitled to create it myself, so I wish you to be a host for the English entry titled ‘Akihiro Yamada – Wikipedia’ on your website. What I would like to state in it is very short and the text would run as follows:

Akihiro Yamada (born 1929 in Nagoya) is a Japanese scholar specializing in English literature and bibliography. He published some twenty books on Shakespeare and his contemporaries. For further information, visit him at http://researchmap.jp/yamada-akihiro-6002/?lang=english

Thank you. With best wishes. 124.40.70.66 (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Akichan Yamada

Welcome to Teahouse. I'm glad you know that creating an article about ones own self is not considered appropriate. However, remember Teahouse is a place to ask questions related to editing on Wikipedia, and not suggestions about creating an article. If you are a notable person, someone else interested in this subject will probably create an article about you. Getting an article about yourself is not something to be proud of, since Wikipedia is merely an encyclopedia developed to help people know more about a particular subject. Thanks - Knightrises10 (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Also this Anwser on Quora about having a Wikipedia article, I think is a good read. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How can I become an administrator?

Hi I want to become an administrator .How can I become? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigagan (talk • contribs) 09:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kigagan: Hello and welcome. The process is described at WP:RFA. In general, however, you will need to build up an edit history that shows you generally understand Wikipedia guidelines and contribute positively to the encyclopedia, in order for the community to be convinced you merit possessing admin powers. This will likely take several years. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How to give warning to a Wikipedia user?

If a user cause disruption how can I give him warning?Can only administrators give warning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigagan (talk • contribs) 09:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Any user may issue a warning. You may write one yourself on the user's talk page, or there are template warnings you can post, listed at WP:WARN. However, you may wish to take some time to learn more about Wikipedia. There is a new user tutorial you may find helpful. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How to create a bot?

I want to know how to create a bot.And what is a ClueBot and SineBot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigagan (talk • contribs) 10:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's good that you seem so enthusiastic about participating here, but I would strongly suggest that you take the new user tutorial and spend some time learning about Wikipedia before you get into very advanced things like creating bots. I've been here for many years and I don't know how to create a bot. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

ClueBot has retired. It used to detect and remove vandalism from articles, but has been superseded by ClueBot NG. You can read about ClueBot NG and SineBot on their user pages. Maproom (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

What are ClueBot,SineBot and HostBot

Hey I have seen them editing many articles and learnt that they are not humans ?Then who are they? (Kigagan) 17 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigagan (talk • contribs)

Hi! You have told about this earlier too. According to WP:B, On Wikipedia, bots are computer-controlled user accounts performing various tasks in order to maintain the encyclopedia. Bots are used for many purposes, for instance removing obvious vandalism and archiving talk pages. All bots must be approved by a special group before they are put into use.. You may visit that page to know more. Similarly, visiting the userpages of those bots will tell you about their tasks. Thanks, Knightrises10 (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How to create a bot?

I want to create a bot at any cost.223.223.138.222 (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Thanks for asking a question at teahouse.But I would strongly suggest you to read tutorials and log in or create an account otherwise you won't be able to create a bot.Kigagan (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Why are you so desperate to create a bot? 331dot (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

First of all, creating a bot is not an easy task. It requires some experience in programming. Secondly, contributing to the encyclopedia constructively is way better. This is what Wikipedia was made for, right? Creating a bot won't make you be considered a great user, but contributing in building the encyclopedia will develop trust among other editors. Knightrises10 (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

New To Wikipedia - Some Advice?

I'm new to Wikipedia. I've done a few edits, but the most I've received was (probably) an automatic message thanking me for my first edit. I'm not angry or anything (actually, I think an automatic welcome bot can be a good idea for places like this). I think I've tried to embrace the idea of a "bold edit" and I also contributed some thoughts on a talk page for an article. I guess I'm just hoping that I can get some sort of feedback - am I doing everything right? If I'm making mistakes, how do I fix them? Is there anything else I should know as a new Wikipedia user? Clovermoss (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Clovermoss and welcome to the Teahouse! Automatic welcoming bot isn't a good idea. Welcome messages from a bot are impersonal and cold, which is much worse than a welcome message by a human Wikipedia user. Also, the bot may accidentally welcome vandals or trolls which may become the motivation of them to vandalise.

Yes, your contributions are fine. Keep it up! You may read various policies, guidelines and essays listed here and here. Happy editing —AE (talk • contributions) 02:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I totally get what you mean by robots making it easy to sound cold and impersonal. I didn't mean that I thought welcoming should be solely an automatic process, but just that it might be useful to have an automatic welcome before a human can actually get in touch. I thought I should just clarify what I meant by that. Also, thank you so much for your reassurance! I kept trying to read all the links I could find from the initial notification and double-check and such, but there's just so many links I was kind of scared that I was going to miss something vital. I can see the links you sent being useful, especially since they're concise, informative, and easy to access. Sorry for my block of text, but I also have another question. What are the different ways people can (or usually choose) when contributing to Wikipedia? I got to learn a bit about templates through one of the links, and I've seen references to backlogs, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say that those are usually used more often with experienced users and there are usually different paths that new users take edit-wise, at least initially? Clovermoss (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Clovermoss. Welcome to Wikipedia and to our Teahouse. We're here to help (mainly new) editors with any difficulties they encounter. You have started off exactly as we advise so many newcomers to begin. You've started slowly, making a couple of typo corrections and altered capitalisation, then you engaged with another user on a talk page to raise concerns over the meaning to be inferred in an article. What better could we ask for? In time, you'll want to make bigger and bolder changes, supporting each with evidence (citations) where necessary. If you do make mistakes, other editors may revert your edits, but don't be upset or reinstate them - chat to the editor and discuss any concerns. You might like to try The Wikipedia Adventure which is a fun way to learn some of the basics, gaining up to 15 badges along the way. Before you get around to creating a new page (it took me 9 months before I felt confident enough to do that!), bear in mind you have your personal sandbox (link at very top of the page). You can also work on draft articles in what we call 'draftspace' and submit them for review and feedback - which is the ideal way to go. Learn more at Wikipedia:Your first article. I've left a welcome and some useful links on your Talk Page. We do have our own special bot that also sends out a welcome message from the Teahouse, but that normally kicks in after a few more edits than you've made so far.

As suggested above, we do have a ton of policies and guidelines that editors to this amazing encyclopaedia are expected to follow. But let's just get you started and you can discover detailed stuff like WP:MOS (yes, we do love our hyperlinked shortcuts and acronyms here!) in due course, Just shout if you want feedback or advice on anything you get stuck with. Best wishes at the very start of your own personal Wikipedia adventure! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, yet again! Honestly, reading 'what better could we ask for?' made me feel a rush of pride. I'm going to try my best not to make mistakes, but it's nice to know how things work here and how to discuss them. In regards to sandboxes, I created one earlier but I'm not exactly sure how to use it for when I decide to (writing articles sounds cool, but I'm not sure I'm ready for that yet). If I do end up writing an article though, and I 'draft' it in my sandbox (would it be like the basic page editing everywhere else - save but it isn't actually a 'published' thing?) how would I make it not a draft, when it came to that point? I still don't know if I'll even get to that point, and it probably won't be for a while, but I like knowing answers to stuff like that just in case I do need it. Clovermoss (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I have some other questions too, now. I've been going through the tutorials involved in the Wikipedia adventure, and I'm kind of stuck at a certain point. It's where your supposed to use wikilinks in regards to stuff like circumference on the tutorial Earth article in Mission 7. I think I was doing it right, but I don't know because I got to the point where it'd let ask me to write 'added relevant wikilinks' or something like that in the summary box and hit publish... I do that and then nothing happens. I wrote the same message they said to put in the summary box about three times, so I'm guessing I'm probably doing something wrong with the tutorial part itself. The problem is, I don't know what that "something wrong" would be. Anyone here have any suggestions for what I should do? Clovermoss (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Clovermoss, usually you'd want to create your draft not directly in your sandbox, but on a "subpage", basically a standalone page associated with your userspace area. This is to make it easier to just move the page into a normal article when you're done with it. There's a tool to help you with creating a draft that way at Help:Userspace draft, you can just type the title into the bar and it should make a draft page for you. You can also make your draft in "draftspace" instead of "userspace"—there's more information on that at Wikipedia:Drafts, along with another bar-widget thing.

As for how to make your draft article a normal article, you can either move it yourself or submit it to the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, where it will be reviewed by an experienced editor, though this may take around 2 months due to high demand. You can move pages using Special:Movepage/<pagename>, like Special:MovePage/User:Clovermoss/sandbox, and it'll ask you to select a destination.

About the difference between a draft and a live article, it is essentially the same editing process. Drafts are generally less strict on certain specific content policies such as Notability because it is understood that they are a work in progress, but otherwise it's basically the same. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

About adding wikilinks in TWA, it looks like you've done that fine here. If it's not showing up on your end, it's probably a glitch. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Clovermoss. The Wikipedia Adventure can be a bit glitchy. I cant test it for you right now as I'm currently on a mobile - and its not designed to work on them (hence the warning notice at the start). That said, I remember getting stuck and finding the only way to continue was to scroll right to the bottom of the page where I spotted a popup box in which to enter the next required bit of data. So do have a good look round the page and see if that will set you off on your way again. Regarding the use of a sandbox, you can, if you wish, treat it just like a scrap pad in which you add notes, ideas and bits of information as part of your planning process to eventually create a new article. I've got half a dozen or more on the go right now, like User:Nick Moyes/sandbox/S41 that's over a year old and still just random jottings. Had it been made as a proper draft, it would've been deleted after six months with no activity. So sandboxes are a great place to slowly compile your thoughts, references and statements that you might eventually want to turn into a better draft or turn directly into an article. In contrast, User:Nick Moyes/sandbox/Gouter is almost complete and nearly ready to go. Meanwhile, another page I've been working on as a proper draft (see Draft:National Pollinator Strategy still needs more work, but I make sure I stay working in it so that it doesnt time-expire and get deleted. Hope this helps a bit more. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It does! Thank you very much! Clovermoss (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Creating a new page

Can someone please tell me from where I can start creating a new page? Kigagan (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You could start by reading the useful links which have been placed on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Revising a moved link

Hi All, I brought vanilla wafers if anyone's interested in a little munch to go along with their cuppa. I've updated a link from

    cite web|
    last1=Glaser|
    first1=Kyle|
    title=Carolina League To Add Two Franchises In 2017|
    url=http://www.baseballamerica.com/business/carolina-league-will-add-two-franchises-2017/#zV3GaHcbMbU1IDIR.97%7C
    website=BaseballAmerica.com|
    accessdate=23 August 2016

to

    cite web|
    last1=Glaser|
    first1=Kyle|
    title=Carolina League To Add Two Franchises In 2017|
    url=https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/carolina-league-to-add-two-franchises-in-2017/%7C
    website=BaseballAmerica.com|
    accessdate=16 September 2018

Is it either required or preferred that a mention of the original link be made? If so, how? thanks! Dumboldboy (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dumboldboy! If the new link is the correct link is the correct one (and its contents support the material in the Wikipedia article), I don't think you need to mention the old link anywhere. People can always find it in the article's Page History. rchard2scout (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Rchard2scout - I really do appreciate all the mentoring I've received from this village Called Wiki Dumboldboy (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How to block a Wikipedia user?

I want to know how to block a Wikipedia userKigagan (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Only administrators may block users. I will now ask you to take some time off from asking questions, and use the time to instead read some of the links posted on your user talk page, which will likely answer many of your questions. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There are no links posted on my talk page.Kigagan (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kigagan: It's a lie. There obviously are, right here: User talk:Kigagan#A belated welcome!. --CiaPan (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Kigagan: Maybe you have biscuit-blindness? Go to User talk:Kigagan and read the post entitled 'A belated welcome'. This contains useful links for newcomers to read. I can send you a whole shed load more if you really want them! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

That was posted after the fact of drawing attention to their lacking. 2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

1. CiaPan: Lets not accuse people of lying. Thanks.
2. Anon, the links were posted on their talk page at 10:13 UTC. The thread here was opened two hours later at 12:31 UTC. Kindly refrain from providing unhelpful and/or wrong information here. GMG^talk 13:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I apologise for not seeing the whole page.Sorry for that.I will surely read them. Please don't block me.Kigagan (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No worries Kigagan. You may also want to consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure, which can help better acquaint you with how things work on Wikipedia. As always, if you have any questions you've found the right place to ask them. GMG^talk 13:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks GreenMeansGo#top.Kigagan (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How do I search the archives of teahouse to locate previously answered questions ai have asked?

I am looking for a message string concerning film plots that due to my changing IP address I am unable to locate. Is there a way of bringing up a string of IP dresses within a certain range? Thank you.2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The first part of your IPv6 address doesn't change, so try putting 2605:E000:1301:4462 into the archive search box. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

or you can narrow it down further by using 2605:E000:1301:4462 film plot into your search. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

What about reviewing questions made as far back as February? Does anyone have the ability to delete discussions before they go to archive? And how does the search capaboility go if the word film plot does not appear in the title of the question?2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the words appear in the title of the question, so long as they appear in the text of the thread. If they don't, then don't put them in the search string. If you want to be able to find discussions in which you take part but your IP address is changing, that is another advantage of using a registered account. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I would refrain from endorsing what is contrary to WP policy. Registered user names might be good for you but i have no need to go contary to WP policy when using it with my IP address even if that changes. How much of my IP number can be used in a teahouse archive search?2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You can just try the start of the IP address. Only search whole groups like "2605:E000:1301:4462" or "2605:E000". We don't know exactly how your IP address changes or which posts are from you. If you use another Internet connection then the IP address may be completely different. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, IP editor. Why not simply try it for yourself and learn in the process? You're the one with the changing IP, so you're best placed to determine what doesn't change. It took me 10 seconds to find this by including part of your IPv6 address. Is that what you sought? Nick Moyes (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

If you're looking for a discussion in February, I found one in the revision history here, seemingly hit by revision delete. The actual contents appear to be untouched and can be found here. The archive it ended up in appears to be Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 725#Citations for Film Plots. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was seeking. Thank you. I will send the address to my provider as a reference records for any future use.. Again, thank you.

Moved from #Creating a new page. – Joe (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There are no useful user links at the top of my talk page.2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

David did not say they were at the top, because they aren't. They are at the bottom.You also should remember to log in before you post. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I am following WP endorse user policy. Log in? You seem to be under the impression that everyone has a "registered user" name. I use the endorsed WP IP address as my user identification and it is not necessary to log in especially if you are not a registered user name use of WP. I hope that you are not implying that all people that use WP need to have a registered user name and be logged in That is contrary to WP guidelines and endorsements. I can understand that you might have some issues with that user action but it i not contrary to WP, never should and would make WP all the more a closed network if that were imposed. That would be sad especially as WP is supported by tax deductible donations that if not paid to the state as taxes would certainly otherwise be used for the uses of the taxpaying public..2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

To 2605 - David B was answering Kigagan's question. Your query and responses are the previous section. David notMD (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

To the IP user, please consider this a final warning. Please stop bringing up your views on IP vs accounts on this page. It has already been suggested to you that you proceed to the proper forum to air any grievances you have about how IPs are treated or the benefits registering an account can have. I urge you to do so now. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree that this started to become disruptive a while ago, not just cooping unrelated threads into a discussion on the treatment of anonymous editors, but otherwise providing answers that are either wrong, or wrong rambling and off-topic. GMG^talk 12:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree too. These constant pointy responses are tedious to read and are now becoming disruptive. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the point of an ediying process

Is it not the point of the talk page and the projects pages to draw from the WP comments and building consensus in order to reach that star quality that articles seek to be evaluated? Then TheOldJacobite makes an edit it is not reverted especially if in the plot and when any one else does the ubiquitous ":not an improvement" is supplied even when the issue has been brought to the talk age. It seems that this editor believes that it is not necessary to follow the WP guidelines of using the talk page to reach consensus. I have been told that despite the call to discuss the matter on the talk page that i must provide the basis that the new plot is an improvement if only for the reason that it is more concise. At least I have brought to both the talk page and the [project page so that there cannot other attempts to erase from talk pages attempts to bring about consensus building. Is there a set of rules and guidelines and policies for some WP editors and yet another for others?2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not the forum to lodge complaints about another editors conduct. That said, the editor you mention gave a reason for their reversion in both the edit summary and on the article talk page. If you disagree with it, it is indeed up to you to demonstrate your changes would be an improvement and discuss the matter with other interested editors to achieve a consensus. If discussion fails to resolve the matter, there are dispute resolution processes available for use. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

How are people to read the changes when they have been edited out of the article? That is the point of calling a halt to changes and discussing the item on the talk page. The editor in question is not abiding by WP standards. That is imposing their will on the entire WP community.2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

All changes to an article are saved in its edit history; you can link to specific edits by selecting them in the edit history and copy/pasting the link to them. If another editor is edit warring, that can be reported to WP:ANEW(though your own edits will be examined as well). 331dot (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately not everyone performs due diligence and find what is needed to understand what is in question. Otherwise there never would have been allegations issued. Sometimes, it seems that it is rather difficult for some things to be accepted and incorrect information reinstated by reverts.2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

This guy has been pestering TheOldJacobite under multiple IPs. For that, he should be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that I have control over my user identifier on WP. I use my IP. It is issued by my provider. I edit only a few things on WP. One of them is film plots. TheOldJacobite seems to have a very intense control over this area of editing. You really should understand a situation before calling for unfortunate actions. IP addresses are an endorsed means if identification on WP and to say that there is something wrong with that type of identification is erroneous on any one that believes so although you may have encountered people using IP's doing rather unwanted things on WP. OH, it was not my idea to erase and thwart film page discussions by erasing the posts from WP talk pages. TheOldJacobite did that on his own. This can be reviewed in the archives of the TeaHouse. If you have any other concerns please advise. 2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet, you really should disclose that you have a personal dislike of style of those on WP that do not use a "registered" name and therefore are not logged into WP by a registered name. Computer technology is at a point that use of a registered name or even being logged into WP will prevent people from doing unwanted things on the system. To advocate that would give a false impression of security. I can understand that this will not make you any more receptive to the status quo but that is an issue that must be overcome in time. I have no control over your thought process.2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You have been WP:HOUNDING TheOldJacobite, which is the point I was making. For instance, without any proof you accused him of bad behavior, you post childish taunts, you called him a bully here, and you have repeatedly called for limits on him. You are wasting the project's time with this nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not here to pick a fight but it might be said that when someone jumps to a conclusion without due diligence then their judgement is questioned. When someone says something should be done merely because they do not agree with what is happening is not a legitimate conclusion. Yet when that judgement is questioned it is all the more easier to convince others that it is merely for picking a fight instead of resolving the issue. You called for someone to be blocked merely for IP =use without getting a better understanding of just what was going on. Or do you always come to the decision to block someone just because of IP use? I would believe that use of multiple user names, even registered user names is fir actions that others at WP do not find consistent with the intent of WP. That seemed to be lacking in your call to banishment. I cannot tell just what was the intent of your call to action because I do not know you or agree that IP user identifications should be banished from WP. At best for your purpose of banishment would not be served by edits that are not fraudulent.2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Limits? Following standards and processes are limits? Of course you always have the option to disregard comments made in the TeaHouse. I do not compel you to respond to anything. That is up to you. I do not have to confer on you that right or responsibility. Again what you may not like is not an automatic justification to thwart others although it may be the most convenient to create the atmosphere desired.2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet--You want evidence? Well, it is somewhere here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6) in February but for whatever reason there have been text deletions although the history of an action remains. As I post I did not want to make an issue of TheOldJacobite's actions but if others want to join in on his defense without regard to what have been his own actions then I guess you all subject yourself to the results and any potential ridicule of your judgment. His deletion on talk [page discussions did not happen just once but on three separate articles sometimes with edit summaries that said they did not contribute to an improved article. It is one thing to say something in response to what is posted on the talk pages but to delete them is rather irresponsible toward maintain the integrity of WP's guidelines and policies. I understand that you are being faced with questions that deserve an answer about something very fundamental about WP and they are coming from someone that you seem to think is not your WP equal about the integrity of WP. I think that TOJ is perfectly capable of defending himself but he has yet to even deny that he attempted to thwart consensus by deleting questions on multiple talk pages. His problem with this situation is that he cannot deny deleting and thwarting consensus building on talk pages because he did. And if he did deny it he would be lying which certainly would have a rather detrimental effect on his integrity within WP.2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Binkternet--Youyare in luck thanks to the help of the WP community: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_725#Citations_for_Film_Plots. Like I advised TOJ long ago. I did not want to make an issue of what it is that I edit: film plots, and errors at spelling, grammar and fact. Yet it seems every time I go to edit a film plot there goes TOJ reverting with the edit summary (when on occassion provided) "not an improvement". But can every edit done to film plots not be an improvement? But to show what may be vindictiveness of some WP editors they latch onto a user name and they seem to revert every film article plot edit associated with it yet seem to miss a few because maybe they were functioning in in high speed mode? What, for some unstated reason one plot edit is not as agregious as another in the same plot? Not a negative statement--just a reflection on the situation. I understand you may not like that because it does not make you look good. But if you want to challenge people this is what may happen. Yes, I know this may not bt the appropriate WP section for this but sometimes you have to take the opportunity presented. You cannot throw tour cocktail into someone face and not expect to be slugged. Personally, you have already committed the assault and all I have to do is call the police and file a report anmd let the court system deal with it and you have a complaint record. I may be simple but I am not stupid.2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Made an article in a snadbox - what's next?

Hello everyone,

I have just created my first article in an area which I know best - music industry in Lithuania. I wrote about one of the oldest local record label however quite soon got a message froma another user that he marked my article for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article. I do not feel like it is promotional because before writing it I read many record label websites on Wikipedia and also used patterns from those. So I filled the contest the deletion form. However since then nothing happens. Neither my article was deleted from a sandbox nor it is publicly seen aor nobady contacted me. Can you please help me to understand how it all works. Maybe I just do not know where to find the correspondence. Many thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skidpatch (talk • contribs) 13:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The speedy deletion request was deemed invalid by another editor, as you'll see from the history tab on your sandbox. If you wish the sandbox draft to proceed to being published as an article, you would need to provide references, as shown in WP:Referencing for beginners, and then submit it for review. Please read the advice at WP:Your first article. Before that you'll also need to address the point about conflict of interest and paid editing, see the message on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Question

If sometimes I forget to sign after writing in a user's talk page Who signs then? Kigagan (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Kigagan. There is an automated program called SineBot that monitors pages for unsigned comments and adds them when the user has forgotten. GMG^talk 15:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's the SineBot. But it seems now you deliberately unsigned this time. Why don't you go through those links and start making some constructive edits to some articles? Teahouse is a place to ask serious questions, not irrelevant random ones. Knightrises10 (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The Teahouse is also intended to be the friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia, and the friendly bit is as important as the learning bit. GMG^talk 15:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry GreenMeansGo, but I just felt that the editor should now start editing some articles too, as they are the first step to learn about Wikipedia and editing. Knightrises10 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How to create a bit?

Hi I want to create a bit but how can I do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigagan (talk • contribs) 15:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hit the self destruct button and you are on your way. Bye!2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring 2605, this is the second time today you have asked a Teahouse question about how to create a bot (assuming you meant that, and not "bit"). Please consider going forward as an article editor and not solely as a habitual teahouse querier. David notMD (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Crew

When is crew singular and when is it plural? Thank you.2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

In English, "crew" is always singular; the plural is "crews". However, it may be used to refer refer to one member or multiple members of a crew. You may be interested in WMF's online dictionary, Wictionary, which explains this and is a more appropriate place to find this kind of information. General Ization ^Talk 15:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The confusion is that in British English (and presumably other Commonwealth variations), collective nouns like crew, team, etc. are treated as plural, because it's a collection of individuals. That is not the case in American English. Parsecboy (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

So what do you do when the subject is British English concerning an American aspect?2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

If it's an American topic, it should not be in British English per WP:STRONGNAT. If it's a British topic, then British English is fine (you might have noticed I didn't revert your edits that corrected "crew was" to "crew were" to articles on British ships). Parsecboy (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

What if in adding sources from Articles, all I have are publications from online Newspapers and News Websites, can they stand alone as reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IbibioEditor (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Depends on the sources you are using. Can you name some of the sources that you are willing to use? Kraose (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

trying to build a page called Derek Reese American singer-songwriter and musician

Good afternoon everyone, my name is Carol and i am trying to add an article about Derek Reese. This is a learning process for sure, but i was wondering if anyone would be kind enough to give it look and give me your opinion ? i hope it is ok for me to add a direct link to my article here ? Thank you all so very much, Carol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Derek_Reese_American_singer-songwriter_and_musician Carolcappetta (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You appear to have put the same content twice in your draft and you need to sort that out, but the content is certainly not acceptable. You need to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and particularly you need to put references in the text, see WP:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much David for helping me. I deleted the double post, and i added the links throughout the course of my summary. I will keep reading, but i am hoping that what i did so far is an improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolcappetta (talk • contribs) 17:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You've got a lot of misplaced external links in the next, but only one reference. When you do supply references, it will make the job of the reviewer easier if you supply reasonably comprehensive citation detail, such as by filling in relevant parameters in {{cite web}}, rather than merely a bare url. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How to create a bot? (redux)

I want to create a bot.But how can I do it?.Kigagan (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Already asked and answered. General Ization ^Talk 15:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

To the left of this page is a word "HELP". Click on that; locate the search box, enter bot and go to town.2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This editor is obviously not here to create an encyclopedia. He has taken no notice of the copious advice which he's been given. Hopefully an admin will take the necessary action. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Now has a you-may-be-blocked warning on Talk. David notMD (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Help

Help me in improving this artical Nayeem(gangster) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamheentity (talk • contribs) 11:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Why does the full article coding not appear in the link?2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You have tried to create an article on your User page User:Iamheentity/Nayeem, a common new user error. Your User page is for a brief description of your background and intent as an editor. I suggest your Sandbox for the draft. David notMD (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)