Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

WP teahouse logo.png

Most recent archives
705  706  707  708  709  710  711  712  713  714
715  716  717  718  719  720  721  722  723  724


How do i address what seems to be a senior contributor taking a personal affront to contributions and comments?[edit]

Enough. The Teahouse is not ANI!

http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheOldJacobite seems to takr personal offense at every contribution and question i make. How do I address this at a higher level of WP?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears that of all the irrelevant stuff that appears on the talk pages and articles of WP that what i contribute seems to have all the more importance to be erased from the record? http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hanna_(film)&action=history2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello anon. From the looks of things, your comments do appear to be ostensibly on topic, and per our guidance on editing others' comments, should generally not be edited or removed by others. I have restored them, and User:TheOldJacobite would be well advised to not remove comments that are not obvious vandalism, and if necessary, that it's usually better to hat off topic discussion, but most of the time better to leave well enough alone. GMGtalk 01:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Not to prolong the issue, but this contributor also found it necessary on two other articles: http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/Talk:The_Talented_Mr._Ripley_(film) and http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/Talk:Saving_Private_Ryan .2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted in Talk:Saving Private Ryan and notified User:TheOldJacobite not to repeat that kind of behavior. Sam Sailor 02:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Let us hope that regardless how long this behavior may have been going on that there is a change. A spirit of cooperation is not encouraged by attempting to shut down another contributor and certainly not being erased from the record. Let me suggest that it also be emphasized that reverts, even by senior contributors of WP, are not of and unto themselves justification for those edits. That unless a proper justification is provided there is absolutely nothing to assist in understanding just what is needed to edit. And that edit justifications reflect the truths instead of aspirations. I am not here to power play otherwise i could have shined on all concerned long ago. If I do not have at least the talk page to air concerns then just where is it suppose to be the proper place for such fundamental activity? Like I said, I hope there is a change. Thank you all for your attention to this matter.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Please indicate how those comments were relevant to improving the article, which is the purpose of the talk page, not idle chatter about the plot. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@TheOldJacobite: On the face of it, the comment is a direct suggestion for a change to the plot section. How you seem to think it is "idle chatter" is at best confusing. GMGtalk 03:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be confused and i can understand the inability. When someone wants to "win" a situation the attempt to discredit by characterizing something as irrelevant sparks of the point of the contrary participant having nothing better to explain. In time there will be changes. Why? Because some things becomes less relevant and the emotionalism that may be involved in plot content may change. As said in my explanations, the articles are not just for those that have seen the films and to serve only those that have is not in the best interest of WP. There is much to be explained by one's weltanschauung. The talk page is for discussion. If others feel so compelled to post something contrary then all the best for the discussion. Your views are well documented by the actions that have taken place and the resulting reprimand. If the plot is incorrect or misleads then there is something amiss. WP is not written in stone, especially for those articles rated "star".2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Before this goes on much further, I attempted to clarify the points at hand by editing. They were repeated reverted sometimes without justification. The only recourse I had was to open up the discussion on the talk page, where such deliberations are, according to WP editing policy, suitable. Instead of letting the issue progress if it had any tractions, it was the intent to shut down the discussion by altering the record and erasing the action. That is not the purpose of the talk page; we all know that. Yet, that is what was the course at hand. A reprimand has been issued because of that action. So regardless as to the merits of the questions about the plot statements in question, the point of the talk page is for it to play its part in the process of consensus. You were denying that the process play itself through and going against the fundamental principle of WP--cooperation. Anyways, when was a clarification an expansion? If something is misleading then just how does that serve the purpose of WP. But I digress.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately,---The Old JacobiteThe '45 has began his actions with my edit to http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/Amistad_(film) that include material fact corrections. This time he says that I clearly do not understand WP Guidelines. A review of his edits are filled with reverts. Should he have such a right to unilaterally determine that what anyone suggests for the plot be reverted continually on such blanket statements that something does not improve a current plot? Like I said, some of these edits I proposed correct facts.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Another editor reverted the contribution without justification and I asked on their talk page why. The editor eventually said that I did not site anything. I was not aware that a plot needed citations if the documentation is the film? At question is: the number of Africans imprisoned: The president said 54; they are feed mush not food that would produce crumbs; There were also Tenme in the group which is found by understanding the African languages used in the film; and the name of the ship should be translated just as we translate foriegn language films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This issue has now moved on to the requirement that I am required to provide citations in order to change erroneous statements in at least Amistad although a review of film plots in WP will show that they virtually are not required and used when silent films are thought to not exist any longer. The Amistad is not a silent and lost film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9143:7000:2CF0:1BBB:E1E3:52EE (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that there seems to be a pattern of controversal reverting by the person in this matter: http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive1202605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive1202605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB62605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Correction: http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive120&action=edit&section=23 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

about editing wiki pages[edit]

once you edit something, and it may not be correct.. will a helpful source come back and edit it properly? Kylam2002 (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kylam2002: - If you edit something which is factually incorrect, and do not provide references from reliable sources to support your edit, it will more than likely be reverted by another user. If you edited something which you know is incorrect, this is an unconstructive edit and possibly vandalism, and you should remove the edit yourself manually. However, if it is an accidental error, fear not, as another editor will likely fix it and reference with a helpful source. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
They were probably asking about this edit. It has been reverted and they have been warned. ~ GB fan 19:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@GB fan: thanks. That is a very weird edit, in that it is clearly detrimental to article quality, but not the extreme and overt vandalism which we so often see on en.wiki. Anyhow, thanks for handling that, and my notes regarding the original question stand. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Try making an edit to expose any Islamic taqiyya, and watch how quickly the taqiyya is reapplied to obfuscate the clarification. RC Silk (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Why not, dear Kylam2002 ! If you suddenly develop a little mistake in any edit. That will be resolved by other users. But before doing any edit. Make sure you have enough knowledge about that. Have a nice day. Abirlal Mukhopadhyay (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

How do I (1) upload a photo and (2) makes reference links[edit]

Hello, joined today and wish to add a photo, a further description and a couple of book references to a Grevillea reference already here on Wikipedia. - I have read the instructions and tried and go totally confused. - I have read the questions and answers below and got totally confused. - What is the picture library and where do I find that which someone mentioned in an answer below - can I upload a photo directly to the article? - What size picture is accepted? Thank you Kalaryder (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kalaryder welcome to our friendly Teahouse. It's great to see someone wanting to improve botanical articles, though you have chosen two quite hard tasks on your first day of editing. Maybe take one step at a time and do some minor rewording or grammar enhancement to get a feel of the tool wouldn't be a bad idea. First of all, have you already found the photo on Wikimedia Commons that you want to insert, or is it a new photograph which you own the rights to that you want to upload?  If you can answer that one, we'll know the best advice to then give you. Here is the category of images for the taxon. There's a search bar at the top right of the page.
Meanwhile, may I suggest you read this advice sheet which should assist you: Help:Referencing for beginners. In essence, either of our editing tools has a "cite" template which you find by looking for the "cite" button. You'll then see a template with fields which you fill in for title, author, date, publisher, etc. Don't worry if you make a mistake when editing. So long as you realise it, you can quickly go to the View History tab, look for your last edit at the top, and click "undo". That'll return the article to how it was before you tried to work on it. We all make mistakes from time to time, so it's a nice option to be able to fall back on. Nobody can break Wikipedia like that! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The above answer is better than a canned reply, but I will still give the canned reply with barebones instructions for image upload:
Symbol move vote.svg To use an image on Wikipedia, follow these steps:
  1. Ascertain carefully the copyright status of the image. If in doubt, ask. As a rule of thumb, images that you did not take yourself are almost always under copyright, and images that you took can be released under a free license.
  2. If the image is in the public domain, or under a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons' license requirements, or if you hold the copyrights and are willing to release the image under such a license, upload it on Wikimedia Commons using the Upload Wizard.
  3. If the image is neither public domain nor available under a free license, check whether it satisfies all non-free content criteria. In particular, photographs of living people almost never qualify. If it does not, it cannot be used on Wikipedia; do not upload it. If it does, upload it on Wikipedia (not on Wikimedia Commons).
  4. Once the image has been uploaded to the Wikimedia Foundation's servers (either to Commons or Wikipedia), follow the steps in the picture tutorial to place the image in an article.
TigraanClick here to contact me 14:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi and thank you

the photos I intend to use will all be my own. I spend a lot of time photographing wildflowers in Western Australia. No the flower I intend to use is not showing beside the article I wish to add it too. Yes willing to release it - thank you I will add to the Upload Wizard.

I will struggle through the reading again for referencing - it's a pity I need to do that as I can describe the plants much better through my personal viewing of them. Can I describe the plants such a way without having find someone else's description and paraphrasing? Thanks Kalaryder (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kalaryder: My apologies for the delay in replying - I've been busy elsewhere and because your reply didn't include my username, I received no automatic notification of your response. No, definitely do not use your own experience to describe a plant! Just as you can't write your own opinions about a person, you must equally base your description of a plant on a published source (a citation). We would get in absolutely dire mess if editors just described a taxon by what they personally knew of a plant from within one habitat in just one part of the world. That said, many botanical descriptions can be very technical and there's nothing to prevent you simplifying it considerably. (cleistogamous->self-pollinating; hirsute lamellae-> hairy leaves etc.) In fact this is often very helpful, as botanical descriptions can be hard for most people to interpret, and this can be the real value of a Wikipedia plant article, especially if you do add your own photos to help tell that story. If you'd care to let me know which article you want to start working on, I'll keep an eye on it for you and help you out in any way I can. You've only ever made two edits to the Teahouse, so it's impossible to know which of the dozens of Grevilleas you might want to work on. Can I also request that you only upload photos where you are totally, 100%, absolutely confident of the correct identification of the species concerned. Wikipedia is fixated on reliable sources for citations, but no-one seems to care much about addressing incompetently labelled images on Commons. Please don't add to that problem. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia newbie - need your opinion on the article[edit]

Hello, dear Wikipedia community!

I'm a newbie here and I have never wrote any articles on Wikipedia, so I need your opinion on the article I'm working on. I'll really appreciate any advice you can give. I try to stick to the rules, but there's still a chance that I've missed something important while editing the article.

Here's a link on the draft: http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/Draft:ESforce

Much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaKR (talkcontribs) 14:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

According to the article, ESforce is a holding company, now owned and controlled by a bigger company. So it's not an independent business, and it doesn't actually do anything, it just owns other business. It sounds like something of interest only to accountants. Maproom (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Maproom, thank you for your comment! According to the documents, ESforce is still an independent business, which operates with subsidiaries (it's a common practice in Russia). So I'm not quite sure that writing the opposite will correspond to reality. But if this is important, I can remove the mention of the holding's independence from the article. MariaKR (talk • 08:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello and welcome. I haven't fully examined all the sources, but they seem to be press-release type announcements of routine business transactions, which the notability guidelines for organizations at WP:ORG specifically state are not acceptable to establish notability. What is needed is in depth coverage of this company in independent reliable sources, which does not include press releases or routine business announcements. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, 331dot, and thank you for a warm welcome! I've tried to search more sources, but (sadly) there seems to be not enough publications about this holding on English. There're plenty of russian sources with a great variety of opinions, but I can't add them to the english Wikipedia (according to the rules). So, I tried to use materials from popular and non-promotional media. MariaKR (talk • 08:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi MariaKR, sources don't need to be in English. As long as they are reliable and independent of the subject they can be in pretty much any language. ϢereSpielChequers 21:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Ϣere, for your advice! It makes everything less complicated for me! All the best, MariaKR (talk • 08:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for all your comments and advices, they helped me a lot. I'm looking forward for your feedback! Should I change anything? Or everything is okay this time? Draft link (updated version): http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/Draft:ESforce MariaKR (talk • 10:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry Accusation[edit]

Extended misunderstanding, should now be considered resolved

What can be done about an accusation that I am a sock puppet. Someone is accusing me of being a sock puppet because my IP address changes when I go onto the site yet they are all with the same beingging sets of numbers. I thought the issue of sock puppetry had been resolved long before and yet here goes another accusation of sock puppetry. The purson that is accusing me is insistent that an IP address would not show up if I logged into WP with a user name. I have no registered user name therefore do not have an registered account. Yet this person after explanation after explanation goes back to saying that I am not addressing his statement because I have noit logged onto a registered username account. What can be done.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The accuser is: http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/User_talk:Anmccaff#Amistade2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
You can solve the problem by creating an account, though there is no obligation to do so. IP addresses change for some users, so there is no way to track which edits are yours if you don't use an account. Dbfirs 19:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes I know that but it seems every time there is a conflict sock puppetry comes up. I will continue to use my IP address whatever it is that is issued by the system.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The problem was the conflict. It is obvious to me which IP addresses are assigned to you by Time Warner in Los Angeles, and you have not tried to hide your change of IP address, so I cannot see any justification for accusations of sock puppetry unless you also edit under an account name. Where there is disagreement over edits, the best policy is to discuss the changes on the talk page of the article. Dbfirs 20:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I have noted my concerns about facts and omission on the Amistade talk page and have directed the accuser to the Tea House to better understand what is going on. I do not have a registered username therefore I cannot avoid using one. I just do not understand how someone can accuse someone and continues to believe their incorrect perception despite repeated explanations.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The talk page is Talk:Amistad (film). We also have an article La Amistad though the content there may legitimately be different. I've no knowledge of either, so I'll leave it to others to comment. Dbfirs 20:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello IP user: I can understand why you are irritated. But might I politely add that, whilst you are indeed quite at liberty to edit from an IP address, many editors get suspicious when they see content subtly being changed without any citations, irrespective of whether that person has registered for a free account or not. Your actions in changing and then re-inserting those small changes without any evidence to support them was, I'm afraid, typical of what I personally often interpret as subtle vandalism. That's not to say that you were in this case. But just because you "happen to know something for a fact" doesn't entitle you to change article content without evidence to support your beliefs. I've only spent a few moments looking, but believe you were quite wrong to change "53 African people" to "54 African people" without proof. Just read this Times article to see why other editors are suspicious of unsubstantiated changes. Maybe you have other sources to prove "54" is correct. if so, you need to cite them. I've no idea I've not seen the film or know the story in detail. The fact that you are an anonymous IPv6 editor is unfortunate, and I hope you understand why, if you go around making changes like these, other people may jump to conclusions about you that are not necessarily correct. If this makes you uncomfortable, then there is one option and one requirement for you: Create an account for free and sign in with it; don't make changes without supporting them with sources. You decide which is which. I hope this explains how others might see those edits. You did right to raise those concerns afterwarss on the article Talk page. If the film got the numbers wrong, then that could be a legitimate issue to raise in the article, using sources, of course. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
You should acquaint yourself with the record that clearly indicates where in the film such references come.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that remark. If any statement is contested, just insert a citation to support it, or leave it well alone. That includes the Plot as far as I'm concerned. Note: The evidence (using Intersect) does not lead me to support the suggestion expressed below. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It looks as if the IPv4 address 104.35.236.49 might also be you, and this increases the unease felt by registered editors. I endorse Nick Moyes' recommendation to create a free account on Wikipedia. You don't need to use your real name. I prefer not to have my name anywhere on the internet, so if you feel the same, just make up a pseudonym. If you have references, then you need to cite them. Dbfirs 21:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It is not my responsibility to make certain that WP's system functions properly and I will not establish a registered account in order to edit. I just noticed that other number because I was wondering where some of my edits went. Evidently it changed while I was editing under the usual 26.... went to 104 then reestablished back to 26..... Again, it is not my responsibility for the functioning if WP's system.2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Wikipedia's function. Your IP address is assigned to you by Time Warner in Los Angeles. Dbfirs 10:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

As for adding a citation, when has it ever been except by viewing a film what is the plot?2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Where did the number 53 come from? There is no citation?2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Where there is disagreement over content, a citation is the best way to resolve the issue. An on-line review of the film with a plot summary would be easiest to check, but any reliable newspaper or magazine review would be OK to cite. Dbfirs 10:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

A citation has never and continues not to be a requirement of WP and therefore anyone that requires it for e to edit is creating on behalf of WP new additional leaps and bounds in order for me to edit.2605:E000:9143:7000:C955:6FC3:2615:703 (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, citations are normally required in Wikipedia. It is true that for unchallenged facts that are common knowledge, citations are often omitted to avoid over-cluttering the text, but whenever a fact is challenged, a citation is the best way to resolve the issue, and the matter should be discussed on the talk page, as you have now done. The independent reviews that I find say 53, not 54. Perhaps a compromise can be reached over the other issues? Dbfirs 08:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid that you are WRONG. Citations are not need for film plots! PERIOD. It will be found with a short review of film plots that are found in WP do not have citations. That those haing citations usually are of silent films that have become lost. I can hardly see that being applied to films made say since the 1930s when so many are available. So to say that film plots do require citations is an outright misleading and almost false statement on your part. That is the truth and you cannot change it. To all of a sudden say to me that in order to edit film plots I have to provide citations for popular films of recent date is just outrageous.

I am told that for the film Amistad that it is based on a secondary document (3 reviews) that the number of Africans that were imprisoned is set at 53 although the number 53 appears no where in the film. Therefore where these reviewers got the number 53 certainly is not from the film, is not from the primary document that we normally get film plots therefore the source for these reviewers has to be a secondary document which is not where plot information comes from. A reviewer can include all types of information that does not come from a film in their review. The mere presence of information is not justifiable as true because it appears in a review. So where these reviewers got the number 53 is at best pulled out of the air as far as it concerns authenticity because it is not in the film--the chief document from where we get film plots. It is pleasant to know that now WP endorses the includion of undocumented informstion in film plots which will certainly open up for speculative inclusion all types of information that can be found in reviews that again may not be found in the film. If the film is not the primary documentation from where we get film plots then what kind of control do we have as to what is and what is not included in a film.

This leads to a very interesting possibility when a film is based on some other work such as a book or a song or a play or a short story. We can now go to the secondary sources to indicate what should be happening in a film ployt because it is not answered in the film yet may be found in the original form. For those who say that what is to be found in a review is suitable for inclusion in a film plot will then have to rdecide if something really is true or not although it cannot be found in the film. It does not matter where a rviewers has retirved information in their review even if it is from the director or the writer or the editor or the set designer because if it is not in the film then it doesn't belong in the film plot. That is speculation and WP does not endorse speculation. But for those that have cornered the market on what for at least film plots include I guess you can manage to make up the rules as you go along to suit your own purposes instead of the intent of WP.

Nothing is going to change the fact that in the film 53 imprisoned Africans is not mentioned. So now the question is how long can you hold out imposing an inaccuracy on WP? All you have to do is see the film. You cannot claim that the non-English portions of the film include that fact because you do not know those languages otherwise you would know that along with the Mende prisoners were also Temne. But in your reposnes to my question you state that there could be any Temne because i was spelling it Tenme. Then of course we move on to the question about the "slaves" eating "crumbs" off each others faces while they were onboard ship when anyone understanding food terms knows that crumbs come from breads and cakes products and not the mush that they were feed. This can clearly be shown by watching the film. You do not get crumbs from mush. You may hope so but that is not reality, well established by Oxford/Cambridge, etc. I guess there are a few people here that enjoy wishful thinking. Other may after understanding the facts call it delusional.

So, since amongst those that have championed the idea that citations for film plots is now required is also a person that attempt to shut down discussion on the matter to the point of attempting to erase it from the record and then ended up being reprimanded for their action. As mush as you would like, you cannot change the facts. This must be a tremendous disappointment because this issue is not going to go away. Why? Because forever and a day the film does not mention 53 Africans being imprisoned when they were charged for their "crimes". You cannot refer to the non-English language portions of the film because you do not know the language otherwise you would know that there were in addition to the Mende imprisoned also Temne. And there is no confusing what is the definition of crumbs and there is no way that you can get crumbs from mush. What, are you going to go around the world removing the scene from the film showing the "slaves" being feed mush. Are you going to go around the world and remove from all the copies of the film the non-English portions of the film? Those scenes and dialogue will be around longer than you and even if we were born just yesterday. I believe that not even Steven Spielberg would confuse the facts with wishful thinking.2605:E000:9143:7000:2CF0:1BBB:E1E3:52EE (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Citations for Film Plots[edit]

Enough! Teahouse is not WP:dispute resolution.

Since when has it become WP policy or guideline to require citations to show material inaccuracies in film plots. Is not the mere review of the film sufficient for the purpose of a film plot?2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems you are in disagreement over something in sn article. Pleasse discuss the matter on the article's talk page to work on getting consensus. If that doesnt work, follow the guidance at WP:DR, or just give it a break and work on something else for awhile RudolfRed (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The question is when if ever did WP require citations for plot because that is the solution that has been told me as to how it is that I can edit film plots. So to say that the question is that there is a disagreement about the plot content of an article is beside the the point. Again, when if ever was it bnecessaruy to provide for film plots citations expecially in those instance when plot information is in error? If you do not want to address that question then you need to move onto another question because that is not the point of this question. I understand that there are people who do not appreciate the work of others. One of them even attempted to thwart the editing and quiry process and was chastised. If additional criteria is being place on me for what others do without having that new criteria then let us know so that it is out in the open. That is not being uncooperative. That is being upfront.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC):Well, there has been plenty of time to have some response from someone if having citations for film plots is and has been part pf WP. So does this mean there never has been and continues to not be the need of citations for the plots of films?2605:E000:9143:7000:C955:6FC3:2615:703 (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see my comment on citations at the end of this section. Dbfirs 08:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Whether it appears here in this discussion or any other place in WP, YOUR STATEMENT IS MISLEADING. Plain and simple. A review of film plots in WP will show that virtually citations are not required except as I have found for those films that are no longer available for review such as silent and lost films. Amistad is not a silent and lost field. If citations are not required then we in effect are using original research by using the film as the primary source of the information and as it would the primary document. If something does not appear in the film then it should not appear in the plot otherwise we would most likely continue adding speculative information that has in the past been removed. So to claim that film plots required citations is an outright misleading statement. You cannot change what is true. The film is the film. If what is published as the plot of the film in WP then if it does not appear in the film then it should not regardless to what degree you attribute a secondary source as being reliable if it does not appear in the film then it should not appear in the film plot--that is speculation. If 53 imprisoned Africans at the start of the capture is not in the film then the first question is wfrom where did the film reviewers get the number and if it is not in the film then how can you verify their statement. You cannot because--Iit is not in the film. And reven if the reviewer bases their statement on what a director, a writer, an editor or even the actor making a statement, if it does not appear in the film then it should not be in the film plot because that is speculation. That is only the start of repudiating your statement about citations need for film plots. You cannot avoid the facts. And WP is not a place for speculation.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid Dbfirs is not quite right. Per MOS:PLOT, The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. Secondary sources are encouraged if available, but the work itself is sufficient as a primary source for the content of the work, and contrary to what the anonymous user seems to be saying, using a primary source is not original research, so long as it is done within the limits of WP:PRIMARY. GMGtalk 15:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I stand by my assertion that if the film is the source that the film plot is based and an exception is made to the rule then the plot is still original research permitted under a rule of exception. If it were not original research then there would not be a need to establish an exception. Just because there is an exception made does not change the fundamental aspect of the action. It is as if you say I ran up the hill versus I ran up the hill and got sweaty. Fundamentally, you ran up the hill; you cannot change that except to expand upon and the exception to original research is very much in line with that--the exception is that you are sweaty.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Part of the restriction on the use of primary sources in WP:PRIMARY is that you plainly represent what is in the source without commentary, interpretation, or extrapolation. If you say within those boundaries when using the film as a primary source, then it is not an exception to original research, because it isn't original research. GMGtalk 16:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The film project has always had this problem....OR that is for plots. That said the community has accepted that this is one part of Wikipedia that will not pass the fact check process.--Moxy (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The problem occurs when different people remember the plot differently. I was recommending secondary sources to resolve the disagreement over content. I quote from MOS:PLOT: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Perhaps someone has a copy of the actual film to check, but the film script that I read makes no mention of number, so I suggest that we remove the controversial 53. The book says that only 38 remained at the time of the trial, but the film probably didn't follow the book. Dbfirs 17:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the film has direct dialog that i brought up before on the talk page for the film but was discounted as not reliable although it is in the film. The president while on the train attempting to enjoy his brandy makes reference to why out of all the negroes in the US he should be concerned about these "44".2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
That's correct, he does say 44, though he has been told earlier "about 40". I think the best policy is to omit the exact number. Dbfirs 17:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Now, how can you get crumbs from mush when if you understand the definition of crumbs? The slaves were fed mush, not bread or cake from what crumbs are the potential residue? The only indication in the film as to what are the slaves feed is the scene that shows the slaves being feed is mush. I was told that in order to change that error I needed to provide a citation although a review of the film would clearly indicate, as i had pointed out on the appropriate talk page, that the slaves were fed mush. I do not mind justifying my edits and that is reflected in the edit notes. But when someone unilaterally rejects my edits based on not providing citation, instead of a simple review of the film, that is not my responsibility to reply on just their judgement as to the validity of my edit. I do not mind discussing an issue but i do mind when someone bases their action on what can only be said is ignorance. If you are unwilling to look at the documentation then how can you justify refuting an action? That is plain and simple logic unless there is another motive. But I digress.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention crumbs or mush and this discussion really belongs on the article's talk page not here. Theroadislong (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, then it has just recently been changed although the fact remains it is mush that they were fed.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

How to create/ Ask to create page about Business Conglomerate[edit]

Hi, I want to know how to create a page about a Business Conglomerate or at least how to request in a suitable forum to create a page about a Business Conglomerate. I tried a sample draft in a similar lines of an existing article. But it is published in my User Name. No one has reviewed till now. Some one please help me out.Madhava cs (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia must not be used for advertising any business conglomerate, and your user page may not be used for a draft article. Please move the draft to your sandbox so that you can work on it there. You need to find independent WP:Reliable sources where the subject has been written about in detail. Your current references don't seem to be sufficient to establish WP:Notability. Dbfirs 08:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Please understand, Madhava cs, that Wikipedia has little interest in what a company (or any other subject) says about itself, or what its associates or employees say about it; and absolutely no interest in how it wishes to be portrayed. Wikipedia has no role whatever in a subject's online presence. An article about any subject should be almost entirely based on what people who have no connection at all with the subject have chosen to publish in reliable places. --ColinFine (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest[edit]

Extended misunderstanding; should now be considered resolved

Today I got onto the site and found a notice about declaring a conflict of interest. I thought how odd since my activity certainly has absolutely no possibility of a conflict of interest when all it has been recently is correcting errors in a film plot.2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, @2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9:, and welcome to the TeaHouse. The editor who put that message on your User Talk page was Theroadislong. He/she did not indicate which article had prompted the message, and the wording of the message is very generic. I see that you have replied on your User Talk page, but did not ping the other editor so he/she may not be aware of your reply - hopefully you will get a response now. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I just noticed that you also left a message on Theroadislong's User Talk page - watch for a response (when might depend on time zones).--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The problem with a decentralized system is that you have people acting on their own for what turn out to be the most incredibly inaccurate basis. How correcting plots in films could be a potential conflict of interest mystifies me as much as having to justify edits in pots by providing citations when currently and in the past all that was needed was viewing of the film. There are many edit examples where citations have been provided in plots and removed as being unnecessary. So this new application smacks of some thing very unusual.2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I posted the conflict of interest notice because your IP addresses are assigned to you by Time Warner in Los Angeles. Theroadislong (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No wonder WP creates it own enemies? I have absolutely no control over the issuance of IP addresses and because they change I am accusesd of somehow undermining WP. And then if I do not take the "suggestion" of establishing a registered user name I am somehow betraying WP and being uncooperative and hostile and whatever people seem to come up with when all along I am using what is endorsed by WP--the use of my IP address as an identifier. Instead I am subjected to repeated accusations of being sock puppet. Are all these actions the result of learning grammar and composition? Or some other explanation? I just find it so bizarre for people that supposedly are of a developed mind.2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Is that a denial of any association with Time Warner? David notMD (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Why should I have to deny an association with Time warner when all they are to me is an internet provider? For people wsupposedly with developed minds you certainly seem to have conspiracy on your minds. What indication of not having any control over the assignment of IP's makes it so that I have to declare no association with my provider? Somehow with all the technology in the world I am suppose to be this great electronic system manipulator? Just what is it in your fantasy is it that you want to get?. I have no more association with Time Warner than does any one else with their service provider. What, somehow Time Warner gives special systems that others do not? I really do not understand you people when time and time again you come up wiuth these accusations that something is wrong when in all fact there is nothing wrong because what is happening is what the system does on its won. O am not responsible for seeing that it run according to how it is that you want it to. As far as I understand and as long as WP endorses the use if IP's as identifiers in WP then I have no violated anything. Thr fact that the system gives me different IP's is not my fault. Never has and never will. If you want to blame me for that happening then you are addressing the wrong person or institution. Just because you do not have it the way you want it to be does not make it wrong. And these continued accusations clearly show how paranoid WP can be. That is not being hostile that is not being uncooperative that is plainly following what gets done. This is getting just as ridiculous as the last person who cast aspersion about sock puppetry based on that person's inability to get beyond blaming me for not logging into WP and using a registered username. Again, WP endorses the use of IP's as identifiers in the use of WP. I am not responsible or havr any influnce in the issuing of IP and anyone who think I is clearly delusional and share the traits as anyone else that can be called the king of wishfull thinking. So, again, what indication is there in my functioning with WP that would give the impression that I was somehow in cahuts with Time Warner. Are you somehow upset that TimeWarner is not a corporate sponser therefore not getting your cut? This experience has been a typical up and down and all around and getting no where. It seems that when you explain what is going to anyone outside of WP it is clearly understood and if there is any need to cast aspirtions it would be so easy to do so toward those in champion that somehow I have such tremendous influence or control over Time Warner. If that were the case i guess they would not me continuing to send in my payemnts so late? LOL. Or is yhat an indication that i am in cahuts with TimeWarner? I am certain you all will let me know.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

My humble apologies, I didn't realise that Time Warner was an IP provider, I am an arse. Theroadislong (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
You do not want to know what is it that I am thinking right now after being subjected to such ridiculous treatment by not only you but some other 2 people that seems to relish in ignorance before making claims that seem to have such high impact within WP circles. In order to close somewhat the gap of ignorance Time Warner is now Spectrum.2605:E000:9143:7000:C955:6FC3:2615:703 (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC) I still remain dumbfounded as to just exactly was it in my editing history that would come close to signifying a potential conflict of interest. Maybe you could come to some understanding that can be explained.2605:E000:9143:7000:C955:6FC3:2615:703 (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me reiterate that I have absolutely no control how as to IP addresses are developed and how that is somehow my responsibility and in some unknown form a conflict of interest is utterly ridiculous. It has to be recognized that in this instance it is not the number of IP addresses that are issued but that it occurs in conflict with what appears to be some ingrain perception that this only smacks of fraud. Again, that is not a conflict if interest but merely at odds with the WP policy endorsement of using IP addresses as identifiers. Until that time that this endorsed policy changes I hope that I will no longer be harassed about it. And that should there be a question in future that WP contributors will be able to find this string of activity in the archives.2605:E000:9143:7000:2CF0:1BBB:E1E3:52EE (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

IP user, please assume good faith(which is a central tenet of Wikipedia). Theroadislong has admitted their mistake, apologized, and even insulted themselves. Time Warner is far more well known as a company that produces films than as an ISP(especially since they spun it off into Spectrum, which is probably not yet reflected in IP addresses). You were editing a lot of articles about films, which is what led to Theroadislong's conclusion. I'm not sure I would have thought anything differently. What matters now is that the issue has been cleared up. You are permitted to edit as an IP if you wish, but registering a username would avoid problems like this, as it hides your IP address. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I wish that you would avoid "suggesting" that I change my way of working on WP and instead advise those that are suspicious to do their due diligence especially those that seem to not understand a perfectly sound justification, if that is at all needed, why i am not a sock puppet. You talk about good faith yet time and time again what happens? I get accused, and here we go again. Those who function on WP need to understand that not everyone is as invested in WP as they may be. My choice is to function under whatever IP addressed is issued to me. I am not interested in anything more than editing. I am not interested in advancing in the WP hierarchy. Why is that not understood? Do I have to continue explaining the situation to those that unilaterally "suggest" that using a registered user name is the solution when clearly considering my choices it is not. I seriously doubt that this will change until that time WP no longer endorses the use of an IP address as an identifier. This is not being difficult. This is not being uncooperative. This is being plain and simple being let be about using an IP address as my identifier according to WP endorsement. Nothing more and nothing less.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Return[edit]

Hi, I was an active member a few years ago (about 4 or 5 years), and for some reason I had to retire. I am decided to come back and contribute. But after so many years, I am a bit clueless, and would like to know somewhere where I can start. Or somewhere I can read about the changes that WP has gone through. Thanks. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 15:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Miss Bono: Check out WP:HOW for some ideas on what to work on. I dont think anything has changed much in the past few years. Feel free to ask questions if you need help. RudolfRed (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Welcome back Miss Bono, it's really good to see your username pop up again. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Roger (Dodger67), it's good to be back! Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 19:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Welcome back, though it's only 18 months not 4 or 5 years since you were very active here. Theroadislong (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I thought it was longer, Theroadislong. The last time I had access to Wikipedia at work was in Nov 2013. But then, I could log in and do some stuff, not much from time to time. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 14:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Hi, I'm new here. Where can I find a page with templates and useful stuff to collaborate? Thanks Onaxis (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, how can I add a page to my Watchlist? Onaxis (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
And how can I edit my signature. Sorry for so many questions. Thanks loads. Onaxis (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Onaxis:| Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. With regards to your watchlist, (and assuming you are using a computer and not a phone) every article has a star in a tab at the top, next to the "View history" tab. If you click this to change the color of the star to blue, that adds that page to your watchlist. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, I think that if you click on your Watchlist, one choice will be Edit raw watchlist. Can add (and subtract) articles and Talk and stuff there. David notMD (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Questions! Questions! Questions! We love 'em! Welcome to Wikipedia, Onaxis. You might like to follow this guidance for modifying the appearance of your signature: Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing_your_signature. I'm sorry if I'm unsure what exactly you mean when you ask about collaboration. In essence, every article is a collaboration. We do have around 2000 Wikiprojects on a wide range of themes where people focus on one subject area. The page I've just linked to includes a search box for topics. Hoping this might help. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I think I managed with the signature. :) OnaxisTALK TO ME 14:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft: The Sun and Her Flowers[edit]

I reviewed Draft:The Sun and Her Flowers three months ago and declined it, saying that it was non-neutral and read like a paper about the book rather than a neutral article on the book. Today User:Hmlarson, not the original author, wrote on my talk page that they have made improvements to the draft. I agree that it is better now. I would like the comments of other experienced editors. Thank you.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed some of the irrelevant guff from the article. I find it nauseating, it leaves me hoping that I never come across Kaur's work. There's a limit to how much of this task I can manage, I'll leave the rest for others. Maproom (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I also pruned a lot of the gushy stuff. More to the point - if there is an article about Rupi Kaur and it describes her two books, why does the second book (but not the first?) warrant its own article? Whatever remains of this draft might better be used to improve the Rupi Kaur article. David notMD (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources for editing[edit]

Hello, I have a question concerning copyrights of sources for editing a Wikipedia page. I frequently edit Wikipedia pages on vintage Hollywood stars. For some stars, I have already written extensive, original biographies on their IMDb page. Once, I copied my own original biography from an IMDb page and added it to the star's Wikipedia page. However, my edits were quickly removed due to copyright reasons, as Wikipedia found those same paragraphs externally online (IMDb, obviously.) My question is, is there a way I can 'copy' the biographies that I wrote and add them to Wikipedia? I have no intention of trying the process again unless there is a safe way of doing so that will not automatically violate copyright issues. Thanks for you time. VintageCowgirl95 (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, VintageCowgirl95. Every IMDb page has a prominent copyright notice at the bottom. Once you contribute content to a copyrighted website, that content by definition is not eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia, except for brief attributed quotations. This is a rock solid Wikipedia policy.
Your story shows why we consider IMDb an unreliable source, in general. Since IMDb includes massive amounts of user-contributed content, it should not be used as a general rule on Wikipedia, for the exact same reason that one Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference in another Wikipedia article. Please read Wikipedia:Citing IMDb.
You must write any Wikipedia biography "from scratch", citing reliable sources and summarizing only what they say, without any original research. The prose must be completely different than your prose at IMDb. Your previous knowledge can inform your work here but it cannot be the basis of a new article. Please read and study Your first article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
What about creating content at Wikipedia first, and then using the same content at IMBd? David notMD (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
That would be allowed, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I don't know about IMDB's rules. Maproom (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and the information!

VintageCowgirl95 (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

When and how do we add a globalize maintenance template to an article? ex Opioid epidemic[edit]

When and how do we add a globalize maintenance template to an article? ex Opioid epidemic appears to be focused almost exclusively on the United States.Oceanflynn (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Oceanflynn. Well the first thing we'd need to sort out is whether the subject is a global one in the first place. It looks a lot like the term is a specific reference to the trend in the US and Canada, which would mean that a focus on the US and Canada would be appropriate. For example, we wouldn't expect the articles on Appalachia or Kimono to include a particularly global perspective, since the subjects are pretty limited in scope.
If it turns out that it is in fact appropriate, then like most maintenance tags, it's usually best practice to try to fix problems before tagging, and then tag only if this cannot be done due to things like limited access to sources, the majority of sources being in a language you might not speak, or time constraints. It's also usually helpful to spell out the identified issues on the talk page when adding a maintenance template, and attempt to start a discussion geared to fixing them. GMGtalk 17:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I was wondering if you could help me with the creation of this article? http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/Draft:Rob_Niter[edit]

Hi, the draft article for Rob Niter could use some assistance from experienced editors to be moved into name space. Are you able to enhance it? The comments for why it was declined are listed. Thanks http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/Draft:Rob_Niter

Dylanwhite56 (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dylanwhite56. The main claim to notability is that this person has won several "Musclemania" weight lifting competitions. Musclemania does not seem to be a notable athletic competition, so that is not a plausible claim of notability as an athlete. In addition, this person has had a couple of minor acting roles but nothing sufficient to establish his notability as an actor. Plus, he gave CPR to a jogger who may have had a heart attack, which was a wonderful thing to do, but not a plausible claim of notability. The draft article is loaded up with references to low quality sources like blog posts, press releases and obvious reprints of press releases. In conclusion, it does not seem like this person is notable as Wikipedia defines that term at this time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Why do my accounts keep getting deleted?[edit]

I've had 2 accounts before, #1: CBNMKJUH, and #2: Connall Stevenson. When the first one was deleted, I made #2. When that got deleted, I made this current account. Anybody know how this is happening?

ConnallES (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd really really like to know. Please and thank you!

ConnallES (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@ConnallES: Accounts cannot be deleted. There does not seem to be any blocks or other issue on CBNMKJUH, and "Connall Stevenson" is not a user but a draft that you created and then blanked, located at Draft:Connall Stevenson. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
User:Connall Stevenson is a user with one edit at Special:Contributions/Connall Stevenson. User:CBNMKJUH has a blank user page and Connall Stevenson has no user page but it's optional to have a user page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I failed to check the contributions. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I have deleted the draft as the first draft had a malformed db-self tag in there (among other reasons). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The only issue that I see is that Cordless Larry warned you against giving incorrect answers on this page, but no other action was taken. If you are just doing more of the same, please refrain from doing so. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@331dot:Thanks, once again!

ConnallES (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

hyperlinks[edit]

How many hyperlinks to wiktionary can a single page have? Is more than one allowed? 88.104.42.46 (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey anon. Usually, for links to sister projects like Wiktionary, Wikiquote, or Wikimedia Commons, a single link for the main topic in the external links section will suffice to help guide readers to related pages outside of Wikipedia. GMGtalk 15:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Whatare the permissable sryle for the name Martin Luther King Jr.?[edit]

Is a comma always required between King and Jr. with Jr always followed by a period?2605:E000:9143:7000:2CF0:1BBB:E1E3:52EE (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The relevant part of the Manual of Style is at MOS:JUNIOR.--David Biddulph (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Can there be a crackdown on articles which have paragraphs from satire websites?[edit]

I woke up today with Limb Bizkit "My Generation" in my head. After listening I checked to see what wikipedia says about the song. This was part of the article since 11 December 2016: "In the second verse, he implores the youth of America to "take [his] advice" and to avoid "step[ping] into a big pile of shit". [5] Durst has affirmed that this line is in reference to a childhood anecdote wherein his father tracked a great deal of the family dog's excrement on the freshly-vacuumed carpet, and lamented his fate in doing so. This greatly affected Durst, who has since opened a dog grooming business so that he and his clients may avoid inadvertently striding into canine refuse/waste."

This story comes, according to the editor (which only did this edit and disappeared, can be another criteria for "crackdown") from here http://www.metalsucks.net/2014/11/07/fred-durst-opened-dog-grooming-business/ Which is obviously some kind of satire site? IDK. Point is, I assume this is not the only place with "funny" misinformation. Beyond deleting that nonsense, I think it's better if I notify the community of this "discovery". If there is a portal for these kind of occurrences please tell me... Benderbr (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The entire paragraph has now been removed. Thank you for drawing it to our attention. Maproom (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

About legitdirect[edit]

Can someone create a page about legitdirect.com thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegitDirect (talkcontribs) 10:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@LegitDirect: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The proper forum to request an article be created is Requested Articles. In order for someone to create an article about it, they will need independent reliable sources that indicate how this business meets the notability guidelines for businesses. You will also need to change your username, as usernames cannot be that of a website or business. Please visit WP:CHU for instructions on how to do this. You will also need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Tom Balthrop[edit]

I joined Wikipedia to suggest an entry for Tom Balthrop, American artist. There is some random information about Balthrop on Google. I believe Wikipedia is the best place to start an archive on Balhrop and his work. He did not appear to have any sort of home page or Facebook page or promotion of himself. It appears he past away. I can submit links to the few google hits on Balthrop but I am hoping others like myself will contribute if we start a profile for him. Many of his works and prints appear on Google as images but without dialogue or explanation. He was not a self promoter but his work is unique and known. Thank you for letting me start this discussion. Shari Hunter, novice Wikipedia contributor Sharikayhunter (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Now I want to edit my own first submission. I see a typo. I had best watch the tutorials. Thank you! Shari Hunter Sharikayhunter (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sharikayhunter: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that Wikipedia is not free webspace to just document someone or their work, as a Facebook page or personal website might. This is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown in independent reliable sources with in depth coverage to be notable. If you can do that, I would suggest using Articles for Creation to draft an article and submit it for review, so you get feedback on it before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards.
I would add that there are no other contributions under your username(other than to this page). Make sure you are logged in when making an edit, so it is properly attributed to you. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

New Wikipedian[edit]

Hello everyone! I'm Coloradodude19. I am a new Wikipedian who just joined this encyclopedia yesterday. I have read Wikipedia articles since I was younger, and now I want to help improve it by editing articles on here. I will be adding info to stubs, and improving grammar and spelling errors. After surfing around Wikipedia for a while, I found that this is the place to go if I want to ask questions. I just created my user page, and I started my talk page as well. Will some experienced editors be so kind as to leave me a welcome message on my talk page, please? Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I am so thankful for the opportunity to participate in editing and improving Wikipedia! Coloradodude19 (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Coloradodude19 and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia! — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: Thank you for the opportunity! Coloradodude19 (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this being reviewed?[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/Draft:Calderonista_Inavsion_Of_Costa_Rica_(1955) This article does not have the submission pending tag so I am wondering if it is going to be assessed or not. AlexRover (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey AlexRover. The article is not currently awaiting review, but I have added the banner for our Articles for Creation project, and if you thin it is ready, you can click the submit button and it will be reviewed by an experienced volunteer. GMGtalk 19:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. AlexRover (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Citing other articles[edit]

Is it possible to use another Wikipedia article as a citation?Minecraftr (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Minecraftr: No. As Wikipedia is ultimately user-generated, it should not be used as a source for citations as it fails the criteria for a reliable source. However, you should include links to other articles where relevant by using double square brackets as shown here. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Stormy clouds is correct, but I have something to add, Minecraftr. If the other article cites a reference you want to use for the article you are working on, you can copy the citation to the new article. This kind of thing, articles using the same sources, is actually fairly common on related topics. White Arabian Filly Neigh 19:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Minecraftr. The short answer is "no". We need to cite reliable sources with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy. Because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and is subject to vandalism, it is not considered a reliable source. You can read the reliable sources cited in the other article and use those sources in an associated article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

How can I create a wiki page?[edit]

Help I need my advice I don't know to create a Wikipedia page how can I edit pleseeeeeeeeeeeeeee help Kind regards Enuis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enuis (talkcontribs) 19:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Enuis. Begin by reading and studying Your first article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! From Enuis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enuis (talkcontribs) 19:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't create hoax articles as you did here Draft:Guild Ford it will not endear you to anyone. Theroadislong (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

My edits to an existing page do not show up. How can I fix this?[edit]

I made my first edits on Wikipedia. After doing extensive work I logged on to the page to find that none of my edits are visible. What did I do wrong? How do I fix it? Thanks. KGadgilG (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi KGadgilG. I don't see any edits listed for you except for your question here. Did you edit as an IP, and which page did you edit? The edits may have been reverted, but they should still show up on the page history. White Arabian Filly Neigh 19:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

How do you create things about youreslf on user profile?[edit]

Sorry to bother again I just wanted to know how to write things about you're self



Thanks Enuis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.83.166 (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Enuis: Welcome to the teahouse. In order to make a userpage you need an account. (Which you already have) See WP:UP for do's and dont's. Thegooduser talk 20:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: This user has an account, see subsequent posts below. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: Ah okay. Sorry. It had an Ip address in the signature. Thegooduser talk 20:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

How do you edit?[edit]

Thanks from Enuis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.83.166 (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This might be of some use as an introduction to a key topic: Help:Editing Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeelp me?[edit]

How do I prove that a village exists beacause accusing me of hoaxing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enuis (talkcontribs) 20:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Enuis, and welcome to the Teahouse. Cite reliable sources that say that the village exists. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 20:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
... and don't confuse your home town in Surrey with an imaginary village in Estonia. If you really have found a namesake in Estonia, then tell us where. Dbfirs 21:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


Nice question. Dear Enuis, to prove a location you may use proper cordlines, but you have to understand that secondary resources should always be added to prove the reality of a place. Your village can be located by google maps. But it is not enough for verification. Try to find the location in books, or any trusted website. Then inform. Thank you. Have a nice day . Abirlal Mukhopadhyay (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I create an article about Pierre vangelis[edit]

Can I create article about Pierre vangelis Kind regards Enuis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enuis (talkcontribs) 20:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I really don't think you should try. From what little I could find online he seems to clearly fail to meet our essential criteria for notability for musicians and bands. I would advice you to go and read what that entails by following the blue link just given. My sense from your recent posts is that you probably don't appeciate the intricacies of what to do here (which is fair enough for any newcomer, I should point out!). But I would suggest you slow down a bit. Forget creatng new articles - that's the very very hardest task to achieve here, and being turned down does tend to put people off editing, which can be a shame. Instead, just find a few articles on topics that interest you, and make minor edits to them, like correcting spelling, typos etc. Don't even think of adding any new facts until you understand that every new statement of fact that someone adds needs to be supported with a citation. To learn how to do that, visit and read Help:Referencing for beginners. Even more advice: Don't even think about trying to create a new article until you really understand what Wikipedia is about. To get a start on that, I'd suggest you go and do the rather fun, interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure. Come back here if you have any more problems, and please don't post the same question to two help desks - this wastes people's time and gets them a little irritated, and remember you may not get a reply for many hours. This is normal as we are all volunteers here. Hoping this advice makes sense, regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Help?[edit]

I have a copy of Uncle Tom's Cabin, Young Folks Edition, No 182 published by M A Donohue & Company. How do I find out more information about it? I don't know the date on which it was published. Thank you.108.178.193.218 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 108.178.193.218 The Teahouse is designed to help new editors with questions about editing Wikipedia, you might be better off asking for help at the Wikipedia:Reference desk with your question. Theroadislong (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear user 108.178.193.218 , is it a good question ! You should use search engines or reference books. Or you may contact the publishers. If you have any problem about any articles, understanding please clear that in my talk page. Thank you . Abirlal Mukhopadhyay (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

page nominated for deletion[edit]

so i was working on my first page for a firm called prestige economics and i think i messed up bad. i had an initial draft that i submitted for review, it got rejected. i then redrafted and submitted it for review again, but i thought the article was fine this time, so i moved it to article space on my own. and now it's nominated for deletion. please help me out and let me know how i can make this better.

i don't wnt my first article to get deleted. please help. :(SMJ 03:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah312x (talkcontribs)

Hello Sarah312x and welcome (back, I think) to the Teahouse.
One thing you need to understand about Wikipedia is that your individual contributions are owned by you, but the pages you create belong to Wikipedia at large, in the sense that other editors are free to comment on, add or subtract content from, and judge whether they meet our policies. Your should not have moved Prestige Economics back to Draft:Prestige Economics once other editors made changes. I expect the article will probably be deleted once the AfD discussion has run its course.
Creating a new article from scratch is a pretty hard thing to do on Wikipedia. Based on this article and some of your other contributions, you should probably study up on what WP considers reliable sources and the somewhat peculiar way WP interprets the concept of notability. The Articles for Creation process provides an opportunity for new editors to get their efforts reviewed and the feedback should be taken seriously. Use the process for your next effort and don't short-circuit it.
Most Teahouse helpers will tell you that you need to spend a while improving other articles and learning the ropes before attempting to create a new article from scratch. If you haven't already gone over it, the your first article instructions should help you. The Teahouse is here to help! — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sarah312x: Oops. Misspelling username is not good form, sorry. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah312x: I see that very little of Draft:Prestige Economics is about the company. It's almost all about things its president and employees have said. Such content should all be removed. If an employee corrected predicted a recession, that's irrelevant for Wikipedia. If an independent source, such as a respected journalist or a senior politician, praised the company or its employee for successfully predicting a recession (or criticised them for getting it wrong), that might be worthy of a place in the article. Maproom (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Can any of you help me improve it? SMJ 07:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah312x (talkcontribs)
Some possibilities, but not holding out much help.
  1. figure out what subject you are writing about - Prestige Economics or Jason Schenker
  2. establish notability by finding several high-quality, independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject
  3. rewrite the draft from scratch using only information from the sources, carefully citing each statement of fact
  4. avoid promotional language, avoid writing a one-sided view of the subject
I don't see that the collective opinion at the AfD discussion was that PE or Schenker were definitely not notable, just that the draft did not adequately demonstrate notability. So whether there can be an article or not depends on finding those independent sources. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

How can I review an Administrators notice board action that has been erased from the only link I know of?[edit]

I would like to review an administrators notice board that the only knowledge that i have is that it has been erased from the talk page of the person involved: http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/User_talk:TheOldJacobite2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. You can go to that noticeboard located at WP:AN, and read all of those discussions. By the way, editors are allowed to remove such notices from their talk pages, and the act of removing the notice indicates that it has been read. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Armageddon. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
It seems to have already been archived as there is no mention on the menu of cases of it? How do i search the archives or attempt on that app to find it? Thank you.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I found it after some navigation by luck. Thank you for your attention to find: http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive1202605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

How do I find a page I created with the Wikipedia Wizard?[edit]

My page is named "Reggie Codrington".Fowlergirl2 (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fowlergirl2. This Teahouse post is your only edit to Wikipedia. We have never had an article called "Reggie Codrington". The only thing that I can think of is that you did not click the blue "Publish changes" button, and your work in progress must have been lost. Please read Your first article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi, Fowlergirl2, welcome to teahouse. If you want to create a page named Reggie Codrington, click here==>Reggie Codrington but before doing so you have to read how to create an article. Never try to do direct copypest. Have a nice journey. Abirlal Mukhopadhyay (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fowlergirl2: The advice from Abirlal is unwise. As a new user it would not be sensible to try to create an article directly in mainspace. You ought to create a draft and submit it for review through the WP:Article for Creation system, which is the advice which you'll see in WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you respected sir , David Biddulph. I'm really not much wise, i have just started hosting. Therefore , i need some time to be a good host. Let me learn from milestones like you. I'm now your student sir, mercy my faults. Have a nice day . Abirlal Mukhopadhyay (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As you were advised earlier, please don't try to answer questions where you don't know the answers. If you read the answers here and at the Help Desk you will hopefully learn. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Fiat Tipo (2015)[edit]

What happened with section heading Engines? I cannot solve this problem. Maybe somebody else can correct this. Thanks.--Fabian USA (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Fabian USA and welcome to the Teahouse.
I'm guessing that you are asking about layout problems for the Engines section, since there are a number of photos, the rather extended infobox, and the table under Engines all colliding with each other. These elements are not as flexible as text, so this page will have an odd presentation on most browsers. I added a {{clear}} template before the section to prevent the large blank space after the section header, but the only thing I can think of that would make the page layout work better is to add enough prose to the Overview section so that the following sections would start below the infobox. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
"clear" solves the problem. HTML and CSS. Thanks.--Fabian USA (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I want to redirect someone that searches for Electric Vehicle Association to the existing page Electric Auto Association.[edit]

Do I create a new page and redirect them or is there a proper way to redirect a search to the existing page? BrightGuyinAmerica (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Since there exist pages for World Electric Vehicle Association and Electric Vehicle Association of Asia Pacific, I don't think it would be correct to use a redirect. It looks like this might have to be a disambiguation page. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

EDITED ARTICLES[edit]

Good afternoon!

I'm one of the contributors in Wikipedia before and it has come to my attention that one user edited an article and placed incorrect details [or deleted the details, at least]. Now, I may just let that pass if it's just a small thing but the problem here is, the article they touched is actually under the Kpop band EXO and a lot of fans are getting angry, to the point that they may do mass reporting and such. They've been talking about this on Twitter and Instagram and it's causing a lot of damage to Wikipedia's name. I don't want that to happen anymore. EXO has the largest number of fanbase among all Kpop bands and trust me, they have the power to do things beyond our imagination.

This is the article: http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/Exo_discography

They changed a lot of information. They removed all the details under 'Certifications' and even removed the updated information for the sales of the Japanese single. I have all the trusted sources for the correct details if you'd need that, but for now, I really hope you do something about the people who keep changing them. These things are the most important for EXO's fans.

Thank you. I hope to hear from you sooner.

Sincerely, Jann DG Jannnichick (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jannnichick. The article in question is Exo discography, and it has been semiprotected because of persistent efforts to add unsourced or poorly sourced content. We care about maintaining properly referenced articles and we do not care at all about angry Exo fans venting on Twitter or Instagram. They can say whatever they want and we will continue to maintain our quality standards. The proper place to propose changes to the article is Talk: Exo discography, and be sure to provide high quality references to reliable sources for any changes you want to make. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
One consideration, Jannnichick, is that (among other things) some of these fans have sought to use Twitter and Instagram for sources, something that will almost never be considered acceptable under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As far as the putative "damage to Wikipedia's name" goes, we're generally sanguine about keeping a reputation for requiring quality sources for important information, and if these fans want to rave on their own forums about that, well, they're the best judge of their own time. (grins) Ravenswing 08:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect terminology for Ice Dance[edit]

Hello, I've just realised that the Wikipedia page for Ice Dance is fundamentally flawed because it keeps referring to ice dance as ice dancing, the first example being in the page title itself, not to mention the filename! I've checked with the ISU website[1] and they do indeed refer to it as Ice Dance. 'Ice dancing' is an informal description of the activity of dancing on ice but the discipline itself is officially termed Ice Dance. I would like to reflect this fact in the relevant Wikipedia page by changing its title and correcting the wording where necessary in the page text. However, the article is held in a file called http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/Ice_dancing and that I cannot change! How would I go about getting this altered, as it would have repercussions for pages linking to it and all sorts of other potential conflicts. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rodney Baggins: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Articles on Wikipedia are titled with the most common wording given to the subject and not necessarily what something is called officially or legally(see WP:COMMONNAME). For example, the article Bill Clinton is titled "Bill Clinton" and not William Jefferson Clinton(though it is a redirect); Barack Obama and not Barack Hussein Obama II; Microsoft, and not "Microsoft Corporation". While I am not an expert, I believe Ice Dance is commonly called "ice dancing", which is why the article is titled that. However, if you wish to attempt to change that, you should start a discussion on the article talk page for that article; click "Talk" at the top right of the article(assuming you are using a computer) and begin a discussion that other interested editors can weigh in on. As you seem to be aware, changing the title could affect many articles, so it should be discussed first. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll just link to the talk page: Talk:Ice dancing. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
As example of a name change - article title Folic acid, the common name for the vitamin, changed to Folate after much discussion, leaving behind a redirect for those who search on folic acid. David notMD (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for all your advice. I will see what I can do, starting with a discussion on the talk page. Just a thought though: what happens if no-one wants to talk about it? Then what do I do!? Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it unlikely that such a major change being proposed would not draw some discussion, but you could make the discussion a formal Request for Comment if no one discusses it with you. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello,

How do you upload a logo? I of course do not own the picture and am not quite sure how to unload it to a page without copyright problems. Thanks is advance BoxedUp (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@BoxedUp: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I googled your username and a business with the name "Boxed Up" came up as a result. Do you represent that business, even though you are not editing about it? Even if not, you may need to change your username by visiting this page to request a username change, as usernames cannot be that of a business per the username policy.
As to your question, I believe logos are OK to upload with proper attribution(though others will know more than I), but your account must be autoconfirmed to upload images(that means your account must be at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits). Information on uploading images can be found at WP:UPIMAGE. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
You'll find advice about logos at WP:Logos. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I had no idea my username was a company. I just came up with something as everything else I was trying was already taken. i will change it no. Thanks for the help BoxedUp (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey BoxedUp. I would just add that most common phrases will probably end up being the name of one of the millions of businesses out there, and if you don't represent a company, then you should be just fine with the name you have. Also, if you would like to fill out the information there, you can request an image be uploaded at WP:FFU. GMGtalk 13:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@BoxedUp:I agree that since you are clear that you are not a company, you don't need to change your name. Maybe just put something on your userpage saying you are not a company. My apologies 331dot (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

new user need help[edit]

hello i just joined wikipedia. can you tell me how to get started? FiliInSK (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey FiliInSK. One good way to get started is to consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure, which can help explain alot of how Wikipedia works. Then, keep this page in mind where you can seek assistance and advice when you run into something confusing. GMGtalk 12:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia FiliInSK. It is nice to inform you that if you want to get involve , read all the guidelines carefully, then, make out that you have not to be too speedy. You have time. Trust your abilities. And try to modify articles that you can. Don't do things you have no idea. For any information you may use my talk page. Have a nice day . Abirlal Mukhopadhyay (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Answer simply[edit]

I am not a new editor, i joined wiki in 2016. And started active editing from 2018,editing. I made 750+ edits, and got experience too. I joined teahouse as a host. But i am confused how to start helping ! And from which page. Does a host has another profile or page to do so ? . Need answer from experienced host only. Abirlal Mukhopadhyay (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Abirlal Mukhopadhyay. The only thing that's really required of a host here is to respond to questions you know the answer to, and learn from those you don't. Even those who have been helping people here for a long time don't get everything right, and while Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, it's often good to be somewhat cautious when helping newer editors, since a number of contradictory responses can be easily confusing. Other than that, we're happy to have you and thanks for helping us build a better encyclopedia. GMGtalk 13:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Need Permission[edit]

Hello, dear host. I am needy, please do a thing for me. I have contributed a lot for many types of pages and became an experienced editor.(not like you, ha! ha!). I am able to review 'pending changes', but it depends on user's contribution topography. So, please have a look to my 'edit count' and answer that should i request for the 'pending change review permission'?. I know it is not a general request and you have to research a bit, but please do it for me , sothat, i may make wiki better. One more question, when i was new(joined just) i was blocked once for my test editings. Will it cause any negative marking to get permissions in future? Abirlal Mukhopadhyay (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Abirlal Mukhopadhyay. It seems that User:Mz7 has already answered your question in their reply to your request at WP:PERM/PCR. Mz7 is extremely experienced both as a user and an administrator, and the appropriate course of action would be to continue to build a track record of contributions that demonstrates an understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines, and then reapply after several weeks or a few months of doing so. GMGtalk 13:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you sir, but you did not answer to my second question that i asked . Please solve that. Abirlal Mukhopadhyay (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure Abirlal Mukhopadhyay. Previous blocks are certainly something that a reviewing administrator will look carefully at when deciding whether or not to grant advanced permissions. Even in good faith, recent blocks are often an indication that an editor has either not yet well understood Wikipedia policies, or has not yet learned to work collaboratively with others, both of which can lead to users, even unintentionally, misusing these types of permissions.
At this point, your block was only about a month ago, and similar to my above response, you will need to demonstrate that the issues which resulted in a block are no longer a problem, which you can do through continuing to contribute to the encyclopedia without further issues that might necessitate warnings or sanctions. GMGtalk 14:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
We're in 2018 now, User:GreenMeansGo, so Abir-lal's block is a year ago, not just a month. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Abir-lal: It seems highly unlikely to me that a small block over a year ago (2017, not 2018!) for what, quite possibly, was a misunderstanding in editing, would have very little effect on future requests for user rights, except perhaps 'Adminship'. What, if I might politely observe, makes me more worried about the competency any editor is when I see that they frequently clean out their talk pages, leaving no discussions visible, and I find many of those blanked notices highlight lots of poor past judgements. If that applies to you, you might like to consider setting up a bot to archive your talk page, and leaving more of your recent discussions there for people to view. It's also a very good way of showing how your understanding of editing Wikipedia has evolved. Nobody minds mistakes - what helps is demonstrating that we've learned from them and don't repeat them. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Derp. I always knew I was bad at math, but I didn't realize I was quite that bad. Stricken. Thanks for catching that. GMGtalk 14:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
No worries. One time when I'd spent all day cataloguing a collection of Victorian specimens in a museum I worked at, I went to my bank and signed/dated a cheque 1894!
Don't say like that sir, you are , so we are. I mean your dedications makes a user Wikipedian. Salute to your contributions.

Abirlal Mukhopadhyay (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you so much. Your words are too much helpful. If i develop no block in future, would Wikipedia consider me to permit Administration .

Abirlal Mukhopadhyay (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't raise your hopes at this point regarding becoming an administrator, Abir-lal. It's something to consider only after many years of editing and applying policies in a fair and competent manner, as well as of gaining the trust of the community of all the other users over whose work the admins oversee. It is certainly not something that any editor has to aspire to. Indeed, there are many extraordinarily good and experienced editors here who would tell you they have absolutely no desire whatsoever to get involved in the minutiae of "wielding the mop" (as they like to call it). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Create a template to avoid multiple annual changes[edit]

I curate all of the library system pages in Georgia, and having created almost all of these pages last year, they all follow the same general format so there's uniformity across the the subject. In the lead of all these pages I have a blurb explaining the library's card providers, PINES and GALILEO. Recently, PINES added another library to its system, and therefore the only thing I have to update now on 50 different pages are two numbers - the library system and number of counties served. It's not much of a hassle now but, the next time this happens I'll have to go through that entire process again - I can see it becoming a bit mundane. I was wondering if there was a way editors can get around this, and my first idea was by making templates, or similar. For example, if I were to make a {{PINES}} template, and stick it on all of those pages, then I only need to make one edit to effectively change 50 articles. But I've never seen a template in the article body, so I was wondering if this is allowed/encouraged. I realize if someone new comes to the page they may not understand the purpose of the template and won't know how to edit it.. so other ideas are appreciated as well! Thanks! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Working GMGtalk 15:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey Semmendinger. I took the liberty of creating Template:PINES data, which can be used by including {{PINES data}} into the text of an article, which as currently written would replace the text 284 member libraries across 143 counties, as can be seen with this edit. Once the replacement is made in the articles, all you will have to do next time is update the template. This might be slightly unorthodox (I don't really work with templates that much), but seems to solve your problem fairly well. GMGtalk 15:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo I figured it would work nicely as well! Thanks for the template, I'll start adding that later on tonight! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Semmendinger. This is not related to your question, but I'm a little concerned by the word "curate" that you used. If you simply mean that you have an interest in them, and are watching them and making improvements as necessary, that is fine: thank you for your contributions. But it might also mean that you think you are in charge of the articles, and get to control what is in all those articles: if that is your thought, please be aware that nobody owns a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
ColinFine I simply watch them...we use the word curate as NPP's when it refers to making sure articles are up to snuff. Thank you for your compliment. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Can some more experienced editors please intervene in this edit war?[edit]

See http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official)#Memo_incident_on_Infowars

and the talk page for the same article at http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/Talk:William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official)#Secret_Memo

An inexperienced editor is continually wrecking the section in what seems to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT

Can some other editors weigh in? Maybe the page needs a protected status.Localemediamonitor (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Localemediamonitor. I've watchlisted and warned. Probably about all that can be done at the moment, although WP:ANEW and WP:RFPP are certainly options if things get worse. GMGtalk 16:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Group of accounts that did PR/paid editing for Singaporean articles[edit]

I'm fairly certain there are a bunch of accounts that are used for PR/paid editing (Singaporean articles) in 2015, initiated by the Singapore National Library Board (NLB). They said so themselves here [1] that it was a SG50 project called the Singapore Memory funded by the government.[2]

Here's a list of accounts used to add (or attempted to add) chunky content to corporate/brand pages:

I read that paid editing is allowed so I'm not sure if this is even notable, but I do hope some seasoned Wikipedians can keep a lookout for promo content on the corporate pages these accounts have edited. NoCringe (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:PAID, paid editing is permitted on Wikipedia once it is disclosed. However, it must be openly declared in order to avoid conflicts of interest. However, if these accounts are still actively editing as a collective, we must carefully monitor them, despite their declaration. As they are funded by the government, the editors must be careful not only to edit in areas where they have a vested interest, but must also avoid introducing bias in their edits. They should also avoid using self-published material as citations, which they attempted to do in the edit which you referenced above. On a personal level, I would urge these editors to avoid making edits in topics which directly relate to them, as such edits will likely require thorough vetting by other (volunteer) editors. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Most of their usernames are violations, as well. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@A lad insane: - forgot that. One's username cannot be that of a company or organisation, and doing so is a bannable offense. Most of the usernames above contravene this policy as they imply shared use and could be considered promotional and should thereby be removed with haste. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the helpful replies Stormy clouds and A lad insane. The thing is they didn't not disclose their affliation in any of the talk pages or userpages, I was just wondering why these usernames with NLBS50 appeared in so many curiously-lengthy brand pages and started trawling through their edits when I found the actual connection to National Library Board. But it seemed like it was a one-time effort. Still, I suppose I will try to alert fellow editors on those article talk pages. Thanks! NoCringe (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

How to create scripts?[edit]

Hi. I want to create a script that fixes pages in Category:CS1 errors: dates. Unfortunately, I don't know how to code on Javascript. I want the script to be able to compare the citation date with the page's history so that it can determine when the reference was added if the error is in the access-date parameter. If the error is in the date parameter, I want the script to compare the date of when the source in question has been created and fix the error by substituting the date in which the source has been created in the correct format so that the error is fixed. Can you please help me out. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Phew. That's a heckuva question Pkbwcgs, and well beyond my own technical ability. In case you don't get a response here (which is usually for comparatively simple questions), may want to try at some place like Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or Wikipedia:Bot requests. GMGtalk 20:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Okay. I will copy this question onto Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Something is wrong. Lots of Wikipedia:Teahouse revisions have been deleted for no reason. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks like something needed suppressed that was sensitive enough it ought not be talked about publicly, which usually means something like private information that shouldn't have been shared on Wiki to begin with. See also the thread at User talk:DoRD. GMGtalk 21:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I edit Lyle stevik[edit]

Help editing fir article Lyle Stevik? Thanks Enuis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enuis (talkcontribs) 20:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Enius. Yes, of course you can, provided anything you add has supporting references, or if the changes you make are small, but enhance the article in some way. No opinions, no sources from Twitter and so on. Only reliable, independent sources like mainstream news media. Oh, and please, from now on, could you sign every post you make? You do this by typing four tildes (like this: ~~~~), and then press the Blue 'publish changes' button. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Can't find the save button[edit]

Hi: I have searched both my Sandbox page and the Draft page and cannot seem to find a Save button anywhere. I thought it would be at the bottom of the Edit box but I see only Publish. Would you please direct me to the correct location? Thanks.Doungleung (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Doungleung: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The Save button was recently changed to say Publish. The functionality has not changed. It was thought it would be less confusing. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Confusingly the software was changed by the WMF, so the button is now labelled Publish rather than Save (even though for a draft or sandbox it doesn't actually publish it as an article and merely saves an updated version of the draft). It is recognised that some of the instructions weren't updated, so if you tell us where you are seeing the instruction to use the Save button someone can hopefully change the instructions. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much for clearing this up! References to the Save button can be found here, as well as in other places that mention saving one's work:

http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Beginner%27s_guide_to_Wikipedia.Doungleung (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Doungleung: I am really very sorry you encountered these instructions which still had "save" instead of "publish" in them. That's my fault in a way, as I've been scouring Wikipedia for the last two months, looking for examples of any out-of-date help pages, but I don't think I searched for project pages which just had the word "save" in them. I have updated that page as best as I can for now.
Please, if you or any other editor finds any other mainstream help pages like this one which still contain the old "Save changes" or "Save" command in them, feel free to moan about them here, or paste the link in THIS USERPAGE which I created to help me manage all the mismatches. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

conflicting information.[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/Old_Dutch_Foods

Founded Calgary, Alberta, Canada (1934) Headquarters Calgary, Alberta

The company began as Old Dutch Products Co. in 1934. They originated in St. Paul, Minnesota,

Old Dutch opened a plant in Winnipeg, Manitoba, in 1954 to manufacture chips for the Canadian market. The head office for Canadian operations remains in Winnipeg. 50.71.218.214 (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello to the person at 50.71.218.214! Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy; the information was changed, without a citation, a few days ago. I've corrected it. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Newbie Question: What is the scope of vandalism[edit]

I just got accosted today of being a vandal and I'm at an utter loss and feel a little bullied. Earlier today, I edited a page of a town with details pertaining a movie recently released.

It is public knowledge that on location shots were taken in this town. Rhetoric from the movie itself, describe the area surrounding this town - imagery in the movie itself can be seen in the movie. My carefully worded edit did not claim the town as the location in the movie but was meant to draw inferences. My aim was not to offend or incite a trend but to add more to the sorely lacking rhetoric about the town to the rest of the world.

Does this make me a vandal? Or that I am purporting a hoax or nonsensical? Have I broken the wiki community guidelines? While one article was already reverted, I've paused completing the edits (production shots) I was making to the second one, here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/Kanungu

I am also from that particular area, which is why my reaction to being called a vandal is a little adverse.

128.237.168.140 (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Where were you called a vandal? I see at Kanugu MizPage claimed that Kanugu can be regarded as Wakanda (which goes against our policies on stating one's own opinions as fact, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR) and was not reverted. You're not logged in to your account, so I have to guess that you're MizPage. MizPage was reverted at at the Kanugu District article, with no comment whatsoever. It is beyond hyperbole to call that "accosted today of being a vandal." Try assuming good faith from other users. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello :Ian.thomson No, it's not hyperbole. The comment was sent to my own personal messaging (hence the feeling bullied) - screenshots can be provided if I can figure out away to upload them. However that aside, basing on the articles that you have linked - the only instance in which I can publish what I did is if it has already been published else where and then cite it on the page. And to the root of my original question, this isn't vandalism 128.237.168.140 (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

To date, there are no edits to MizPage's talk page, nor that of the IP address you are using. Furthermore, the MizPage account does not have email enabled, and no one has tripped [{WP:FILTER|edit filters]] on any of the article's mentioned here. Please post a link to where you got a message accusing you of vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@MizPage: You are quite right in that your edits could not be construed by a reasonable person to be vandalism, as Wikipedia defines it. They do look to have been made in good faith, though were perhaps ill-judged. I probably don't need to labour the point that Wikipedia has no place for personal opinions, rumour, facts-everyone-knows-but-cant-prove, and so on. Had you cited a reliable independent source which talked about using the area as a film set, then your edit would almost certainly have remained. (I might have moved it lower down the page, however.) Without any supporting evidence comments like these simply have to go, as Wikipedia is no place for the kind of gentle inference you made. Rest assured that no competent editor would have genuinely accused you of vandalism from just one edit like that. (Though, to be honest, there have been times when I've been checking and reverting constant vandalism across hundreds of pages, and for hours on end, and have once or twice jumped to the wrong conclusion made by an innocent editor. And I've had it happen to me, and it's not nice when it's unfair. That's when it's time to revert and say sorry, of course, although that kind of "templating" doesn't seem to have occurred here with the edits you refer to here. All very odd. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Nick Moyes Thank you for your explanation, I think in all honesty my perception of Wikipedia was different from what it actually is. But there is nothing like correction in what ever form it comes.

Ian.Thomson Here is the link. I failed to use the inbuilt upload feature so I used Drive instead. Because I would not use the language in my first comment out of hyperbole as you noted. In the same vein, I too assume good faith and as such came here for clarification.

Lol! Also I'm logged in but alas, another an IP instead :) 74.109.251.102 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice Cup of Tea?
OK - thanks for that. Well, until 5 minutes ago I wasn't aware there were ways of accessing Wikipedia on WhatsApp. And I cant quite make out who's engaging with who in that screenshot. But it all sounds quite light-hearted banter, unless I've misread something. Presumably you are only receiving messages from people you actually know via personal messaging? If so, I'm confused why you didn't take it up with them, rather than coming here. Anyway, perhaps I could make everyone here a nice cup of tea and we needn't be too concerned over precise interpretation -it's so easy to misunderstand meaning in the typed word. Just pinging @Ian.Thomson: as I think you didn't quite get the syntax right to automatically notify him of your last post. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not deliver messages through Whatsapp. Any connection between Whatsapp and Wikipedia is unofficial and through a third-party. You received a message from someone outside of this site, and we have no indication that that's really someone from this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

unwanted link[edit]

Anyone know how to qualify an edit that includes a name that then automatically links to a wikipedia page for same name, wrong person. I typed in Matthew Lipman, the living violist, who does not have a wikipedia page, but the edit highlighted it and linked it to Matthew Lipman, the deceased scholar. Any ideaS? Genealogyfacts2Genealogyfacts2 (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Genealogyfacts2, welcome to the Teahouse! What you want to do here is called Disambiguation. A common way to differentiate between people is to put the person's occupation in parentheses. So instead of Matthew Lipman, you'd link to Matthew Lipman (violinist). If you don't want the (violinist) part to show up in the text, you also do what's called "piping" the link. In the source editor, you'd type [[Matthew Lipman (violinist)|Matthew Lipman]] and what you get is this: Matthew Lipman. Hope this helps! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks! Genealogyfacts2Genealogyfacts2 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
But that is appropriate only if there could be a Wikipedia article about Lipman the violist, i.e. if he meets the criteria for notability. If he does not, then there cannot be an article about him, and it is not appropriate to create a WP:REDLINK. Genealogyfacts2, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which contains only notable subjects, If a non-notable person happens to have the same name as a notable person, then Wikipedia will find only the latter, and will simply not notice the former. (I'm not saying that Lipman isn't notble: I haven't investigated. But the onus is on the person creating the red-link to check that the target is notable.) --ColinFine (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet, now what?[edit]

Sockpuppet spotting is not exactly what I dreamt of doing here on Wikipedia, but I might have spotted a suspect.
I wrote the details at: http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/w/index.php?title=User:DexterPointy/sandbox
What now? DexterPointy (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, DexterPointy welcome to the Teahouse. It's funny how one can get sucked into the minutiae of Wikipedia and start feeling incredibly protective towards it, and sometimes suspicious of other's intentions, whether rightly or wrongly. Now, I've only recently started to get drawn into the wonderful world of sock puppets (via a suite of recently deleted and remerging articles on Defiant Wrestling, created and defended by numerous sock puppets) so I do have only limited experience to offer you. You are probably right in the first instance to gather your thoughts and collate them in a userpage before bringing it here or to WP:SPI. However, maybe it's the lateness of the hour here, but I'm really not seeing any behavioural correlation in the edits myself which concerns me. I do find it surprising that a brand new account made yesterday is only editing at WP:AFD, spouting policy and !voting keep one minute and delete another, so they've clearly done a lot of edited before - and that's no crime. But I can't see any suspicious correlation in the behavioural editing patterns myself, nor when using this interaction analyser tool. There are no overlapping edits between the two accounts you noticed, and it's not uncommon for a !voter to change their opinion (as you'll see I did with the sink-drainer cover article), or possibly even remove it completely. Other editors might see something that my tired brain has missed. But when I do have concerns, but I would simply note my suspicions away somewhere (maybe even offline) until I have strong reason to suspect and report to WP:SPI. But I don't think you have that at all, right now. Keep up the good work, though. Regards from the UK Nick Moyes (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'll just let it slide. Even if the two accounts are controlled by the same person (aka. sockpuppetry), then there's no urgency to taking action, as long as the person's participation isn't doing any harm. --DexterPointy (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Dispute res/user reporting outside of 3RR[edit]

I am dealing with an editor on Giovanni Gentile who keeps reverting to an edit on the page that was sourced with an unverfiable link from a fringe right-wing news website, WorldNetDaily.

Their reversions have not been in the course of a day, but occur every couple of days. How should I report this? They are clearly edit warring (have not discussed on talk page despite my posting there several times) but not under 3RR. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 01:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @Etzedek24: If your case is strong (which I have not checked), WP:AN/EW can be used to report edit-warring even outside 3RR violations.
Also, I would encourage you link to your talk page in your signature. WP:SIGLINK does not mandate it but I believe it is still good practice. For instance [[User:Etzedek24|Etzedek24]] [[User talk:Etzedek24|<sup><small>(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)</small></sup>]] would generate Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?). TigraanClick here to contact me 11:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks links are hidden[edit]

Information to users coming here: Thanks links are currently deliberately hidden due to a bug where the wrong editor is thanked. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Thanks not working. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! (oh, the irony!) Nick Moyes (talk)
An editor actually managed to log a thanks for the edit which hid thanks links! There are still ways to do this, at least when it's the most recent edit to a page. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Two Q: New Article and Translate Article[edit]

Dear All,

I am a newbie and very much interested to write articles on Wikipedia. I have two questions.

1. How to write a new article in my native language (Tamil). Guide me how to do?

2. How to translate an article into my native language(Tamil) for the articles in the English language?

Freesudhakar (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. To answer your second question first, there is advice at WP:Translate us.
Before trying to write an article in whichever language it is wise to become familiar with editing in that language's Wikipedia. Advice before writing an article in the English Wikipedia is at WP:Your first article. The equivalent advice for the Tamil language Wikipedia is at ta:விக்கிப்பீடியா:முதல்_கட்டுரை. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Reading an article, I saw this regarding page info[3]. It includes number of page watchers and number of page watchers who visited recent edits. Is it also possible to see which editors watching the page or which page watchers visited the recent changes? 5.3.242.227 (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Such information is unavailable for privacy reasons. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Per Help:Watchlist#Privacy, watchlists are not publically viewable. The answer is hence probably "no" - if you could see page watchers for page X, you could reconstruct an approximation of a given user's watchlist by checking for all pages they touched. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

article and logo update - conflict of interest[edit]

Hopefully you are able to help me.

I would like to update the Adler and Allan article on Wikipedia, i tried this in the past however there was a conflict of interest. the current information and logo and the page need updating, how would i be able to do this. can i send the new information and logo over to be proof read before uploading to change the article.

please let me know.

kind regards,

Rene Rene Willemsen (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rene Willemsen: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You've been given some great advice and an offer to help on this at your user talk page, User talk:Rene Willemsen; but to summarize, you should propose any changes you wish to see on the article talk page first, Talk:Adler and Allan.
You also need to, if you haven't already, review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID if you are a paid representative of Adler and Allan; the latter is required by Wikipedia's Terms of use for paid editors. Those policies ask you to formally declare your conflict of interest and its nature(especially if you are paid). 331dot (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Legislation about accounts[edit]

May a user use two different accounts ? I noticed even master editors are using two accounts. Is it legal ?. If he/she use one of them for test edits or softwork. Abirlal Mukhopadhyay (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Abirlal: There are circumstances where using two different accounts is permitted; this is often done when someone uses Wikipedia on a private home computer and on a public computer(such as a library) for security reasons. A list of acceptable uses of multiple usernames can be found on this page. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you 331dot, your words are truely helpful. Have a nice day.Abirlal Mukhopadhyay (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
You have used another account User:Rnhelp to add your own name to various articles here… [4] and here [5]. This is not an acceptable use of a second account. Theroadislong (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Not two user names for editing the same article. David notMD (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

what is the correct way to credit any of these soundtracks if I use them in a short video.194.66.229.8 (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org.mevn.net/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_sound_files/Bac–Baz 194.66.229.8 (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Those files are at Wikimedia commons, and the information you're looking for is at C:COM:REUSE. --ColinFine (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Can we create a page about a famous Makeup Artist without disclosing her age?[edit]

Hi there, We want to create a page for a well-known BAFTA award winning makeup artist, but she doesn't want her age to be disclosed on her wikipedia page. Is that possible? Or is it required for a personal profile to include birth year and therefore, age? 2A02:C7F:DC04:C200:C194:B468:D8CF:9F85 (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP user and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure who "we" is but if you are associated with the person you are describing you will need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and possibly the paid editing policy at WP:PAID, if you are being paid for your Wikipedia efforts.
Regarding your question, it depends on how well known the person is. The policy in this area is at WP:BLPPRIVACY. If the year this person was born is not written in independent reliable sources, it does not need to be in the article. If her birth year is written in a minimal number of sources, you might be able to keep it out, but the more well known the person is, the harder that will be to do.
Please note that a Wikipedia article existing about a person is not necessarily a good thing for that person. Please see WP:PROUD. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The subject of an article has no editorial control over it at all (except for the removal of obvious untruths etc) If this person's age is publicly known it will be added to the article, if not by you then someone else. But, more important than any of that. Are you creating the article at the request of that person, or are you employed by them or have strong links to them? If yes, you shouldn't be creating the article at all because of a conflict of interest. See WP:COI before you start. - X201 (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

That's all really helpful thank you. 2A02:C7F:DC04:C200:C194:B468:D8CF:9F85 (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Heritage USA[edit]

I’m working on is Heritage USA. Just curious, where do you think the image should go, “History” or “Heritage Grand Hotel redevelopment”? —LovelyGirl7 talk 15:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that thematically, it could work in either section. It may be better to try out both locations, and see which one "looks" better; for example, you'll want to avoid having too many images in the same part of the article. --Jayron32 15:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

How do I translate a page?[edit]

I've noticed I can't find much information in my language so I've decided to sign up and translate some of the articles, but I don't know how. Could you please help?NuAuInfoInRomana (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NuAuInfoInRomana. Please read Wikipedia:Translation and also Wikipedia:Translate us, which should give you a good overview. You must provide attribution, so pay special attention to the licensing requirements. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this a bogus reference?[edit]

A recent edit of Xiphoid process included this reference Filling the Gap: on the New Micro-toponomic Phenomena and Partial Topologies [6]. I wonder if it is a a real academic article. It does not appear in Google Scholar or have any other citations anywhere. Rhadow (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Short answer: it stinks to high heaven.
The parent journal's publication policy does not exactly fill me with confidence about their process (first of all, that page is filled with broken English; second, in the initial evaluation phase, it is pointless to read the manuscript and assess the author's credentials, if the latter counts for you, do it first; third, single-blinded reviews are IMO a poor idea, and most journals who do it do not brag about it; fourth, the "ethics" section looks exactly like you would expect from a press house with no ethics). Neither does the fact that they ask for reviewers to postulate on their website.
What really gives the game away though is the "author instructions" page. There are things to say about the contents, but the giant red flag is the inclusion of a citation to the MDPI's style guide in the examples. (See Beall's list and the lead of MDPI if that does not ring a bell to you.) TigraanClick here to contact me 17:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Rhadow (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Rhadow I have had the misfortune to have encountered this author (and Wikipedia contributor) many times recently. In virtually all cases their articles and associated websites are purely self-serving, self-promoting bullpoo, making the Daily Mail look like an academic journal, whilst their own pseudo-academic journal-sounding websites and ramblings are a laugh a minute. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Need a proofreader[edit]

Hello Teahouse helpers,

Newbie here.

I translated a page from English to Spanish and would like a proofreader. How do I find one? This is my first time collaborating with Wikipedia. Could anyone guide me through the process of translating articles and crediting the original article?

Thank you

Egalanti Egalanti (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Egalanti Your edit history shows only two edits which are to this page, can you tell us what the article is called? If you haven't created it yet I would recommend the WP:AFC process where it can be proof read by reviewers before being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The OP is presumably referring to es:Curling en las Olimpiadas de Invierno 2018 – Torneo femenino, though it looks from es:Anexo:Curling en los Juegos Olímpicos de Pyeongchang 2018 that they are expecting the article to be entitled es:Anexo:Curling en los Juegos Olímpicos de Pyeongchang 2018 – Femenino, and presumably they would expect it to be of similar format to es:Anexo:Curling en los Juegos Olímpicos de Pyeongchang 2018 – Masculino. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The original name of the article is "Curling at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Women's tournament" (in English) The translated title is "Curling en las Olimpiadas de Invierno 2018 – Torneo femenino"

I hit publish thinking it would save the translation so I could review it and make changes to it later. Will all Wikipedia readers have access to it or does the translation need to be approved first?

Thank you! Egalanti (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, we already have an article called Curling at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Women's tournament but you have made no edits to it unless you were logged out? Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Egalanti: The OP is looking for a proofreader for his Spanish version, not the English one. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you...I must learn to read properly. Theroadislong (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
It may be worth looking at Category:Translators en-es. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps it hasn't been published for everyone to see. I didn't create the article, I merely translated it and was hoping to find a proofreader. I will search a bit more and see if I can find one. Thank you for taking the time to help me, I really appreciate it
Egalanti (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it has been published for everyone to see. In the English Wikipedia we would recommend that new editors shouldn't try to publish an article directly to mainspace, but instead should produce a draft for review through the Article for creation process. The guidance is at WP:Your first article. As I am not a Spanish speaker I will leave you to read the equivalent page at es:Ayuda:Tu primer artículo to see whether it gives similar advice. Advice on translating from English to a foreign Wikipedia is at WP:Translate us. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you David for the suggested page. I will look for a proofreader there.Egalanti (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Egalanti, the word "publish" gets used in different senses. Most people think of "publishing" as meaning making a page part of Wikipedia's main set of articles: so you can develop a draft somewhere out of sight, and then 'publish' it. But in fact, every page on Wikipedia is visible to the entire world: articles, drafts, user pages, everything. As soon as you have saved it, it is visible, and so in a different sense "published" I assume that is why the Foundation recently changed "Save" to "Publish", to make this clear; but it has caused confusion instead. Pages outside the main article space are not usually indexed by search engines, and so will not come to people's attention casually, and in that sense, they haven't been published; but they are still visible if somebody goes looking for them. --ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

creating new pages[edit]

Hello, I'm teaching a university course with editing wikipedia as an assignment option. We would like to have several wikipedia pages created that don't yet exist. Do we go through the normal process to do this individually for each page? how long does it usually take to get a page created? Thanks!72.33.2.68 (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello anon. Usually the best way to start out creating articles is to create them using the Article Wizard submit them for review with our Articles for Creation project, where they can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. Prior to this, I recommend reviewing our tutorial on writing your first article. You should also probably consider reviewing our resources for educators as part of our Wikipedia education program. GMGtalk 18:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, IP editor. I highly recommend that you contact the Wiki Education Foundation, which can offer you their expertise and staff support. I know their executive director, Frank Schulenberg, and he is a fine person. You should also sign up for an account which will facilitate communication with experienced editors. Have your students read and study Your first article and associated links to begin. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, anonymous teacher, and welcome to Wikipedia. "Editing Wikipedia" will be a fine assignment option, teaching the students how to edit while improving Wikipedia. But creating new pages is really difficult for inexperienced editors, and the attempt would be likely to cause grief and disappointment for the students while bringing no improvement to Wikipedia. Creating new articles is a tiny fraction of the many tasks that editors work on, and one of the most difficult. I would urge you, for your sake, for the students' sake, and for Wikipedia, to chose a more attainable target. Maproom (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - I will create an account and follow up on this advice! 2607:F388:107E:0:E4F4:6D55:A7B1:E624 (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I have nothing to add to the advice above, and the links will provide plenty more. I will just add that if ever you have WikiEd-related questions, Wikipedia:Education noticeboard is the place to go (you will get answers sooner than on the general help desks). TigraanClick here to contact me 19:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Templates again[edit]

Hi, I want to edit my user space and create some sort of table containing some of the templates that I find useful. But I don't know how to add them without them being displayed. I only want to show them like this Template:Disclamer, but without the spaces. Thanks. OnaxisTALK TO ME 20:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I jsut sorted it out :) OnaxisTALK TO ME 21:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Onaxis. I don't know if you know about the template {{tl}}, but that sounds as if you would find it useful. (What I wrote in the previous sentence was {{tl|tl}}, and as you see, it displays as {{tl}} with a link to the template definition). --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Article not visible in search engines[edit]

Hi I recently created a bio article for an artist by name Mojo Perry in sandbox and when it seem good I later moved it to article. But it seems not to be indexed by wiki search or Google. Can someone help me out.? I have done more than 10 edits and Its been years since I open my wiki Account so the 4 days too can't be the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinferevans (talkcontribs) 20:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The article was probably awaiting being patrolled by an experienced editor, Kinferevans. From what I saw of it before it was deleted, it was highly promotional and based pretty much entirely on material from the subject's website. Wikipedia articles should be largely based on what independent sources say about a topic, and should be written in a neutral tone. Please see Wikipedia:Your first article for some good advice. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
thanks for the heads up Kinferevans (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

How do I replace a logo on the summary box?[edit]

Thank you for your assistance with this request, as this pertains to the page for Glendale community College, California. Chamroon (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Chamroon. When I look at the logo appearing in Glendale Community College (California), and then look at the logo on the college's website, they appear to be identical. Can you please explain why the logo should be replaced? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Question I want to ask.[edit]

Hello! I have a question I want to ask. Why doesn't the United States Census Bureau conduct population estimates for unincorporated communities in the United States? This excludes Census-designated places. Coloradodude19 (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Coloradodude19. The Teahouse is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. For general knowledge questions, please try the Reference desks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Thank you for letting me know. I understand this, but I will ask my question at the reference desk. Cheers! Coloradodude19 (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

how do i edit something about me[edit]

There is a wikipedia page on me and my birthdate is wrong. How do I correct it? 2600:1702:850:8340:6C4E:EDB5:356E:7A7C (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP user and welcome to the Teahouse. It would help to know who you are, but in any event you should post on the talk page associated with the article about you, there is a Talk tab at the top of the article which will take you there. You will need to offer a source for your birthdate as we cannot simply take your word for it, as information here must be verifiable. You should review the autobiography policy at WP:AUTO for more information. You may also want to register a username and then confirm your identity by emailing the address at the end of the paragraph here, to ensure you are not impersonated by someone else. 331dot (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
It appears IP went and edited the article Yari Allnutt after asking here. I checked their change and it is correct by the official sources, so the DOB change they made is fine. NZFC(talk) 01:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Feeling discouraged...[edit]

hi, i'm writing under a fake name for privacy, but i know about sock puppet rules. there's a bad-tempered user who's causing me stress, and i don't know what to do about it. i'm afraid if he finds out i'm asking or complaining about him, he'll show up here and go on an attack against me. i just want to ask for some advice anonymously before i do anything else, i hope it's ok. i've been editing for a couple of years but i never had to deal with such a hostile person before. there are so many rules, guidelines, noticeboards, etc., i've spent hours reading them but i can't make sense of it. probably i'm too sensitive but i even had some nightmares about it. i feel like i want to get out, maybe even to quit wikipedia, but then i'd feel bad that i let him bully me.

it started when he showed up in an article and made some changes that were not helpful. he reverts anyone who changes it back, or he makes a little different version so it's technically not a revert. he's an old-timer and knows all the rules. i started a discussion on the talk page, and he wrote some hostile things. it's not really personal attacks but it's hostile arguing and borderline "you know nothing" kind of insults. a few other people joined and they're all very nice and smart, and we all generally agree on things, so that's nice. but he won't listen to anyone or anything, he won't make any kind of compromise at all, and he attacks everyone's comments and writes these long things that twist reality and don't make sense. he keeps reverting or change everything anyone tries to do, and makes even bigger changes. after a couple of times i gave up trying to put things back to a reasonable state. now i can't figure out how to fix it.

everyone but him wants to put the article back the way it was. we're not stonewalling, we're all open to positive changes, but that's not what he's offering. i'm trying to follow the rules about consensus and content disputes but i don't get it. i feel like i'm being pulled into this pointless conflict and forced to provide counter-arguments for the nonsense he writes, everyone is spending time trying to explain why his arguments don't make any sense, but it's a farce, it's not a real discussion. it's just endless hostility and nonsense arguments from him. then he puts it back his way, saying that nobody has made a valid argument against it.

at what point can i say "everyone but you agrees to do it this way, so that's the consensus, so that's what we're going to do". how can we end this? or can one user block the consensus? is there no way to get him to stop? we've been stuck with his bad versions of the article for a long time now, and it's a major article. it's like he's holding it hostage.

i looked at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and the administrators noticeboard for incidents, but i can't figure out the right place to go, or what to ask for, or exactly what rules he's broken - if any. is this a content dispute, or a behavior dispute? what if it's both? who can make some kind of ruling? how can we make him stop and go away? i don't want to make a complaint and then have nothing come of it, to pointlessly kick the hornet's nest. i want to stand up to this person, but i don't know how. i'm very tired of it, wasting way too much time, and discouraged that i can't figure out the system to do something about it, and in the meantime having to hide behind a fake name and dreading looking at my watchlist. i really think after this i'll stop wikipedia, at least for a while. it's feeling like an unfriendly place, not only because of him, but all the complicated legalese. maybe someone can give some advice about how to proceed? StormyWhether (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to just say "you're the only one who disagrees, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" or whatever. If he doesn't stop, just try to ignore him, saying "this is the consensus" each time he reverts it. If he reverts enough people or breaks the three-revert rule you could report him to the edit-warring noticeboard. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
he's careful not to break the three revert rule. what do you mean, "if he reverts enough people"? i looked at the edit-warring noticeboard and i can't understand how it would apply unless someone is breaking the 3RR. you have to provide diffs of where they have reverted to a previous version within 24 hours, but he waits until the next day, and usually makes some small changes so it's technically not a revert. also, i keep reading that i should never continue to revert someone, because it's edit warring even if it's not all on the same day. if we revert each other every day, then i'm just as guilty as him. you're supposed to stop reverting and discuss it. technically he's discussing it, but in reality not, because he has no intention of compromising at all. and he doesn't stop reverting, so it always ends up with his version because i'm following the rules and not edit warring. StormyWhether (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)