Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 964

Archive 960

←

Archive 962

Archive 963

Archive 964

Archive 965

Archive 966

→

Archive 970

why is Forbes not an acceptable citation source?

hi,

can you please tell me why the citation from forbes was removed? is forbes not considered a reliable enough source?

thank you in advance for explaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillieRichie (talk • contribs) 11:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@BillieRichie: Editor GermanJoe, who removed your contribution, left a note at the removal: “Forbes "contributor" fluff and mere interviews are not independent reliable sources.” Have you seen it? --CiaPan (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@BillieRichie: You might also want to take a look at WP:RSP#Forbes, especially the part about "Forbes.com contributors". Regards SoWhy 13:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello @BillieRichie:, you are always welcome to ask an editor for clarification about their reasoning, if an edit summary is not clear enough. To offer some more details: reliable sources should have some kind of editorial oversight. Forbes contributor articles, as opposed to Forbes staffer articles, have little to no editorial oversight. Another problematic aspect in this specific case: the article, written by a marketing professional, is almost entirely based on interviews and simply parrots PR statements from various involved businesspeople with no critical analysis or independent research of the presented claims. Due to these and similar flaws, many Forbes contributor articles are usually discouraged (although not entirely prohibited in specific cases). WP:RSP#Forbes is good guidance, but you should read the whole page and its advice in context when you have some time later. Hope this helps a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I had not seen any of those specific issues about Forbes. I am quite surprised, to say the least. I always thought Forbes was a respectable media outlet. I still don't know quite to make of this. Anyway, the citation is real and it's not fluff. In any case, when i have a citation that hopefully meets the wikipedia pages, i'll add that. thank you again for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillieRichie (talk • contribs) 16:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

may i join

Can I please join???— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole steinhoff1 (talk • contribs) 6:58 pm, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cole steinhoff1:Welcome to teahouse. You can ask any doubts regarding editing wikipedia in this page. Feel free to edit articles in good faith. You can add reliable information with sources. Best.--PATH SLOPU 14:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I see that you have already joined, but remember that additions to an article need to be supported with WP:Reliable sources. See WP:Referencing for beginners for details. Dbfirs 18:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

How to publish article?

How do you publish an article from a draft onto Wikipedia? I'm new and just wanted to know.

Wacarder09 (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wacarder09: I recommend you read Wikipedia:Your first article. Your draft is not ready to be published until it clearly shows why the subject is notable. There are a few reviews of the series - you just have to incorporate them as sources. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't find the link of the page that I created

Helo,

I need help. Has just created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunichi_Toki but why I can't find it on my internet search engine. Did something wrong with the page? I follow the instruction how to create a page and there was no problem on my previous page. please help me and thank you. Juliet6884 (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Juliet6884: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The article has not been formally reviewed by a New Page Patroller; until it is, it will not appear in internet search engines. Once it is marked as reviewed, it will take time for the search engines to index the page. You will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: Oh, Thank you! I'll update the page and make it more complete.

I don't read Japanese, so I can't be sure, but the references look like publicity releases rather than independent WP:Reliable sources. Perhaps you could check this before the article is reviewed? Dbfirs 18:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Publishing Article

Hey! I'm really sorry if this is a stupid question, but I just joined wikipedia and I really don't know a lot. I was just wondering about when the articles I make in my sandbox get published. If anyone could tell me that would be great. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayag224 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mayag224:Welcome to Teahouse. Feel free to ask any of your doubts on editing here. There is no problem for that. Normally , we can create an article in mainspace after searching it's name in search bar. But the better way for you ( since you created draft in sandbox) is adding a template {{subst:Submit}} in the top of your article that you prepared in the sandbox (I done it for you). By this an experienced user will review your article and publish it. Regards.--PATH SLOPU 16:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The draft would benefit from a couple more WP:Reliable sources before it is reviewed. Dbfirs 18:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Now too late! Dbfirs 19:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mayag224: The article has already been rejected as a draft: Draft:The Guy Who Didn't Like Musicals. Recreating it as a sandbox entry will not improve its chances of success. Your best bet is to take your sandbox content and merge the info into the rejected draft, and try to find sources that demonstrate notability. Please read WP:GNG. I'd also cull the overly long plot synopsis in the draft. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Change of Name from Dean Ambrose to Jon Moxley

I need to ask somebody experienced that there is need of changing the title name of Dean Ambrose page to Jon Moxley, because all the reliable sources like forbes, sbnation, wrestling inc, comicbookdotcom have updated using his name as Jon moxley. But wikipedia is still not updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FkinJonMoxley21 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I suggest a new page be made, because Dean Ambrose was his old character, so they are two different people and not related.--XTMontana (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

They are the same person, but there is a discussion going on at Talk:Dean Ambrose. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

How do I publish an article?

Hello, I have an article I am working on, how do I publish it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:XTMontana/sandbox/Canada#Introduction--XTMontana (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@XTMontana:Welcome to Teahouse. You can publish a page in draft by moving it to mainspace. For new users, it is better to add a template {{subst:Submit}} in the top of draft. By this an experienced user will review the draft and publish in Wikipedia. But your draft is about Canada which is already exists in Wikipedia. Please also think about that. Also try to link the pages in Wikipedia using [[ ]] markup. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 16:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, you must not copy content from another website because this is illegal under copyright law. Your draft has been deleted for this reason. Dbfirs 18:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: This account has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism. Interstellarity T 🌟 20:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if I'd looked at the editor's history (or his brother's), I wouldn't have tried to be helpful. Dbfirs 20:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

User Boxes

Can you tell me how to add user boxes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Affan7 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Your question was asked and answered at User talk:David Biddulph#Ask. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Hi Affan7 and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Userboxes gives some technical details, but it's OK to copy user boxes that you like from other editors' user pages. Dbfirs 19:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Affan7, I've just popped over to your userpage and sorted out your userbox problem. It needed the 'nowiki' elements removing. These allow our 'wikimarkup' (a bit like html) to be shown as text, rather than acted upon by your browser. But when you want that markup to actually do something, you must remove the nowiki bits either side of that code. I hope this makes sense, and that you're happy with what I've done. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox name

How do you change your sandbox name?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamerkillerz (talk • contribs) 22:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gamerkillerz: you can go to your sandbox and type anything you want following the "/" after your user name in the URL, and save it. But to launch an article into namespace, read Wikipedia:Your first article. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

(Un)paid Editors - Notifying someone on social media you've made an edit about them

Hi,

If I see an editor creating positive articles and edits regarding living persons they regularly communicate with on social media and then send them a link to the edits they've made what policy does that come under?

It follows the principles of a Paid Editor more than a COI but no money has changed hands

Mattevansc3 (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mattevansc3: I'd be careful about violating Wikipedia:Harassment, which is posting personal information here about someone else's off-Wiki activities. There's no indication that the situation you described is an example of COI or paid editing. I'd also be worried about violating the terms of your conditional unblock as you did with this edit [[1]], removing a sentence from the lede of a controversial article without first going to the talk page. The information was subsequently restored. Lastly, I'd read WP:BADSOCK, and if you've edited using different account names, we request that you post a disclosure on your user page with the other account name(s) you've edited under, per User talk:Mattevansc3. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@TimTempleton: I was being vague to ensure I wasn't in breach of harassment guidelines. The COI is based on them doing positive edits of individuals they converse with online to push a shared ideology without declaring their connections. I just wanted to know if on top of that them publicly announcing their edit and tagging in the subject of the edit made it more than a COI before I went to a functionary due to the evidence being off-Wiki. I only use the one account. Mattevansc3 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mattevansc3: Regardless of any off-line discussions, if someone is adding information without sources that pushes a point of view, that's WP:OR and can be quickly identified and deleted. If you see examples of this, you can challenge the additions and discuss on the talk page. If you see other editors adding unsourced info who are not engaging constructively on the article talk page, you can always start a thread at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If they are wrong, they will be warned and then possibly blocked. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

How to cite the same source multiple times under 1 reference

I've been wondering this for a little while. If I cite the same source multiple times using references it pops up under different numbers and just makes it messy. How do you make it so if I reference something multiple times it ends up under the same number in the reference box.

If that isn't clear enough, I will make an example.

If you reference the exact same thing twice using the same wording it is different.

How do I make these references the same number at the bottom of the page and right here-->

References

Thank you in advance CBatteries (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@CBatteries: I think the info you are looking for is in the named footnotes section. Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: that was indeed what I was looking for! Thank you very much CBatteries (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

How to keep a page from being deleted

I’m doing research on a subject where an author came up in the reading I’ve been doing and a research network Seminar I participated in. I decided to edit it for course assignment and it turns out it was originally submitted by the person that the article is about. I edited it and found sources to help make it correspond with the concerns listed on the page. I even had to explain I wasn’t the person who originally submitted it. I’d like to make sure the page isn’t deleted but not sure how so I can continue with my assignment and because it’s relevant to my research. Should I create a new page with my own words and let the other one be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennmorris1 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jennmorris1: The issue is notability. You may wish to make an offline copy of the article. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jennmorris1. If your academic work improves the encyclopedia, then that is fine for all concerned. But it is essential that your work here complies with our policies and guidelines. Please do your best to understand the most important of them. Notability is probably the most important and most widely accepted content guideline. Successful editors must develop a deep understanding of this guideline and how it is most commonly applied. In the end, it comes down to consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 I made my argument about why I thought the entry was notable, and provided more sources in the article to back that up. Maybe if I discussed in particular the content of her work/writing that I see and have seen others discuss that I think is notable? I totally get it’s by consensus but if other editors on Wikipedia have never heard of the entry and I have and it’s notable in my field, I’m trying to figure out how to convey this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennmorris1 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jennmorris1. Please try to sign your talk page posts because it makes it easier for others to see who posted what and when. If you're not sure how to sign a post, please take a look at Wikipedia:Signature for more specific information. Not signing a post might not be such a big deal here at the teahouse where everything tends to be neatly divided into separate sections, but it can help on other pages like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Miles McCarter where lots of editors may be posting and bascially the page itself is one big section. Anyway, I've added your signature above, but please try and remember to sign your posts yourself in the future.

Another good reason to sign posts is that notification templates like Template:u only work when a post is properly signed the first time around. I'll ping Cullen328 for you this time, but try to also keep this in mind when posting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Jennmorris1: if your objective is to prevent the page from being deleted, so that you can continue with your assignment, that's easy: move it to draft space, or encourage someone else to do so. If your objective is to have it accepted as an article, that will be more difficult, maybe impossible. You'll need to find and cite some sources that actually attest to the subject's notability; and you should also remove most or all of the worthless references that do not attest to notability, and seem to be there to act as a smokescreen to conceal the lack of good references. Maproom (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Maproom: The condition you used at the beginning of your reply: ‘if your objective is to prevent the page from being deleted’ can be understood as a suggestion that a work can be saved in a somewhat 'safer' areas of Wikipedia even if it doesn't fit requirements for articles (especially as opposed to ‘to have it accepted as an article’). It's worth noting. however, that such interpretation is wrong. The draft space is not a repository for arbitrary contents (because, generally, Wikipedia is not a STORAGE or a REPOSITORY). The draft space is for developing articles until they meet Wikipedia standards, but only within a limited timespan – Wikipedia:Drafts says after six months abandoned drafts become eligible for deletion, too. So moving to the Draft: is just a way to keep the work from being deleted until it becomes accepted as an article, not if it can't be accepted as an article. (Ping: Jennmorris1) --CiaPan (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Maproom: @CiaPan: so does that mean I can move it to draft to work on it or I should give up? I totally understand the arguments why it’s not notable, although I think that it’s somewhat subjective and a basis of consensus can be problematic (for example, underrepresented voices that might not have as much of an electronic footprint and is discussed in niche- I understand there’s a debate about what is niche - is discourse that can fall through the cracks). For example, how many people reviewing this article are female, disabled etc with a familiarity with the focus on rhetoric and composition and familiar with off-line discussions dealing with this subject? I understand that identity and familiarity doesn’t preclude or overwrite the standards of academic, but are considerations I’d like to point out, at least for food for thought about more general editing practices that aren’t limited to this particular article. Plus the bias against self-publishing as self-promotion can be problematic, although I can see if there’s not much or widespread electronic footprint saying it is more than self-promotion, then that doesn’t meet the standards of Wikipedia. From what I can see though, this standard is not used uniformly, but perhaps it is evolving from prior years—I saw in a discussion of deletion of another article that oversight has gotten more stringent now than years ago? Anyway, this has been a lesson of rhetorical discourse I’m willing to walk away from with a better understanding. Okay I’m going to try to sign this right now!!! Jennmorris1 (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)jennmorris1

For the curious: Melissa Miles McCarter is the article, and as of 3 June, at AfD. David notMD (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Thelma Mothershed-Wair

Hi there!

For a school project I chose to work on the Wiki page for Thelma Mothershed-Wair, and I have not heard anything (email or otherwise) on the status of my draft. For a while, the Wiki page showed my changes, but after returning to the page it has gone back to the way it looked before I had added anything.

I was told to contact Wiki to find out the status- Please help!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahacard (talk • contribs) 02:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

First, it is not your draft, it is an existing article which you have been editing. Second, editors do not get notified about their edits. Third, at the article, if you click on View history on the top menu it shows that you made 14 edits, and then all were reverted to bring the article back to a version before you started. The reason was not that the content you added was not true, but that you did not properly create the references in support of that content. See Help:Referencing for beginners. P.S. All of the content you added is also at View history, so not lost. If you can learn how to create references, you can work on adding some of it back. David notMD (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

wikipedia editors keep deleting legitimate content

I am editing a page for a body freedom activist Gypsy Taub. I want to add information about her current charity work that she does in Mexico and wikipedia keeps deleting it right away. Even when I gave a reference to a legitimate news publication they deleted it and threatened to block me for "defamatory content"

Here is what I am trying to add:

She currently runs a psychedelic clinic and rehab for street kids in Mexico.

Here is the source of information:

https://sfbay.ca/2018/09/30/buck-naked-activists-march-for-psychedelics-body-freedom/

How do I get around wikipedia editors deleting my information? Do I need to contact someone higher up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesThomas888 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

You added it once and it was deleted once. Reason is that the reference is to an interview with Taub. What people say about themselves is not considered a reliable source. Also, you deleted a referenced quotation and a referenced paragraph without any explanation. The subsequent editor reverted all that in addition to deleting the psych clinic statement and ref. David notMD (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi JamesThomas888. Just to add to what David notMD posted above, there aren't really any higher ups when it comes to editing; in other words, there's no central editorial board which reviews every edit made to an article. Some editor, such as administrators, maybe be able to do certain things to help keep Wikipedia running smoothly, but all editors are basically expected to (1) be WP:HERE and (2) adhere to WP:5PILLARS when they edit. Wikipedia wants editors to be BOLD in trying to improve articles, but at the same time it wants editors to REVERT edits which they think do not comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sometimes this leads to disagreement among editor s,; and when that happens they are going are going to be expected to resolve their disagreement through DISCUSSION.

Basically, someone is Bold and makes a change to the article. someone then comes along and feel that the change is not an improvement or not in accordance with some relevant policy or guideline; so, they Revert the change either completely or partially. At that point, the original edit is considered to be contentious and it is them up to the first editor (the BOLD person) to Discuss on the article's talk page to see if some kind of consensus can be reached about the disputed content. This is a bit of an oversimplication perhaps since things may be more complicated or involve some kind of vandalism or other major policy or guideline violation, but basically WP:BRD is pretty much how articles are maintained and improved over time.

What you need to do now is start a discussion at Talk:Gypsy Taub and try to establish a consensus in favor of the changes you want to make. Looking at the page history of Gypsy Taub though, it looks as if one of the edit summaries you left been revision deleted by an administrator or oversighter. This kind of thing only happens whenever what was posted is a serious violation or a major policy or guideline. Since I'm not an administrator, I can't check to see what it was that you wrote, but I strongly advise you against trying to post the same thing anywhere on Wikipedia again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Need help

Is there anyone who can help me with my Wikipedia Article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVMG2019 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@MVMG2019: Welcome to he teahouse. Are you referring to this article (draft): M.A.C. (rapper)? OkayKenG (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes I am. Thanks

Hi @MVMG2019:. I did some research about your subject but I cannot find any news article or published story about him. If you have access to reliable third party sources, perhaps you could list them here. Maybe we can take a look if you need help with adding content. It would also establish notability. Regards, Darwin Naz (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

There are no news articles or published story about him just yet but there will be with in the next month. What about published Songs does that not count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1A10:E12B:CCE6:93C4:D005:945D (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The best place, MVMG2019, for your published songs is not a general Encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Social media, including Facebook, exist for the purpose of promotion which you seek. Would you expect to be in Encyclopedia Brittanica? While better-known rappers may have articles here written about them, it is because they are WP:Notable. You may be someday, but not quite yet.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi!, How to de-pixelate a picture?

It's this one [2], it's large and awesome, I removed marks and stains but if you look closer, there are like little points, pixelation on it, English is not my first language, please tell me if something is not got across. Very very kind regards. --LLcentury (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• @LLcentury: Those little points do not look like pixels to me (if they were, they would all have the same size and square shapes), but rather like film grain artifacts of the original 1912 photograph.

I do not know how to clean up such artifacts, but your best try is to ask the fine folks at the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tigraan:, thanks a lot! --LLcentury (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I really wouldn't bother trying to remove the grains. The picture is over 100 years old and used the technology of the time; no-one expects it to be 21st century perfect. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield and LLcentury: Well, that kind of cleanup is useful, if not top-notch priority. (As long as it is not too extreme: the line between technical cleanup and photo manipulation is blurry.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Need Information.

Respected Sir/Ma'am, Good evening. I am Kirtikumar an independent cybersecurity researcher from Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. I have edited the article:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristoffer_von_Hassel I am adding my achievements which show that I am the youngest child in Microsoft hall of fame. Bookofachievers:-https://bookofachievers.com/articles/meet-the-youngest-cybersecurity-researcher-on-microsoft-fame-page 1st World Record:-http://www.worldrecordsindia.com/2018/07/youngest-cyber-security-researcher/ 2nd World Record:- http://onlineworldrecords.com/youngest-cyber-security-researcher/ Cyber Security Awards:- http://cybersecurityawards.com/2018-winners Security Serious Awards:- https://www.securityserious.com/unsung-heroes-awards/ Sony(Star badge for multiple reports and youngest child among all the researchers):- https://secure.sony.net/hallofthanks Transloadit(1st Rank among 129 researchers of the World):- https://transloadit.com/security/ Apple( Youngest Child to be listed on Apple's Hall of fame):- https://support.apple.com/zh-mo/HT201536 Microsoft( Youngest child to get listed on their fame page consecutively 2times):- https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/msrc/researcher-acknowledgments-online-services-archive Infovys:- https://infovys.com/acknowledgement_2018.html

Please check it and let me know. Looking forward to your positive reply. Have a nice day!

Kind Regards, Kirti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelozappia96 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Angelozappia96. You don't seem to have edited the article, but you have posted a request on its talk page, which is the best approach if you are indeed the subject of the article. You'll see that someone has replied to your request, asking for more information. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

My apologies - re-reading the above and CiaPan's comments below, it is clear that you are not claiming to be the subject of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Angelozappia96: I have reverted changes in the article Kristoffer von Hassel you made here: Special:Diff/900380598, because you have replaced the article with the contents apparently about another person. If you'd like to create a new article about another person please kindly see the Wikipedia:Your first article tutorial. --CiaPan (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Please also see – and follow – the requirements of WP:Verifiability policy, as well as rules about WP:Citing sources. --CiaPan (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi Everyone, hope everyone is doing good.

i would like to know if there is a away to claim a certain page / profile on wikipedia as information keeps changing just wonderingif there is away i could stop that from happening

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat1991 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nat1991. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project where anyone from anywhere in the world can edit a page at anytime; so, some pages might always be changing. Wikipedia articles aren't owned by anyone in particular for this reason. In some cases, an administrator may decide to protect a page to keep it stable to for some period of time, but this is usually only done when there's been some constant disruptive editing or serious violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines happening. Page protection can be requested here, but there needs to be a really good reason such a request to be accepted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Nat1991 and welcome to the Teahouse. Pages belong to the Wikipedia community. No individual can claim ownership or editing rights. This is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Page protection is granted only in cases of repeated vandalism, and the edits at Arjun (singer) look like a content dispute, not vandalism, so they should be discussed on the talk page of the article. Dbfirs 05:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Thanks, guys for the info I'm still very new to doing editing, etc for Wikipedia and I'm still getting the hang of it. I'm also doing the page editing for Mr. Arjun, I am an employee. someone had also requested to delete the new image that I had uploaded and the editing of information I have put also has been deleted could someone please be kind enough to advise me on what to do?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat1991 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

You might benefit from trying WP:The Wikipedia Adventure. Please don't overlink articles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking for guidance. Your comment suggests that you might have a WP:Conflict of interest, and possibly WP:Paid status which must be declared. Wikipedia does not have "profiles" or pages "for" individuals, but only articles about subjects. The subject does not own the article. Dbfirs 06:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK Nat1991. Before you edit Arjun (singer), you need to carefully read through Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Arjun doesn't own the Wikipedia article written about him and neither he nor anyone working for him has any editorial control over what's written in the article. In fact, he and anyone associated with him are considered to have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with respect to anything written about him anywhere on Wikipedia. Moreover, you as his employee are not only considered to a conflict of interest, but also a finanical conflict of interest. So, before you make any further edits to that article or any content about Arjun, you would be wise to familiarize yourself with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines related to both conflict of interest editing and paid editing. I will add a template to your user talk page that contain links to the pages you need to take a look at.

As for the image file, you uploaded that to Wikimedia Commons which is technically a separate project. The file is being discussed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arjun18.jpg if you want to know why the file was nominated from deletion. Before commenting in that discusison though you might want to read c:Commons:Licensing and c:Commons:OTRS for some general information since I think you'll find it helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks alot for the info !!! much appreciated :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat1991 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Nat1991. Please comply immediately with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which is mandatory. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Message on your Talk page explains how to declare paid on your user page. As a paid editor, you are supposed to suggest specific article changes at the article's Talk page (with references). Non-involved editors will decide to change the article accordingly or not. David notMD (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

How do I upload my profile?

I actually want to know how I can publish autobiographies up on Wikipedia so that if searched can be seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbemileke Jeremiah (talk • contribs) 11:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Gbemileke Jeremiah: and welcome to the Teahouse. The short response to your question is: you can't, or at least shouldn't. Autobiographies are strongly discouraged, and you should also be aware that an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Read the information I just linked to, and please don't hesitate to ask further questions if anything is unclear! Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Custom Twinkle revert message?

Is this possible? I sometimes see edit summaries like "Reverted 1 edit identified as vandalism by X (TW)", but when I revert vandalism with the tool my edit summaries are either "Reverted X edit(s) by X (TW)" or "Reverted edits by X (TW)". Is there a way to get an edit summary like the very former example? Thanks. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 12:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where/if you can customise that in Twinkle, but you may be able to. The summaries you saw may have been from another tool, such as Huggle. The main reason for my reply, though, was to say this: If you do find a way to include "vandalism" in a semi-automatic edit-summary you need to make absolutely sure that every edit you apply that summary to is vandalism as described at WP:VAND, and not something else (i.e. anything listed at WP:NOTVAND) because labelling non-vandalistic edits as vandalism is not good, against policy, and a 100% dead-set guaranteed way to land yourself in a heap of trouble. I don't recommend the course of action you are considering for that reason, unless you are completely certain that every edit you revert that way will be indisputable vandalism. If you use the Twinkle options to AGF revert, or just ordinary Twinkle revert, you can type your own summary, and that's what I strongly recommend. It's a lot safer and more friendly to type your own summaries, and doesn't take long - plus it forces you to be constantly aware of what you are doing. If you want something that gives the user a link to explain vandalism then the warning templates twinkle lets you select for their talk page achieves that in a clearer way which they are more likely to see. Sorry if that felt like a lecture - you probably wish you never asked now... -- Begoon 13:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't edit because my schools IP is blocked, even when I'm logged in

When I tried to edit I got a message saying the IP was blocked even though at the time I was logged in to my account. I tried logging out and logging back in but it didn't change anything. I'm not sure if this is what's supposed to happen and I just am unaware of the policy (I'm new to Wikipedia as well). Thanks for all the help. GoodKeming (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

GoodKeming, Wikipedia:IP block exemption is a guide to getting past this problem. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are obviously an editor in good standing, so there should be no problem granting the exemption. There must have been a lot of vandalism from others at your school. Dbfirs 19:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It is exceptionally rare for a school to be blocked for logged-in users. I would say two things before you take the advice above. First, try again. Unless it happens persistently or regularly (or at least more than once), you might not qualify for block exemption. Second, take a note of the block message and importantly, the IP address and other details contained in the block message. If you need to request a block exemption (or for the block to be re-examined), this will be most useful. If you need a shortcut through the process after following this advice, feel free to drop me an email. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the advice, I decided to send in a request for an exemption and wait for a response GoodKeming (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Creating a page?

Hello Wikipedia, my name is ToastMalonesdad and I am fairly new to the whole editing aspect of Wikipedia and have lots of ideas for pages to be created about certain creator or people and I am wondering if there is a way to create a page for these or if that ability is locked off to me as I am new to the scene.

Thank you, ToastMalonesdasd — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToastMalonesDad (talk • contribs) 14:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, ToastMalonesDad, and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. Anybody may create new articles, but very new editors can't do so directly. Writing articles (I strongly recommend you think of this phrase rather than "creating pages") is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, and I always advise new users to spend a few weeks or months editing and improving existing articles before they try it. (We have millions of articles that would benefit from this!). But when you want to try it, please study Your first article, which among other things tells you how to use the articles for creation process, that even new editors have permission to use. --ColinFine (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

ps: I've put some links on your user talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Article not accepted

We have found few more references to add onto the article Draft:Aaruush. Before we add them, we wanted to know, what more can be done, so that the article will get accepted. We also have pictures to add onto the page for each event, if necessary. Please suggest us further changes, so that we will act onto it immediately. Thank You!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaprcsi (talk • contribs) 11:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Qaprcsi: many of the sections in the article are unsupported by references. If you can't find reliable inependent sources to support what it says in such sections, they should be deleted. Also, blatantly promotional language like "nourished with inspired speeches" is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article. Maproom (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

How does an article get considered for deletion?

The article Part Time looks like an advertisement for this band (artist?) There's no references except for AllMusic.com. Is this an article that should be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.125.177.124 (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

You can ask someone to nominate that article for deletion by going to Wikipedia talk:AFD to see what the community thinks. Personally, I think the article should be deleted. Interstellarity T 🌟 16:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

thanks, I went and did that. I also discovered the articles for deletion page. Do I have to register an account to nominate an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.125.177.124 (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

To actually nominate the article for deletion, you need to register an account which you much wait until you are autoconfirmed to do. Once you are autoconfirmed, you can use a tool called Twinkle to nominate the article. Otherwise, you can ask someone to nominate an article for deletion for you where you have just made it. Interstellarity T 🌟 17:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

thanks, I registered and I will check out the tool called Twinkle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I dislike unsourced content (talk • contribs) 17:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rockypedia Interstellarity T 🌟 18:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

How to exchange to different article title

There are two articles Sujinphaa and Suhung. How to swap their place, actually their contents are correct but titles are wrong. Muddy Rhino (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Muddy Rhino: Please discuss on the article's talk pages. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Move a page for me?

I'm a social media manager and I have a client that has their own Wiki page. He's rebranding and needs a page moved to suit the new name. I need an auto-confirmed account to make the change. I created an account and have made more than 10 changes on certain pages. I need to be active for more than 4 days to become an auto-confirmed account correct?

If not, could someone do me that favor of moving a page?

Can you link the page you would like moved? Interstellarity T 🌟 16:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Adam Zwig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardof95 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, they're rebranding and have the rebranding explanation in the page itself but I'd like to move the page from Adam Zwig to Dr. Zwig. We still want the first summary to say Dr. Adam Zwig for SEO purposes. Eduardof95

Eduardof95, we do not move pages for "SEO purposes", and do not use titles like "Dr." in page titles. (Or in pages themselves beyond first mention; I see that needs to be corrected in that page as well and will do so). So, I'm afraid we'll be unable to work with that request. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Under "unintended consequences," the article has been reduced by 1/3 and has now been nominated for deletion. Follow the article for deletion tag at the top of the page to leave a comment. David notMD (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

David notMD and TheAwesomeHwyh Since I have cleared the misunderstanding regarding my explanation regarding me as their social media manager in the AdD page, is it possible you can remove the flag in the article that labels the article as being "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" ? Eduardof95

Kenny Anderson Showcase

Hello, my name is Ian Cunningham. Kenny Anderson and I brought the Kenny Anderson Basketball Showcase to Twinsburg Ohio for the 1st annual showcase. We had young men coming from several different States and Canada competing for a opportunity to continue education and play basketball with a FREE showcase. We had college coaches in attendance and several young men have had meetings with local college coaches. Kenny is so proud of the event and asked to have it updated on his page. There are several different sites to prove that it was a success. WKYC channel 3, Hoop Heads podcast, and social media Instagram and Twitter. Please allow this to be added. We are making a difference in the lives of young men in a powerful manner.

Kind regards Ian Cunningham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iancle (talk • contribs) 16:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Iancle: Unfortunately I can't find any media coverage of the Showcase. Without proper coverage, we can't add the info you gave us as it's not verifiable. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious? Just curious why didn't you watch the WKYC news report? Why didn't you listen to the podcast? Why didn't you look at his social media posts? #kennyandersonshowcase posts. I looked at Charles Barkley and his page isn't all verified. Kenny Anderson is doing something powerful! You should be proud to spread that to people! We had multiple kids get looked at by college coaches. Please add to his page.

Kind regards Ian Cunningham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iancle (talk • contribs) 18:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad this event does good in the world, but to be frank Wikipedia has no interest in spreading the word about good works, see WP:NOBLE and WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects. Social media postings are not independent sources. It is true that other articles may not be fully sourced either, that is the nature of a volunteer project like this, see WP:OSE. It does not mean your inappropriate content can be permitted too. It must be properly sourced. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Existing article is Kenny Anderson (basketball). Iancle has added Showcase content three times and has been deleted three times as not having valid references. A discussion has been started at the article's Talk page. Iancle also has an unresolved conflict of interest issue. David notMD (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The way to 'sign' a comment is to type four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Iancle: please post any links to reliable news coverage of the event and I will review it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Exercise Tiger (1944)

Much of your current entry on Exercise Tiger is factually wrong, and too much of it is now about the exercise itself but about comparatively trivial related matters. I am the author of two books about Tiger, "Channel Firing" (UK, 1989, published in the US in 1990 as "Exercise Tiger", and "The Cover Plan Conspiracy: the British and Exercise Tiger, 1944" (kindle e-book, 2017). I think I can claim to know more about Tiger than anyone on either side of the Atlantic, and it really bugs me to see false information about it published in Wikipedia. I am therefore trying to emend the current entry. My problem is twofold. 1) I have no experience whatever in editing a Wikipedia entry, and I am doing my best to learn as I go along, 2) "The Cover Plan Conspiracy", which contains a great deal of new information, is a Kindle e-book and, as you will know, the e-book format is not friendly to extensive footnotes or endnotes (if only because of the obtrusive hyperlinks). Nor does an e-book allow me to refer to page-numbers. So in citing a source that the reader can verify for him or herself I am forced to refer only to the book itself.

There is perhaps an additional problem in that "The Cover Plan Conspiracy", which is closely argued, has some pretty contentious things to say. Not to mention, of course, the tendency to look down on non-fiction e-books as likely to be the work of deluded single-issue fanatics (otherwise they would have sought out and found "real" publishers, wouldn't they?)

I would appreciate your guidance on these issues.

Nigel Lewis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel S. Lewis (talk • contribs) 08:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Nigel S. Lewis: OK, that's a lot in one post. Let's try to take things in order.

First of all, per Wikipedia:Expert editors, none cares who you are, as long as you make useful edits referenced to reliable sources. "I know this because I have a PhD in the topic" has less weight than even a mediocre source. The reason is twofold: first, we have no way to check the claimed competency of an editor in a given topic, and second, we want readers to be able to check sources by themselves rather than say "trust that User:RandomGuyOnWikipedia who edited the page got it right". Of course, being an expert in a given topic still helps to edit that topic, but within Wikipedia's guidelines, so sources are key.

Second: if I understand correctly, The Cover Plan... is a self-published book (being an e-book rather than paperback is irrelevant). That means essentially there has been no editorial oversight from a reputable editor, and it cannot be considered a reliable secondary source, but rather a self-published source. The problem is not so much that non-fiction e-books as likely to be the work of deluded single-issue fanatics but that there is no reputation for fact-checking to rely on, and even a competent researcher might make mistakes if not checked carefully. On the other hand, Channel Firing seems to have been published by Penguin Books, a reputable publisher, which we expect (rightly or wrongly) to have a decent fact-checking process in place before publication; it can be used as a source, but beware of not using Wikipedia as a means of promotion for your book.

Third: I am not sure I understand your problem with reference formatting (the e-book format is not friendly to extensive footnotes or endnotes - well, maybe, but we are talking about references in Wikipedia, right?) Can you clarify what issues you encountered? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Nigel S. Lewis. Just adding to what Tigraan has said above, the advice in Wikipedia:Expert editors makes it clear that we really do welcome the input of subject experts, and it also points out the need to follow the norms of editing Wikipedia - namely that no editor, no matter how much they know, may add statements that are not supported by reliable, published sources ('reliable' being defined by Wikipedia, not to suggest you or anyone else is an unreliable person). Now, I know nothing of the topic you are interested in, but I am currently mentoring a retired US geology professor who has worked at the cutting edge of underwater geological science. Yesterday, he asked me for guidance in how to set about correcting and updating a fundamental page we have on Mid-ocean ridges. Had he come to me 'out of the blue' I would have warned him not to dive in and make major changed to Wikipedia without first spending time understanding how things work around here, and how we collaborate together. But, luckily, we've been working together for over a year now (you've only been editing for two days), and he himself still recognises the problem of trying to make a major rewrite to an existing article that both he, and a fellow world-expert professor he works with, both feel is fundamentally flawed. I thought you might be interested to read the advice I have just given him as to how he might set about working to make signficant changes to that aricle for the benefit of Wikipedia users. You can read his question, and my initial answer here, on his talk page. I'm not sure if you'll find it all helpful, but the key thing is to bring in other editors and explain on the article's talk page clearly and simply what is a) wrong, and b) what changes you would like to make, and then gaining agreement on the direction of travel before setting out to implement those improvements, based on validly published resources and not original research, of course. (I'm afraid I can't offer to adopt/mentor you for the task you want to do, but I do wish you luck. The key to success here is collaboration with other editors, and learning to walk before trying to run.) Regards from the UK in this special, 75th anniversary week. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the previous version of the article, as per the discussions. Done correctly and well referenced, I'm sure we can get some (if not all) of your material back onto the page. Drop me a message on my talk page if you need help, however I'm not very knowledgeable in this area so I can't do too much. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Willbb234 - I now have a document prepared and read to send to you as e-mail detailing and analysing factual errors in the Wikipedia entry on Exercise Tiger. Problem is, I have no idea how to go about sending it to you as an e-mail. Please advise? Winterreisexly (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Questions

So can y’all check my article on pastries i thinks it’s good but can y’all check it’s thanks s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mads22333 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mads22333: It is clear with the short sample of your editing history including this [[3]] that you are WP:NOTHERE. If you persist in disruptive editing, you will be blocked. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)