Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 854

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

Archive 850

←

Archive 852

→

Edit summary errors

Hello, I'm Rebestalic.

I'm currently experiencing technical issues regarding my edit summaries. On XTools, there is a pie chart showing a comparison between edits with summaries and edits without summaries. I clearly remember that I had 5 accidental no-summary edits. That number has now grown to 35... that's strange!

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Rebestalic, fancy seeing you here at the Teahouse again.

When I looked, it had grown even larger. In looking over your contribution list, I spotted a few visual edits that lacked edit summaries but for the most part, you have been doing well at including edit summaries. I bet there's probably a tool that you could use to show which edits are considered to not have edit summaries, but I don't know what that tool is. I suggest that you not worry overmuch about the exact statistic and continue as you have been, conscientiously trying to include a useful edit summary for every edit. It's not like you can go back and insert an edit summary if one has been missed (except by doing a dummy edit, but that needs to be very close to the original to serve any purpose). I've not looked into the details, but I wonder what affect having an edit that was REVDELed has on the counts. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply!

Rebestalic (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Jmcgnh, You can also go to your preferences. On the third tab "editing" the third option is:

Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary

If you check that, and try to save without leaving a summary it will give you a warning. You can proceed and leave a blank edit summary but this may help avoid the accidental ones. S Philbrick (Talk) 20:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Sphilbrick I've had that option set, like from the first week I was editing, but I still accumulate what edit counter tabulates as edits without summaries. I think that's the discrepancy that Rebestalic was asking about and I don't have a good answer, just that guess about revdel edits. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverting an unconstructive edit requires no edit summary. I wonder if the counting software is aware of this?

Declined article.

I submitted an article about composer Marc Rossi and it was declined because it was deemed to not follow the standards. My problem is that I did extensive comparioon to other modern living composers alreay on Wikipedia as a model being sensitive to the requirement that it be "just the facts" and not read like a prom,otion piece. But the article was called out on that basis. What I am confused about is what part(s) were deemed in violation so these coupd be appropiately re-edited for hopefully a sucessful re-submission. Bob Reardon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjreardon (talk • contribs)

Hello Rjreardon. As a sample of the issues with the article, first, the article text contains a bunch of external web links. These should all be removed; article text generally should not contain external links. If the article subject has an official website, one link to that is generally OK, in an "External links" section at the bottom of the article. There's also some problems with tone and language: "...renowned neighborhood music school..." "...Russell's Grammy-nominated..." (omit fluff like "renowned" or any variant on "award-winning"), "lifelong passion for Indian classical music", "life-long practice of Transcendental Meditation" (the article indicates he's still alive, so we don't know if those are "life-long"), and overall looks like a massive listing of everything he's ever done that might make him look good, rather than a distillation of what reliable and independent sources have had to say about him. Most of the items in the articles are unreferenced as well. Encyclopedia articles should generally be rather dry, avoid needless adjectives, and just stick to facts that reliable and independent references have indicated are important by publishing material about them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rjreardon: Some things you could do are:

Add a lead section: that would be a short summary of the summary section.
Remove the external links from the text, as suggested by Seraphimblade above. Leave the one in the infobox and format the one in the external links section to something like this [http://www.marcrossi.com Official website] (Official website).
The as leader section has several problems:
- When you quote something, you should mention in the text what you're quoting. A footnote can hold the details, the person or organization you're quoting should be mentioned outside the footnote.
- Instead of two hyphens, use a dash. Here's one: –, and here's another one: –. You can use – directly in wikicode or you can use &ndash.
- This is somewhat more subjective, but I don't like headings without edit links. Either write them into sentences:
  About We Must Continue (MMC Recordings, 1996), Scott Yanow wrote The chance-taking explorations have plenty of exciting moments"; the compositions are "complex, [but] always contain some catchy melodies
  you might want to check the punctuation in the example as I'm not sure if that is one or two quotations. Is this a case of nested quotations? If it's a quotation with a part skipped, use [...] to indicate where you're skipping something.
  or make real headings with section editing links. You can still hide them from the table of contents by adding {{TOC limit|3}} before the very first heading (that is, right before the Summary heading.
Don't capitalise every word in every heading. For example, change Early Life and Education to Early life and education.
Replace curly quotes with straight quotes. The same goes for apostrophes.
The compositions section has the following problems:
- The contents don't fit the heading: it's not a list of compositions but a list of performers. Consider changing the heading to something like Performances by others.
- Bold is not used much on Wikipedia, and I wouldn't use it in this section at all.
- Finally, Recorded performers of Rossi's compositions include: should probably not be formatted like a list element.

I hope these instructions are clear. Otherwise, just ask what you need clarified or tell us if you prefer that we make the changes. – Pretended leer {talk} 19:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, as Seraphimblade says, there's also the issue of neutrality. My above answer makes it look like it's all about formatting, but that's because that's what I'm used to check. Since I'm now mentioning the non-neutral language outside the Teahouse, I figured I'd make a brief note here so that people who only look here don't think the neutrality issues mention got buried under a long list of formatting issues. – Pretended leer {talk} 22:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Template

What does the Uw-... template meaning? - 114.124.181.95 (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

User Warning- (Reason) I believe. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 00:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Minor planets 1001-2000: 1090 Sumida redirect issue

Hello, Rebestalic here.

I recently joined WikiProject Astronomy, and soon began to improve articles for minor planets. A few minutes ago on the page "List of minor planets: 1001-2000", I inserted a link for minor planet 1090 Sumida, because initially, there wasn't a link to 1090 Sumida. Hoping to see a redlink so I could click on it and then create the page, I saw a blue, working link. I clicked on it and found out that it redirected back to the original page.

I would like to know how to change the redirection path for 1090 Sumida, so I can create an article for it and not result in an orphaned page.

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rebestalic. After following a redirect like 1090 Sumida, click "Redirected from 1090 Sumida" at top of the page. Then you can edit the redirect page and make an article instead. Note what the redirect page says about notability, and see the page history [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.

Rebestalic (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

How to get my new article reviewed

Hi there,

Super excited to write my first article (link below). I thought I'd start with some factual information about the company I work at. I would love to get this reviewed by some more experienced wiki editors and get some advice on how to improve my pages (I had lots of fun with the infoboxes). Thanks in advance :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SafetyCulture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howiemann (talk • contribs) 05:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, your article will be reviewed by volunteers, since it's already in the new pages queue. However, you have important reading to do which include 1) Conflict of interest editing. 2. Paid contribution and 3. Notability of companies. Please do read at you earliest convenience. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Help editing page about Utthayan Road to be neutral

Hello,

I need help to suggest editing this article as some of reviewer suggest to make it more 'neutral' : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Utthayan_Road I have edited twice which I have add some reliable sources but seems to need rewrite some parts again Please help to review and suggest me which particular part need to edit or which tone of word should be changed

Many thanks Locallion (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, @Locallion: I removed the part that said it was the most beautiful road in Thailand. If someone on a TV show says it is the most beautiful road in Thailand, you could mention that it is so according to that person on that show said that. But from what I could read about the show, I don't think island I'd mention the opinion at all. Just the description, and let people judge by themselves. You did include an image, so people can see what it looks like.

There's also the part that says Field Marshal Plaek Phibunsongkhram as the premier: what does "premier" mean in that sentence? Prime Minister of Thailand? If so, I'd change it to Field Marshal Plaek Phibunsongkhram was the premier Prime Minister of Thailand. You won't have to link the name of the country, since it's already linked in the lead section (I added it there while writing this message. – Pretended leer {talk} ~~19:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)~~ edited 19:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pretended leer: Thank you for your suggestion. I have edited some parts you've suggested. I agree, I just changed the word 'premier' to 'Prime Minister' . Also, the part of some people name, I put the link and direct to their existing articles to make more sense. Are there any other parts need to be edited before publish? – Locallion (talk) 07:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

About Adding Chhatrapati Before the name of King Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj

Is it's reason to block someone from editing Wikipedia to respect the particular respective person by adding some words to his/her name on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by पुष्पक देसाई (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Someone who repeatedly ignores Wikipedia's guidance on style, despite being warned, is likely to be blocked. Maproom (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Why am I being blamed for spamming because of replacing old data with a new one?

There was an article related to SMS marketing, where the statistics were of 2010 and all I did is replace it with statistics of 2018, only 1 sentence. Is it really spamming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen Simonyan (talk • contribs) 09:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Because all of your edits are adding the same spam link. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 09:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I need Support

Help Me

I amn't new to wikipedia. I had created several wikipedia accounts and I tried to mess up with the first account Gaurav456. Then I created User:50gaurav42 to help out wikipedia and then User:LuckyRacerNP and all of them got sock puppet. Now I want to help and contribute to article in wikipedia. I have created several articles one of them is Gopal Prasad Parajuli and I made several articles but they were selected for delection. Please Help me out. Understand me and I think this account will be too block as sock puppet. Please Help me out and give me solution in my talk page.WeLovWiki (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi WeLovWiki - Wow. That's quite a list of sockpuppets you've rung up. A sockpuppet investigation has been opened, and that is where you need to state your case. You can find a link on your talk page. You have a long history of not wanting to follow Wikipedia's rules, so good luck. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Received "not forum" Notification

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tym_Whittier#November_2018

I've received some kind of notice from another Editor and would like help in understanding what it means. It regards comments I've made in the "Discussion" section of an Article. From my perspective, I read the comments, got a sense of it's topic, and it's "tone" and posted my contribution as best I could, having to do with the definition of a particular term and whether or not it was acceptable to use in the Article.

The notice is the standard "not forum" notice that I see being used a lot. My question is not about the basic policy, but why it seems that my comments were singled-out when other comments that seemed equivalent. I think my comments are the same as everyone else's, and responded to the Editor who sent me the "not forum" message explain that, and why, I thought so. Then asked that Editor to explain how my comments for "forum-y". I've been on TONS of forums, and think I have a clear understanding that Wikipedia and "forums" are dramatically different, but maybe there's some nuance here I'm missing.

1) Will the Editor I responded to see my response I posted in my Talk Page? Or do I have to "message" him in some way?

2) Is this just standard practice for all new Editors to an Article that has an "Administrative Ruling" in effect?

3) Does the Administrative Ruling change, or otherwise restrict the scope or tone of the comments in the Discussion Section? Do I have to have a reliable source with text I'm advocating for in order to even have a comment (one possible interpretation of "not forum", or are Editors allowed to pontificate on the language even if they don't have a better alternative at hand (another possible alternative)? Or is there some 3rd alternative I'm not even imagining?

4) When will the Government finally tell the truth about chemtrails and the moon landing hoax?

5) Are jokes, wisecracks and light-hearted banter allowed in the Teahouse?

And, in case anyone is wondering, "Is this guy serious?", Yes, I'm serious. I'm fully aware that I have a lot to learn and have already established the goal of learning to post those "NPOV" and "OR" tags in discussions (I've tried twice, and failed both times), and also I READ them every time I can't connect their intended meaning in a Discussion to the Wikipedia Policy. If it doesn't make sense, I re-read the policy, and assume that the person that posted the link knew what they were doing. My question does not center on the policy itself, but rather the circumstances under which it was sent to me, and what that means.

Tym Whittier (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Tym Whittier, you post on that talk page were clearly NOTFORUM. You mentioned no sources, no policies and proposed (or clearly supported or opposed anything anyone else had proposed) any changes to the article. You instead talked at great lengths about your personal opinions. That's not how this works. The arb notices added to your talk are applied by fellow editors when you've edited articles affected by them. They're optional not automatically applied, and are generally only given to editors that have edited disruptively or have been confrontational (NOTFORUM is considered disruptive).

Further, you really should read WP:TLDR. The entire purpose of an encylopedia is to summarize what others have written about a given subject. If you cannot effectively communicate your own thoughts without using several thousand characters, how can you effectively summarize someone else's thoughts? John from Idegon (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

A) shorter. B) reliable sources. C) not a forum. D) shorter. David notMD (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Turner Ashby bio not complete

I’m a graduate of Turner Ashby HS and likely the school name will be challenged and perhaps changed as many schools named to honor confederate soldiers. A May 2018 article published in the Roanoke [VA] Times contains information I have never heard and is not common knowledge in the Valley of Virginia but is certainly verifiable; the webform does not permit me to post the link. If these revelations are true, then Turner Ashby’s Wikipedia bio should be corrected and expanded to give a full account of who he was. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.1.41 (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

If there are reliable, i.e., published, citable, sources about Turner Ashby then content can be added to that Wikipedia article. Is it that you are having difficulty finding out how to create a reference for a newspaper article? David notMD (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

draft status review question

I created Paxos (Company) in my sandbox, and moved it to draft status on Oct 30. There's usually a flag at the bottom saying it's been submitted and must now be reviewed, only this time, there is not. Have a feeling I did something wrong when moving it to draft, but not sure what that was. Thanks for your helpTlvernon (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You didn't submit it for review. To do so, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Help reviewing the article

Hi, Need some suggestion about this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bhurit_Bhirombhakdi

This article had been declined submitting process for several times, I may need your help check and suggest which parts need to be fixed further. Some issues that this article had been mentioned, it need to be fixed...

1. This article was overly promotional, not neutral and looks like C.V. and some resources doesn't make sense ( already fixed some word and cut off)

2. Not enough reliable sources to be ref. or notable (already added some resources that is neutral)

3. The point is this guy have many part that he had done in the decades however the resources doesn't either make him dominant. we might need to choose just one point that make him notable.

Could you help, are there any parts need to fixed ? (reviewers have suggested may be this article need a major rewrite).

Thanks Bananabacon (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Bananabacon: don't assume that the problem is with the draft and can be fixed. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Maproom (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The article has been rejected four times. A question here - since May 2017, this appears to be the only article you edit; are you being paid or otherwise compensated, or are an acquaintance of Bhurit Bhirombhakdi? David notMD (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

where to send image permission

hello there i have uploaded an image to wikimedia commons for the first time [2] and have obtained the copyright holders permission to license it. but i am unclear about where to send that permission (or do i post it somewhere)? many thanks for advice on the most direct route highhorse (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Kathleensmith; you should send it to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. You may also want to read WP:PERMISSION, the page contains helpful guide in that regard. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The file says that an email has already been sent in accordance with Commons:OTRS; has that not been done? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

thanks Ammarpad. yes, David Biddulph has now been done. highhorse (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Submitting through sandbox or edit file?

Hello I'm Jules,

I edited an article 2 weeks ago and hit the "publish changes" button. I deleted a picture and replaced it with another one. But In the preview the new one doesn't show. Why doesn't it show? Also, can you kindly point out if the article might be published in the way it is written? or should I make adjustments ? And last, should I have posted it through the sandbox or the way I did by "editing an old one"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Salim_Sfeir

Thank you for your help! JulesNawfal (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Bananabacon: the image you used has been removed (from Wikimedia Commons), as a copyright violation. The draft will certainly not be accepted in its current state, as it cites no references. Please read Wikipedia:Notability and Help:Referencing for beginners. Maproom (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer Bananabacon

and Hello again Bananabacon, I would like to point out that several references are mentioned in the article.

Could you kindly help further? JulesNawfal (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

JulesNawfal I'm not sure if the posts got mixed up and Maproom was replying to Bananabacon from the previous post, but their advice still holds good; Help:Referencing for beginners - although you have included your sources, you havent given any inline citations. When writing an article (and particularly for a WP:BLP- biography of a living person) you need to indicate where you get your information from. Ideally each factoid will have its own reference. For instance, where does his birthdate come from? The information on his personal life? The awards that are listed?

You should read the guidelines on WP:Notability also - most of those sources seem to be general bios from businesses and associations the subject is financially involved with, so not truly independent of him; interviews dont go to notability either. After a quick look, the last two just go to business homepages, so dont really support anything at all. Curdle (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer! Curdle

Hello again Curdle I will be adding more references then and removing some

What do I need to do to post my first article

I started editing on Wikipedia for a week now, I am a digital marketing specialist and my purpose is to share my knowledge and experience in Wikipedia. I want to know what steps I need to undertake to be able to post an article in the future. Can anyone help me with a piece of advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen Simonyan (talk • contribs) 08:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Elen Simonyan, and welcome to the Teahouse! I think Wikipedia:Expert editors could be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

And of course Wikipedia:Your first article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Elen Simonyan, to get your feet wet I'd advise that you first get some experience editing existing articles before taking on the considerably difficult task of creating a new article from scratch. In fact the digital marketing article needs quite a lot of improvement, you might have a go at tidying it up. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Create account

Can I create an account from another email address? - 118.136.59.215 (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question suggests that you already have an account. Users should only have one account regardless of the email address used(it isn't required to provide an email address to create an account) unless the additional account is for one of the legitimate reasons listed here. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Lucky Luke in English

Hi, the page for Lucky Luke in english is about Asterix and not Lucky Luke at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Luke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.14.2 (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Reverted the edit by the IP. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Rendering an edit box on a Talk page

I'm trying to show an inexperienced IP editor some deficiencies in their recent edit, but the edit renders in the format of a published edit. This is what I am trying to render in edit box format (click "edit" to see it):

The {{As of|2006|alt=current}} Municipal President (Mayor) of [[San Pedro Garza García (municipality)|San Pedro]] is Miguel Treviño, an independent candidate. <ref>{{cite web|title=Municipio de San Pedro Garza Garcia|url=http://www.sanpedro.gob.mx/portal.asp?|accessdate=4 December 2013|website=Sanpedro.gob.mx|language=Spanish}}</ref>

Is there a glyph or phrase I can use to preserve edit box format on a Talk page?--Quisqualis (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Quisqualis and welcome to the Teahouse.

I've used "pre" and "nowiki" tags to markup your example. This, or "code" tags, are often used to show wiki markup language on talk pages. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk Page

How can I add this picture as the background of my My talk page? Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 19:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Thegooduser! First of all, I think that would be a pretty bad idea: text is not very readable on a background with lots of high-contrast details, and this would definitely go against WP:ACCESS. In fact, only interface administrators could do that for everyone, and that doesn't mean they will.

Now, if you just want it to show that way to you, you could edit Special:MyPage/common.css to change the background image for the mw-body-content class if it appears inside an element with the page-User_talk_Thegooduser class. That won't change how the page is shown to others, and I haven't tried it myself. But if you understand Cascading Style Sheets, I think you could do that. I'm pretty sure your eyes would quickly get tired if you read a lot of text on that background though, unless of course you tone down the colours. – Pretended leer {talk} 20:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it might be doable using multiple divs and CSS positioning. But it might not look right on monitors of different sizes, and it might also be against policy if the image isn't clickable (though you could work around that by having a part of it be so). It would definitely cause trouble with MOS:COLOR unless you put a semi-transparent white background between the text and the image, or use a lighter image. – Pretended leer {talk} 21:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Requesting editing and publishing

I wrote a draft but I don't really understand how to request a edit or publishing.

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trunkeyd (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You can request it reviewed by adding {{subst:submit}} to it. The template you added on the talk page doesn't work for articles in draft space. Now, here are some things you could do before submitting it for review:

You might want to add some links to other articles, such as Washington State University
I see in the page history that you tried to make something similar to the German article about the same topic. But you translated "US-amerikanischer" as "prominent". "US-amerikanischer" means "American", and that's probably also what you should write. If he weren't prominent, there simply wouldn't be an article about him, so the word is redundant. I'd suggest reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.
Check the spaces before and after references: an inline reference goes after a punctuation mark,^[I] there should be a space after the reference (unless it's at the end of a paragraph) but not before it.
Your username seems to suggest you might be the subject of the article. If so, please see WP:COI.

– Pretended leer {talk} 21:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

^ This is actually a footnote, but it works the same way. – Pretended leer {talk} 21:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Can sensation be used as source material?

(Wow, I looked over this page for minutes before I noticed the blue box that said "Click here to ask a question".) I'm trying to figure out how to "talk" to someone, or "drop a line". I guess the clutter on the editing pages, like all the informational on this page that distracted me from the blue box is one reason I can't figure it out. That's just me, though. I'm sure it's better for some other people this way. Beyond that, is there any use for material here that is experienced through the five senses: eyes, ears, ect? Is there a way to source that? I know there isn't. I know the answer is that sensation cannot be used as source material. But there are some things that are true even if there isn't a written documented source. How does a Wikipedia editor deal with those things? It maybe that this issue is beyond Wikipedia's scope.

Also, how do I properly contact to a specific person to talk to him/her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty5651 (talk • contribs)

@Liberty5651: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you wish to contact another user, you may post to their user talk page. Every user has one, including you. I will post something there in a moment for you. Most user's signatures have a link to their user talk page in it(as mine will at the end of this post); you can also find it in the edit history of any page; almost every page has a "View History" tab at the top.

Regarding your other question, you may find reading the following link, WP:BLUE, helpful. In short, some common sense things do not need to be cited, such as the sky being blue, or water being wet. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Publish the page Kya Tum

Dear Sir,

I have edited our movie "Kya Tum" with all details filled and references. Request you to kindly let know by when it will go live.

Regards, Ratnesh Roop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratnesh Roop (talk • contribs) 18:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

If you read what it says in the box at the foot of the draft, it says "This may take more than two months, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2399 pending submissions waiting for review." --David Biddulph (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Ratnesh Roop. You appear to be trying to use Wikipedia to advertise your film. Please stop trying to do this. Promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia. Editing with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged. And if somebody who is in any way paid in connection with a subject edits an article on that subject, it is compulsory for them to make a declaration according to WP:PAID. When several people who have no connection with you or the film have chosen to write at some length about it, and been published in reliable places (and that excludes any articles that are simply based on press releases) then there can be an article on the film, based almost entirely on what those independent people have said about it. Until then, no article on it will be accepted, however it is written. --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Proper use of references

Hello, I would like to start editing two articles: Terry v ohio and Terry stop. I have a question about the proper use of references. I'm going to begin by using one textbook as a source. ^[1] Later, I plan on going back and adding more sources.

References

^ Samaha, Joel (2012). Criminal Procedure. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

My question is how many times do I need to cite this source. For example, if I write three paragraphs in a row, should I cite it once at the end of the three paragraphs. Or, should I cite it at the end of each paragraph or even every other sentence. And also, should I cite page numbers if I cite the book multiple times.

Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Seahawk01. If the paragraph is a short one of general information where all of the content is basically citing the same source or sources, then you can add the citations to the end of the paragraph; just be careful of WP:INTEGRITY. However, if the content includes some claims, quotes, or other things which might be seen as contentious, then it's probably best to add the citation as close a possible to the relevant article content.

It's possible to cite the same source multiple times using WP:REFNAME; however, if you want to cite different pages of the the same source, you can also use Template:RP or even a WP:SRF/WP:HARV citation style. Some editors perfer one of the latter styles when creating new articles because it allows them to add all of the citation templates to the "References" section and then only add some simple syntax to the body of the article. This eliminates the need for having to search through the editing window to find a particular citation if it needs editing, and keep the edit window free of lots of template syntax which can easily be damaged by mistake when others edit the article. However, these can be tricky to get the hang of off, so many just prefer to add the entire citation syntax to the body of the article.

Regardless, the important thing to remember whenever adding citations is WP:CITEVAR. Wikipedia doesn't have one preferred way of citing sources, so generally the one used by the first primary contributor to the article should be the one used unless there's a good reason for changing it. The same thing also applies to the date format being used in the citations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Marchjuly: and thanks for all the help! I really like WP:SRF/WP:HARV, but, perhaps, I need to wait a bit :-) Seahawk01 (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Lin Shu-ling

Hi, would like to request a review of the page Lin Shu-ling. Lin is a noted indigenous land rights advocate in Taiwan as well as a founder and leader of the 13-year protest movement against the Taitung Miramar Resort, a landmark case in Taiwan's indigenous, environmental and legal history. She was at the fore-front of numerous events to oppose the resort, including a 300km walk from her home (at the site of the resort) to the Presidential Palace. She was also a plaintiff on the historic Citizen Litigation launched by Thomas Chan that became the first successful use of the Citizen Litigation Act in Taiwan in relation to challenging an EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment). She is also a prominent figure in anti-nuclear protests in Taiwan, as well as protests against other resort developments on traditional indigenous territory, including the 500-room Shanyuan Palm Beach Resort. She was contentiously disqualified from competing in the upcoming November elections as an 'aborigines plains' candidate. She is also the subject of a Taiwanese Wikipedia page.

Despite this, the English article has been tagged for 'notability'. The page is referenced by over 10 different sources including several articles where Lin Shu-ling is the sole subject of the story, and two theses. As such, could someone please check the page and the references, and perhaps the article Taitung Miramar Resort for context to get an understanding of the scale of her involvement? If still further references are required, I would be happy to include them. Otherwise, could the tags please be removed? Thanks, Before the Bang (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Before the Bang. I have also commented at Talk:Lin Shu-ling. There is no need to tell this person's life story here at the Teahouse, using promotional language like "landmark", "forefront" and "prominent". That type of promotional language in Wikipedia's voice must be removed from the article as well. The fact that she has an article on another Wikipedia is not relevant here, as each Wikipedia version sets its own standards. What experienced editors on English Wikipedia want to see is references to independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this person. I see a lot of non-independent sources in the article you wrote, such as interviews with her and her own campaign website. I also see some non-neutral language in the article, but that can be dealt with easily once notability is established. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen for your feedback. After reading your comments it seems like just a couple of small mis-understandings, which i think I can clarify. Firstly, I totally agree that "language like "landmark", "forefront" and "prominent"" is not appropriate for the "Wikipedia voice", and i do make an effort to steer clear of these words as well as other promotional language such as "famous", "one of the foremost", “renowned” etc. I only used them on Teahouse to present the argument that the issue of indigenous land rights is a ‘notable’ one in Taiwan, and, given political movements don’t happen by themselves, that therefore, Lin Shu-ling, as a leader of that movement, is also ‘notable’. Anyway, I will avoid the use of these words even on Teahouse in the future, and thanks for the guidance - I am still new to this! (Please note that although the word “landmark” does appear in the article, it is used as a referenced quote from a mainstream English publication, Focus Taiwan, to demonstrate notability - I am assuming that it’s ok in that context?)

Regarding your comment that “I see a lot of non-independent sources in the article you wrote, such as interviews with her and her own campaign website”, I have only used her campaign website as a reference to state her campaign policies. In terms of saying what her campaign policies are, wouldn’t it best to get it from the ‘horse’s mouth’? If not, can you suggest an alternative way to reference her campaign policies? (The bulk of the other references in the article are from mainstream publications - there are also a lot more that i haven't included, which i would be happy to provide if you still require more - though they will be in Chinese.) As for not using ‘interviews with her’ to quote her opinions, I am wondering how to quote her to demonstrate her opinions on relevant issues without using interviews?

Thanks again for your suggestions - I really do want to get this right so I appreciate any further feedback from an experienced editor such as yourself on how best to comply with all Wikipedia regulations. Cheers, Before the Bang (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Photos on Wikimedia

I found many ways to upload photos, but I'm still confused. Is it necessary that I upload the photos first on Wikimedia? and is it preferable? AGF (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi AGF. All of the photos you see used on (English) Wikipedia are either uploaded to Commons (where they can be used by other WMF websites, such as other language Wikipedias) or Wikipedia (where they can only be used locally on English Wikipedia). So, yes a file needs to be uploaded to one or the other for you to be able to properly use it in an article or on some other Wikipedia page. In addition, even though Wikipedia and Commons are both run by the WMF, they have slightly different policies when it comes to the types of files they accept. You can find out more about Commons' policy at c:Commons:Licensing and about Wikipedia's at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. The main difference between the two is that Commons doesn't accept fair use content of any kind, whereas Wikipedia does accept some types in certain cases per Wikipedia:Non-free content. Commons also requires that any files uploaded to it be either released under a free license it accepts or be within the public domain in both the United States (where the Commons servers are located) and the country of origin for the file (for example, where a photo was taken, a work of art is installed/displayed or where the company which owns a logo is headquartered, etc.); Wikipedia, on the other hand, will accept files even if they are only public domain according to US copyright law. I'm not sure if that's exactly the information you wanted, but feel free to ask more questions if it isn't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Username

If my username assumes bad faith, can I create another account? - 118.136.59.215 (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Assuming your username is not blocked, you have two choices. You can either abandon the current account and create a new one, or if you want to preserve your edit history, you can visit WP:CHU for instructions on changing your username. If you are blocked, you will need to first make a successful unblock request before you can do that. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

118.136.59.215, Welcome to Teahouse. You can create new account but I would recommend you to change your username. Info could of changing username could be found HERE. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

McCoy moderation request

Hi! I'm a newcomer here, and I'd like to request help with resolving multiple issues on the page David T. McCoy. I published this page as part of my general efforts to share information about Indigenous peoples' contributions to US History. I'm hoping someone can help me resolve the three issues on the page (inline citations and neutrality/close connection). The article now has 37 inline citations, as well as linking to over 35 other Wikipedia pages. I would greatly appreciate any help to resolve these issues! Thank you. Meredithlmccoy (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Meredithlmccoy - there are several issues with the article. First, based on your username, you might have a conflict of interest regarding this subject. Please read WP:COI, and take any necessary actions you find there. Second, and this can be a result of COI, there is a slight non-neutral tone in the article. This is different, imho, from a promotional tone, but it arises from the entire article being from a positive point of view, without any negative viewpoints of the individual being presented. In addition, the entire "awards" section should be deleted, since not a single notable award is listed. And to be transparent, I was the one who tagged it a year ago for neutrality and inline citations. You have done a very good job at adding citations to the article, so much so that another editor removed that tag. However, another editor reinserted it. And they have a point, there are still many assertions in this BLP which have no citations. Take for example the "Office of the Governor" section, which is completely uncited. So, in order to remove the tags, I would delete the awards section, add any information you have regarding any negative he has. Second, I would add sources for any facts stated in the article which have no references. If there are no references, I would delete the info. Third, the vast majority of references are from non-independent sources. So, any sourcing you can get from independent sources would be a good idea. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Further observation: to expand on OneL's point, I think the lack of independent sources is critical. Although there are multiple independent articles cited, the guidelines require multiple independent sources, and almost all the independent citations are from a single source. It's critical you add citations from other reliable sources that are detailed. I don't see any of the offices he held as meeting WP:NPOL, so the sources need improvement lest the article be deleted. John from Idegon (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

One of your multiple-used references is an interview of McCoy. Interviews generally not accepted, as what a person says about themselves is not independently confirmed. The WP:NPOL issue is that Mr. McCoy served in North Carolina government for 27 years, at no point was that as an elected official. David notMD (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The Amazing Race

Hi I wanna to ask how i can put a headline on a created of me page, i still don't know and hope sobebody to show how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deyancho (talk • contribs) 09:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Deyancho Hi Welcome to Teahouse. You could find here - Heading on how to use wikitext to create heading and other useful wikicodes. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Deyancho. It looks as if you've put some effort into the draft User:Deyancho/The Amazing Race 8: Neighbourhood Edition. But it also looks to me as if you haven't read the helpful links that somebody has put on your user page. Your draft has no references at all. References are not something you should bolt on at the end of writing an article: they are absolutely the very first step in writing an article, because it you cannot find suitable references, then the subject is probably not notable, and an article will not be accepted however much work you have put into it. Wikipedia articles are based entirely on what published sources say, not on what you know (or I know, or any other random person on the internet knows). Please study Your first article before you put any more effort into this. --ColinFine (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Knowledge seeking

Is whikipadia the sama as the one which provides information of celebrities like lucky dube? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.164.30.170 (talk • contribs) 2018-11-02T10:44:25 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which contains articles about many subjects, including Lucky Dube and other celebrities. But not all celebrities are WP:notable in the sense in which Wikipedia uses the word, so it does not have articles about all celebrities. --ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Question about names.

On Wikipedia, should a biography have the title of someone's real name, or the name that they are known by(e.g. their name as a musician)? Thanks, --Canti60 (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Canti60 and welcome to the Teahouse. We have a guideline (see WP:COMMONNAME) which tells us that we should title an article by the name a person or thing is mostly commonly referred to by other sources (but not by themselves, like Kanye West recently did when he started calling himself 'Ye' for some reason). You would be justified in including both stage name and real name in the lead sentence (in bold) and then creating a Redirect which took anyone to that page were they to type in the person's birth/real name. Hoping this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I would add as an example, the article about former US President Bill Clinton is at Bill Clinton, not his legal name of William Jefferson Clinton. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Or for a musical example, see Elton John (born Reginald Kenneth Dwight). --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Kirk E. Kelleykahn

I have his Bio to add to wikipedia..... His Grandmother Is Oscar Legendary Academy Actress JUANITA MOORE. He has great accomplishment and it seem we do not know how to get certain topics onto page like awards.... bio... early career... etc etc.....

Name is Kirk E. Kelleykahn can you help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dane1x (talk • contribs) 00:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kirk E. Kelleykahn Has scores of factual statements but no references, hence declined. David notMD (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dane1x. Kelleykahn's grandmother may be Wikipedia notable enough for an article to have been written about her, but her Wikipedia notability doesn't transfer to him. What you are going to need to establish is that Kelleykahn is Wikipedia notable enough in his own right for an article to be written about him. The way you do this is explained in more detail in Wikipedia:Notability (people) (in particular Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers).

Now, if you're looking for some general guidance on writing articles and citing sources, check out Wikipedia:You first article and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

There are subjects that have one liners and are on wikipedia.... it is not a question of weather Kirkbelongs on wikipedia or not.... he should have been on here a long time ago and your stuff should have added him..... I can list celebrity friends of Kirk whom have no credits and they are on wikipedia... so lets not play the race card.... this guy is as legit as they get... and to add insult to injury... Kirk is listed on wikipedia as winning awards...... so since you are no help but think you are..... all you need to do is walk me thru this process... it is very difficult... and by the way everything mention that I wrote for mr. khan is in footnote.....the worst id that you guys do not explain just how to put up the links or footnotes... and if it is done wrong to is followed up with a .....correct it or it will be denied altogether.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dane1x (talk • contribs) 11:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I may need to pay someone to post his page and complete it.... I know Kirk has donated money to wikipedia and I advised him not to..... now I see why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dane1x (talk • contribs) 02:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has almost six million articles, and some of these probably shouldn't have been added in the first place. The fact that one unsuitable article can be shown to exists is not a good reason to another unsuitable article to be created. Articles are being added all of the time, and sometimes it just takes some time to find the clunkers and have them deleted. As posted above the best way to ensure that any article created about Kelleykahn doesn't not end up being deleted is to show that he meets Wikipedia's notability guideline, and the best way to do this is to add citations to reliable sources which show that he has received the significant coverage for a stand-alone article to be written about him. As for paying someone to create an article about Kelleykahn, you can do so if you like since it's your money; however, that doesn't guarantee that any article you pay to have created will not still end up being deleted if the Wikipedia community consensus feels that Kelleykahn is not yet Wikipedia notable enough for one to be written. I also advise you to be wary of anyone guaranteeing that they can create an article for money because either they are not being completely upfront with you or they have a misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. In addition, a paid editor will be required to comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure which means that there will be limitations placed on what and how much they can do and also that their edits are likely going to be more highly scrutinized by other editors to ensure relevant policies and guidelines are being complied with.

Donations to Wikipedia by people like Kelleykahn are greatly appreciated since those donations help to keep things going, but donators don't get any preferential treatment and don't get articles written about them just for donating.

Finally, lots of people seem to think that having a Wikipedia article written about them is such a great thing, but there can be a downside to it as well as explained in Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Subjects of articles have pretty much zero editorial control over article content, which means that negative information about them can be added the article as long as it complies with relevant policies and guidelines, and that they (or anyone associated with them like family, friends, managers, etc.) will not really be able to directly edit the article because they have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Moreover, Wikipedia articles are only intended to reflect things written about the subject in independent reliable sources; they are not intended to be used to promote the subject in anyway or update the world about what they are doing like social media. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment your screed about unfairness, the core of the weakness of the draft is no references. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Your goal is to find independent;y written articles about Kelleykahn. The content in those articles can be used in the article. And that's all. Other information - true - cannot be added unless references can be found. Furthermore, what a person says about themselves on their website or in an interview does not count. Oh, and donating to Wikipedia is for a good cause, but the editors who do all this stuff at Teahouse and on articles are volunteers with no organization connection to Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Question about noting coverage of a Wikipedia entry on birthday cakes

Hello Teahouse,

Recently the Wikipedia entry of Australian Women's Weekly Children's Birthday Cake Book was mentioned in an ABC Radio National brief. What is the best way to acknowledge this - is it the talk page? I know it was only a brief mention in both the ABC RN page and the accompanying audio, but I thought there was a way to note media coverage of Wikipedia pages themselves?

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/pamela-clarke/10450914

Thank you for your time! SunnyBoi (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

SunnyBoi, You could add it here Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018. I also think there is a template for the talk page, but don't recall what it is called. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

SunnyBoi, You can also use the template {{press}} S Philbrick (Talk) 14:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Use that template, on the articles talkpage. It's better there than at "Press coverage", since it's not about WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you S Philbrick and Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I have placed the press template on the talk page, could you please let me know if I've done it correctly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Women%27s_Weekly_Children%27s_Birthday_Cake_Book Thanks for your advice and time! SunnyBoi (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

SunnyBoi, excellent! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

SunnyBoi, Looks good. S Philbrick (Talk) 13:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Where can I be more useful?

So far I've only made minor corrections, like when I notice a glaring grammar or spelling error, or a dead link in a reference, which is easy to copy-paste fix if I can find the new URL. This was all being done by me without registering. I finally decided to register an account and a message popped up to come to the Teahouse. So, here I am, and the only question I could think to ask was, is there any central place I can go to find things that actually need to be done? (hopefully things that I am capable of doing, but I guess I could always come back here and ask advice if I get stuck). Thanks Ewen Douglas (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ewen Douglas: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for your edits, every little bit helps. You might find looking at the Community Portal helpful. It has a Help Out section which describes various tasks that can be done. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Oakwood School, Funtington

Hello,

I am trying to update the Oakwood School page but for some reason when searching the page, it redirects to the page 'Funtington'. When I keep changing it so it directs to the School page, it reverts back. Why is this? I am putting up correct information from the School website and surely directing to the school page and not the village page is better?

Any help, i will be very grateful.

Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexheath1994 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alexheath1994. You can see why your edits are being reverted by looking at the history of the page, which is accessible here. The text you are trying to publish as an article is too promotional and does not establish the notability of the subject (on the latter, see WP:GOLDENRULE). Cordless Larry (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no existing Oakwood School, Oakwood Prep School or Oakwood Preparatory School article in Wikipedia. Whether a search should redirect to Funtington or Chichester is a separate question. I suppose you could attempt to create an Oakwood School article. Of greater importance, the text you have been repeatedly trying to add is a direct quote from the school's website. What the school says about itself does not belong in Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

[1] This is actually a footnote, but it works the same way. – Pretended leer {talk} 21:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

[2] Samaha, Joel (2012). Criminal Procedure. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

[I]

[1]