Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 219

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

Archive 215

←

Archive 217

→

Lots and piles of chunks of questions

Hello, and I'm sorry for being a host with lots and piles of chunks of questions! We should start now!

I know that Wikipedia is not censored, but I hate vulgarities in my talk page. Can I censor them?
I do not understand why a user deleted my pages, mainly User:NN4 and User talk:NN4. Is it because short forms are not allowed? Then, in this case, why can User: I dream of horses use User:IDoH to redirect to her page but I can't use mine?
What should I do if I have a feeling that a user is wikihounding me?
Can I put shortcuts like User talk:Nahnah4/A to User talk:Nahnah4/Archives?
How can I create a bot if I can't read programming language?

To answer, please ping me and specify which (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5) are you answering. Thanks! --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear User:Nahnah4, Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's a answer to Question 1: If you hate those vulgarities on your talk page, you can request that an Administrator grant your page semi-protection; see WP:RFP. Hope this helps :) Cheers, Z10987 (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Z10987: Nope, it is not a vandalism nor an IP, it is a host who just, I don't know. It was a song title. I'm quite sensitive. --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nahnah4: I see. Let's wait for someone more experienced to respond, then Z10987 (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey @Nahnah4:, some answers for you:

1. Although it is not encouraged (archiving is preferred), per this guideline you can remove whatever you want from your own talk page except declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags. See this guideline for more details.
2. I'll look at the deletions and get back to you.
3. It depends on what the Wikihounding involves. You should first try engaging with the editor in question and if that fails raise it at the administrators' noticeboard.
4. I'm not sure of the rules on User talk space redirects, which is what this would involve.
5. If you don't understand programming languages then I would advise you to stay away from creating bots as they can do more harm than good. Based on your short time as an editor on Wikipedia, it is unlikely that you would received bot approval at this stage.

Hope that helps. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Philg88: Thanks. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nahnah4: (e/c) You may remove posts from your talk page, but you should not change the text of another user's post;
You created a user page and a user talk page of a nonexistent user, which is why they were deleted under section U2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You can create user and user talk subpages but they should be subpages of your actual account name. If you want to use "NN4" as a nickname, for example, in your signature, you can pipe a link from your actual username, to that alternate text → [[User:Nahnah4|NN4]] will produce NN4. The fact that someone else has done something does not mean it was correct, or ever noticed, or not a bad practice or is not grandfathered in at this point;
It's hard to say without specifics. Have you tried discussing it with the person at their talk page? Doing so in a non-accusatory and civil manner is probably a good idea;
Use the pipe trick, as linked above: [[User talk:Nahnah4/Archives|User talk:Nahnah4/A]] will appear as User talk:Nahnah4/A;
I don't think that's possible (and if it is, say, through someone else writing it for you, it's probably not prudent). Note also that for bots to run they need to be approved. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: On #2: But why does User:I dream of horses allowed to use User:IDoH to redirect to her user page? and on #4: I did not use the pipe link, just User talk:Nahnah4/A into a redirect to User talk:Nahnah4/Archives. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 06:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nahnah4. You redacted my comment on your talk page over ten days ago, and I didn't revert you, so I am unsure why you are bringing up the issue again. I do not object to you removing the whole section if you want. But please note that if you start a discussion about explicit song titles on an album cover, then some explicit song titles may well be mentioned in the discussions that follow. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The page history [1] of User:IDoH shows it was created with the edit summary "This is my IRC chatroom screen name, so I am redirecting this userpage to my userpage. If anyone creates an account under my name, revert me." That seems sensible to me but you can try to nominate it for deletion if you want. I don't see a good reason to create User:NN4, especially when your username is only 7 characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Floating Text Box Warning is getting annoying

I keep getting the following text box floating over my screen when I edit my sandbox:

"AFCH error: user not listed AFCH could not be loaded because "MadScientistX11" is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. You can request access to the AfC helper script there."

To my knowledge, I'm not involved in creating any new articles right now. A long time ago as a result of trying to help some new user requesting help at the tea house I tried doing some of the work to move their article along from their sandbox to an article for creation. Not sure if that is what caused this or what but it's getting annoying to see that box all the time. MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi MadScientistX11. If you don't review articles at AfC then you can disable "Yet Another AFC Helper Script" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That was easy. Thanks!. I must have checked that box by mistake a while ago when I edited my options to add Twinkle and other things I do use. thanks for the prompt response. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Article Submission

Hi Everyone -

I have been working hard and am looking to get feedback regarding my article before I submit. If you have time, I would love to hear your thoughts on what I can do to improve my article before submission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnKnox77/sandbox

Thanks

JohnKnox77 (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JohnKnox77. Your well-documented article illustrates the classic conundrum in describing a business on Wikipedia--the products are exciting and cutting-edge, and you describe them thoroughly. Therein lies the problem. I think sometimes editors give advice to change the tone ("reads like an advertisement") when the real issue is content. The focus of the article needs to be on the company, rather than product description. Product descriptions tend to sound promotional no matter how neutral you try to be, and mentions of where the product is used will always sound like endorsements. If you refocus the article on the company (the history, development, acquisitions, company leadership, bottom line, etc.) it is less likely to sound like an ad, and more likely to be neutral in point of view. There is no doubt in my mind that this company is noteworthy and deserves an article on Wikipedia, but it should only mention the product line in passing. All the best, Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This makes a log of sense. I will re-purpose the article. Thank you so much for your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnKnox77 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

How to cite fonds

Hi I am just getting started as a volunteer for our local archives. I have been asked to investigate and advise on how to include relevant references to wikipedia articles. We have a lot of information to share about our area in our fonds collection, and would like to especially add pictures in articles. I am wondering if it is copacetic to cite back to the fond collection (we have a finding aid button on the website) or is there a better way to do this. Thanks in advance.PeaceofHistory (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, PeaceofHistory. In all honesty, the meaning of "fond" I am familiar with is the caramelized bits of food sticking to the bottom of a frying pan. So, it would be helpful to know more about what you mean. If your archive owns copyright to some images and wants to release them under a Creative Commons license for free use by anyone, then please upload to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. You can require that your archive be credited as the copyright owner, and listing your website is fine, connected to each image. Linking to the archive in individual Wikipedia articles may present problems in some cases. If you tell us more the archive and the articles in question, we can be much more specific. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

We have an article on Fonds if that helps cullen? Theroadislong (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Theroadislong. I still think it would be useful to have an example of what a possible photo would show, and how it might be used in the article. And also whether the archive holds the copyright to the images in question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, PeaceofHistory. This is my understanding of the subject; other editors may correct me: Wikipedia references should be to individual published documents. Citing a collection would be like citing a shelf in the public library, rather than a specific book. If the document has been published, then the references should indicate where it was published. If it was never published, it wouldn't be considered to be a reliable source. That said, if a copy of a published document were to be in one of the fonds, a note at the end of the standard citation as to where the copy is located may be appropriate if the document is rare and hard to find. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

How can i revise a description to add a Court Decision and Order?

i am not a neutral party. i won a Court case against Tan D. Nguyen for fraud and tried to revise his bio to include it citing the case number and naming the Judge It was immediately removed by another user (possibly a friend or relative of Tan D. Nguyen.

i know of no other source which has publicized the Court Judgments. How can the Judgment of fraud be added to the bio?

Thank you, Notafraidtotell 107.141.210.61 (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, person with an IP of 107.141.210.61 and welcome to The Teahouse. Were you signed in under another name? Or do you get your Internet service from a provider which changes your IP? Or did you edit from a different computer? Because this is your only contribution to English Wikipedia. If you could name the article that would help.

By the way, I fixed the formatting of one of your paragraphs so it would display better.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see you signed as User:Notafraidtotell. The article is Tan D. Nguyen. If you are personally involved in the case, it would be best to discuss the situation on Talk:Tan D. Nguyen, and make sure to use independent reliable sources, although you suggest there aren't any, and that would be a problem. Other, uninterested parties can add the information you want in the article and make sure it has a neutral point of view which would be difficult for an involved person to do.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Another option would be to discuss on User Talk:Materialscientist. The case numbers are there so there could be proper documentation but this might be a case of undue weight. One possible objection is that this takes up too high a percentage of the article in relation to its importance.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I see User:Materialscientist left you a polite message on your talk page. That message pointed out that you added unreferenced material to a biography of a living person, which is not allowed. Also, your heading was in all capitals. Instead, it should have been ==Fraud==. But you have to fix the other problems before any information is added to the article, and you probably shouldn't be the one to do it.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Notafraidtotell, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not the place to document your legal feud. Please read our conflict of interest guidelines and our sourcing guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 4:41 pm, Today (UTC−4)

link to other language wiki page

I'd like to link to a Spanish-language wikipedia page, do I need to link with the full url?Alammana (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Alammana: Hi Alammana. to link to another language Wikipedia's article just type inside of doubled brackets a colon, followed by a language code (in this case "es" for Spanish) and another colon followed by the name of the article at that Wikipedia. So for example, if you wanted to link to the Spanish Wikipedia article on the slow loris, you'd type [[:es:Nycticebus]], which would format as es:Nycticebus. If you wanted to link there but have it display without the langugae code, you'd use a pipe between the link name and the display name: [[:es:Nycticebus|Nycticebus]], which would display as Nycticebus. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks so much, Fuhghettaboutit! That's exactly what I needed. Alammana (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alammana and welcome to the Teahouse! It's always nice to see questions about improving inter-wiki language linking. My only question is whether the articles you intend to link to on Spanish Wikipedia already have an article in English. If they don't, please consider using the template {{ill}} (you can get more info by clicking on that link). This will still provide a link to the Spanish article but will indicate that there is no corresponding English article. Otherwise, without clicking on the link, other editors have no way of telling that an English article needs to be created. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Philg88, that's really helpful. A lot of the topics I'm likely to write on have extensive articles in Spanish, but none in English. I appreciate the feedback! Alammana (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! Buena suerte mi amigo Philg88 ^♦talk 05:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Feedback Requested on Article

Hi Everyone - I wanted to get additional feedback on my article before submitting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnKnox77/sandbox I am looking forward to hearing everyones thoughts. It is greatly appreciated. FINGERS CROSSED!

JohnKnox77 (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi JohnKnox77 and welcome to the Teahouse. I've had a quick look through the article and here are few pointers that might help:

The company's growth and sales figures (references 12 and 13 in the company history section) are purely promotional and I would remove them.
I suggest that you merge the two sections following the Company history section (Titan acquisition and culture) into that one.
Removing the promotional statements in the Technology section will increase the article's chances of acceptance.

Doing the above is no guarantee of the article passing its next review but it should help. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Policy for MythBusters series lists

Hi all. Firstly, apologize for my bad English. I have a question about policies. What rule allows users to insert notes about myths on pages with series lists (like this or this and etc..) without specifying the source? Is there are some special policy for TV show or something? Swix (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Swix, welcome to the Teahouse. There are a lot of notes on those pages and I don't know whether you have specific notes in mind. If you just mean descriptions of what happens in the show then MOS:PLOT says: "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, do 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." MOS:PLOT is part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction but would also apply to this kind of show. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reply! Yes, i'm talking about experiment descriptions indicated in block "Notes". This descriptions must have a reliable source to prove Wikipedia:Notability (films), doesn't it? Swix (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia:Notability (films) says "The notability guideline for film-related articles is a standard for deciding if a film-related topic can have its own article." A note is not an article and doesn't need an independent source. Anyway, television shows are not films and don't have their own notability guideline so the relevant guideline for getting an article is the general Wikipedia:Notability. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"Ten Edits"

What does "ten edits" mean? In other words, can it be my own article, or does it have to be other people's articles? Confession Procession (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Confession Procession, welcome to the Teahouse. Any edit at en.wikipedia.org counts, including this question. Special:Contributions/Confession Procession currently shows nine edits and your account is a little more than four days old so you will be autoconfirmed after your next edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Assuming you are referring to autoconfirmed status, WP:AUTOCONFIRMED states:- Although the precise requirements for autoconfirmed status vary according to circumstances, most English Wikipedia user accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed. However, users with IPBE editing through the Tor network are subjected to stricter autoconfirmed thresholds: 90 days and 100 edits.

I know that deleted edits do not count, but AFAIK all other edits do count, so you are up to 9.

However, please do not move Draft:Franklin Russell Millin, Jr. into mainspace, until you have formatted the references properly - please read Help:Referencing for beginners as a simple guide to how to start. - Arjayay (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

article help

I am really having trouble with my article iw ant to make. I went to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk and oyher people, its complecated, is there any kind user's that could fix it for me Cincao03 19:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cincao03 and welcome to the teahouse. I don't know much about basketball, but I do know sometimes basketball players are notable here on Wikipedia even if not by our normal rules. Try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 (talk) Do you know anyone that know s about basketball that could fix the article. Cincao03 20:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Cincao03! I had a look at the article, and unfortunately it looks like this freshman college player, as noted by the draft reviewer, is not notable enough for inclusion at this time. This is not a problem that can be "fixed", because it is not possible to make a subject more notable via editing. VQuakr (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr (talk) But this person needs a wiki article because its to good of a player. 1. you could fix it yourself. or 2. do resarch on him and see how good he is. or 3. Get someone else to do all this crap. Do one of them!!! Cincao03 20:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Which newspapers mention him? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Cincao03 but that's not the way Wikipedia works. "Because its to good of a player" or "because I really like them" or "because she is so popular", are not enough. We require that at least a couple of major newspapers, or reputable book publishers, or websites with a reputation for fact checking, have already found the subject important enough to write about them: then there will be enough published information about the subject to write a good article. If he's as good as you say he is, then that will probably happen some time; but it may not be there yet.

The other point is that Wikipedia is entirely created by volunteers. I don't know about other people, but I know that when somebody comes along and tells me what I should do, I'm not inclined to help them. You want this article, you do the research Cincao03. And if you, caring about it, can't find the references, then they probably don't yet exist.

Alternatively, Demiurge's suggestion that you ask at WikiProject Basketball is a good one. But I recommend you have a go at inviting people to share your passion rather than telling them what to do. Cheers, --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Cincao03 13:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

having an article about a book accepted on Wikipedia

Hi, I went to the "requested articles" page on Wiki and found a book that seemed easy to write an article about. I wrote the article, put it up, but it got an "immediate deletion" tag instead. I really do not have a clue what I did wrong. I looked at other wiki pages about books, and I tried to make mine look like those, but I guess there was something I was missing. Can you help me figure it out so the next time I write a new article it sticks and does not get deleted? Here is the book I was trying to write about "The Dark Side of Nowhere."Editingright (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Editingright. We have a Notability guideline for books, which you should read. In brief, a book which has received multiple reviews in independent, reliable sources will usually be considered notable. Or a book which has won a major literary award. Or a book that was made into a notable movie or television show. Or a book which is widely used as a subject of instruction in schools. So that's a summary of the things that help determine if Wikipedia ought to have an article about a specific book. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! The promotional tone is what I struggle with the most.

JohnKnox77 (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you think my article is ready for submission?

I apologize if I keep asking for someone to review my article, but I want it to be as perfect as possible at the time of submission. The main area I am concerned about is the "Technology" section in my article. Would you please review my article and provide specific feedback as to what you recommend I should change / if any, before hitting the submit button? Please be specific as to what may sound too promotional if any. I am struggling with the tone a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnKnox77/sandbox

Thank you all so much. I really appreciate everyone on here that is helping me.

JohnKnox77 (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You ought to remember that your draft is now at Draft:AlterG, Inc.; User:JohnKnox77/sandbox is now merely a redirect. Secondly, it is better if rather than giving the URL of a Wikipedia page, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnKnox77/sandbox, you give it as a wikilink, so [[User:JohnKnox77/sandbox]] shows as User:JohnKnox77/sandbox. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. You will have to forgive me as I am still learning.

Do you have any insights as it pertains to the article?

JohnKnox77 (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I am going to take another stab at the technology section and try to make it less promotional. I will get feedback once my edits have been made.

JohnKnox77 (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I "publish" my draft page?

Hi all, I have finished my draft page for Historic Wintersburg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Historic_Wintersburg_in_Huntington_Beach,_California, but cannot figure out how to take it from draft to "live" or published. This is the first page I have created, so I'm just unfamiliar with some of how this works. All information is vetted. I appreciate help with this so it can be viewed! Mary Urashima (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mary, welcome to the teahouse. You can submit it for review by putting {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. You may wish to have a look at WP:CHEATSHEET for information on how to format Wikipedia pages; in particular the spaces at the start of paragraphs cause a messy display. Check out WP:REFB for how to add inline citations.

You should also read WP:Conflict of interest. Wikipedia wouldn't normally mention your blogspot page, and especially not in the body of an article, unless it is widely cited as an authority on the subject area by published reliable sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mary Urashima: There are two ways you can get it live: you can try the articles for creation process, or you can directly move it to the mainspace. The articles for creation process submits your draft for review by an experienced editor, who will either accept your article and publish it or decline your article and give you advice on how you could improve it. As Demiruge1000 mentioned, to follow this process simply place the following text at the top of your draft: {{subst:submit}}. This will place your draft in a queue where it will eventually be reviewed. Keep in mind, however, that this process tends to take a lot of time due to a heavy backlog (it may take up to several weeks for a reviewer to read your submission).

If you do not wish to follow the articles for creation review process you can move the draft to the mainspace yourself—this action publishes the article without having another editor review it. If you follow this path, your article may be deleted, instead of just declined, if it contains any major problems (but this isn't usually done if it can be shown the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia). To do this, your account must be autoconfirmed—meaning it has to be at least 4 days old and it has to have made at least 10 edits. Once you are auto confirmed, go to Special:MovePage/Draft:Historic Wintersburg in Huntington Beach, California and you'll notice a dropdown menu with the "Draft" option selected. Change the "Draft" option to "(Article)", then click "Move page". Alternatively, you can request that someone do this for you here. Best of luck! Mz7 (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Demiurge1000, Thank you for making sure I know about the conflict of interest rules. I actually am an acknowledged expert on the topic, written up in national magazines, asked to speak at state and national preservation conferences. And, I have a book published on the topic by History Press. The blog covers the continuing research on the topic and has no advertising or monetary gain. Hope that helps! Thank you again, as I do want to do this correctly. Mary Urashima (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

New article for Krypton Radio

Could you please review the article that I've been working on for Krypton Radio, an internet radio station. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ranvaig/sandbox Ranvaig (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ranvaig and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't reviewed your article but you might like to take a look at this guideline, which will give you an idea about what makes a radio station notable in Wikipedia terms. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. That guideline appears to be aimed at broadcast radio, not internet only radio. All the same, I think Krypton Radio qualifies because of it's unique programming, but I'm not sure if I have enough citations to show notability. Ranvaig (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

what is considered a valid source for information?

For example, I found a an bio on Bill Bellamy that had no info on his personal life on Wikipedia. I found an online article from Essence Magazine that he had been married for 13 years and has two children.

I would like to update and edit a lot of the articles about Black entertainment and people since they have very little info. I write and publish a lot of my own articles but I check my sources. Was wondering what is considered to be valid sources on Wikipedia for editing.

Thanks2605:A000:DFC0:26:E94F:F29C:640D:C33 (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. General information about how to determine whether a source is reliable can be found at WP:RS. Sources have to be evaluated in context. In my opinion, Essence (magazine) would be considered a reliable source for such routine biographical details for a Black celebrity, since that type of article is their specialty. But we normally wouldn't cite Essence for claims related to an academic matter, for example. If the material is controversial, we would want multiple reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

autoconfirmed editors

Hello, I am working on a page for Eugene Daub, the sculptor for the Rosa Parks statue in Washington D.C. I would like to edit the Rosa Parks page but it it protected and must be edited by autoconfirmed editors. Can you advise me as to contacting an editor with that ability?Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

(not a teahouse patron) but you should have already been autoconfirmed a long time ago. You have 134 edits, and have been registered for at least 1 year, when the requirement is 4 days. Hmm...I'd put in a request for confirmed rights, which is basically the same thing, only under a different name. An admin, seeing that you already meet the qualifications, will likely give it to you. Then you can edit the page. You should note on that page that you have been registered for over a year and have over 140+ edits, thereby meeting the qualifications for being autoconfirmed. It may have been a software bug or something. Tutelary (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out own comment, mistaken.

Hi Andrea, your account actually is already autoconfirmed as it meets the requirements and you should be free to edit the page. That said, Eugene Daub is not protected. Could you link the page you're trying to edit? Sam Walton (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sam Walton, Dr. Andrea Bruce says "I would like to edit the Rosa Parks page..." so I think she means Rosa Parks. Best, - W.carter (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops, of course. I misread. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I am adding this just as a slight possibility because I thought they fixed it long ago, but there *was* a known bug where the display of the "view source" notice on semi-protected articles would deceptively show for people who could edit (i.e. not just for not-yet-autoconfirmed users), thus fooling people into thinking they could not edit a page when they could. When this happened, if you ignored the display of "view source" and clicked on it, you could nevertheless edit the page. Anyway, you should be autoconfirmed and able to edit Rosa Parks directly. What happens when you try? Are you editing using Tor which may delay autoconfirmation/extend the requirements to reach it? (if you don't know what that is, forget I asked).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to note this down: an account becomes "autoconfirmed" after it is 4 days old and has made 10 edits. After that, your account should be able to edit semi-protected pages, like Rosa Parks. Best, Mz7 (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Those of us why are trying hard to be better encyclopedia editors should devote some serious thought about why an article like Rosa Parks has long been a magnet for vandalism. I don't fully understand it, but it is a very sad aspect of our work here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

article submitted without title

Hello, Excited about submitting my first article, I managed to do so without giving it a title. Now I can't edit it anymore. What can be done? Best, Reconnamon Reconnamon (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Reconnamon, and welcome to the TeaHouse. You don't need to worry about this, because if the reviewer accepts your article submission, they will give it the appropriate title when doing so. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Arthur goes shopping. Thank you for the friendly welcome and your reassuring answer. I feel like such a newbie :) Reconnamon (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Reconnamon. I have moved the page to Draft:Blacklane (page titles aren't part of the page, but say where the page is in Wikipedia, so you change the title by moving the page). Your existing sandbox is (automatically) a redirect to the new place, so you can still get there from it. I've also removed the {{user sandbox}} template, as Wikipedia objects to it now that the article isn't a user sandbox.

If you want to do something useful to it while waiting for review, I advise improving the formatting of your references: see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, ColinFine! I also realised after posting, that they looked a bit of a mess. I really appreciate being pointed in the right direction! Reconnamon (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

right colum information

please i want to know how to create the right information table containing name, logo, location and so on. Thanks Oluwatobiakinmade (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Oluwatobiakinmade. That's an infobox - they can be added to articles by using the appropriate infobox template. Because these vary quite a bit in the parameters used, it's helpful to know which article you want to use the infobox in - if you want a common example, {{infobox person}} is fairly widely used and will give you an idea of how they operate. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Unsure of blocked information?

Hi there,

We were blocked as we were told our entries were too promotional - we're not sure what we need to do to rectify this. The entries are below... can you advise?

(212.56.99.183 (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Just explain in your unblock request that you had no intention to promote yourself, you were unaware of the policies, and you will never do that again. You should read the policy, and never commit such offense again. But if you did again, you will be blocked again by the admin. OccultZone (Talk) 10:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Also I note above you say "we were told". Wikipedia accounts should be used by individuals, not groups. --LukeSurl^{t c} 10:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In addition, please read, understand and follow our guidelines on conflict of interest, as I suspect this was behind your previous problems. - Arjayay (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Resubmission - SONAR Flow Meter

Hi... I resubmitted an article that I had previously submitted in error. The article is now complete and I have resubmitted for review. Can you please let me know if it is being reviewed.

Thank you much!

Sylviahaidar (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sylviahaidar, and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, it looks like Draft:SONAR Flow Meters has been submitted successfully and has been placed in the review queue. A reviewer will take a look at it within this week, I would say. Best, Mz7 (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a note: I took a glance at the submission and I noticed you've provided few references to reliable sources. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and see if you can add more references to reliable sources to your submission (such as news sources, books, scholarly papers, etc.). This is required so we can make sure the information you have written in verifiable and attributed to a reliable source. Mz7 (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

comments at top- how do I remove these from Gerson Lehrman Group page?

This article or section may have been copied and pasted from a source, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please remedy this by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the source of the copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror. (April 2014) (38.112.210.2 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC))

This article reads like a news release, or is otherwise written in an overly promotional tone. Please help by either rewriting this article from a neutral point of view or by moving this article toWikinews. When appropriate, blatant advertising may be marked for speedy deletion with {{db-spam}}. (April 2014) (38.112.210.2 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the tea-house. Looking at the history of Gerson Lehrman Group these concerns were raised in April, but since then, there have only been two, extremely minor, edits to the page. The problems are therefore, unaddressed and the first thing to do is address these, by re-writing the article in a neutral, non-promotional tone.

However, I note that although you have a sporadic editing history, it already includes several edits to this page, so I wonder if you have any conflict of interest in editing this page? - If so, please read our policy on conflict of interest and propose any changes on the talk page, providing reliable, independent references to back them up. - Arjayay (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

To add to what Arjayay says: the tags were added by user DGG, so if you are not clear what is required, you could ask that user on User talk:DGG. --ColinFine (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Here I am. When I place an "advertising" tag, this means that if not rewritten, it might be considered for deletion. Material such as "Clients work with Research Managers who, with the help of a proprietary set of online profiling and compliance tools, identify, find, vet and connect relevant experts with users." is advertising. I imagine every similar company can say the same, using similar jargon. If this was not copied from your advertising, it reads as if it were. Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective clients --that sort of content is considered promotional. You are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. If you have COI, the current best practice is to suggest your rewrite on the talk page, and ask us to look at it. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I made a start but there is MUCH more to do. Theroadislong (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinks - to include underscores, or convert to spaces?

I am trying to become a better editor, so I hope it's okay if I ask another dumb question here. It concerns wikilinks to other articles. The background is that when the target article's title has more than one word, I have been looking in the browser address bar to ensure I get it exactly right, such as "Tennis_Australia". Then in the wikilink I pipe it to the more readable [[Tennis_Australia|Tennis Australia]]. But now other editors have been systematically reversing all those to [[Tennis Australia]] with the (non-)explanation "clean up using AWB (10241)". So my question is: is there a guideline about what is the preferred approach? Gronk Oz (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Hey Gronk. The underscores are a function of URL address – URLs never have blank spaces so underscores are substituted for them. You never need include an underscore in a wikilink and you should not pipe links unnecessarily. In this case it would be truly redundant; [[Tennis_Australia]] functions as a link the same as [[Tennis Australia]], except that the former does not read properly, so always leave out the underscore(s) and link directly. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help, Fuhghettaboutit. I will do that now; all those redirections were a pain in the neck anyhow!--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

George Marsh, Martyr update source

I would like to add some updated information on the George Marsh, Martyr page, in the legacy section, that, 'on 10th June 2014 a documentary was broadcast on Revelation TV' http://www.revelationtv.com/webdev/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation_TV

My source for this is http://www.revelationtv.com/bin/sc-jun-2014.pdf

Is this source sufficient for this update? I'm trying to avoid an "edit war" SPSutherland (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, SPSutherland. I am unsure that this TV show broadcast by a controversial network is important enough to include as part of the "legacy" of a person who died 4-1/2 centuries ago. I suggest discussing the matter first on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this. However, this advice does not seem quite right to me since you refer to Revelation TV as; "a controversial network".? How is controversy related to this film? George Marsh was controversial, plenty of media stations, BBC, CNN, newspapers, countless TV shows, radio shows are controversial. So what? I do not see that controversy is the issue, if it is then should not large amounts of information on here (Wiki) be removed. Or is there something else? SPSutherland (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Prakash Singh

If you go to this article then click to go to the talk page, you are lead to a redirect which goes to the talk page of Prakash Singh Chib. It's as if a move was performed sometime ago but the talk pages got mixed up. These two articles are about two different people so it looks like the move was a wrong one. Incidentally the Prakash Singh article looks like a CV and seems very personal, perhaps it was written by the man himself. Probably needs an admin to sort it out. Jodosma (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jodosma and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for highlighting the issues with these two articles. I will sort it out and let you know. Cheers, Philg88 ^♦talk 09:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Already done

. It was actually a very easy fix, and didn't need an admin - all that had to be done was the removal of the redirect code at Talk:Prakash Singh. I've also reverted the article to a pre-spamgasm state, and added some project templates to the talkpage. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; everything looks better now, and less confusing! Jodosma (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, Yunshui, that was lighting fast. Thanks! Philg88 ^♦talk 10:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

How to address a spam link...

I'm noticing a spam link on the wiki article "Professional Employer Organization". The spam link is from Staffmarket.com, this company sells PEO services. How do I address this spam link properly? Mikesmith5656 (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're confident that it's spam, remove it. Tutelary (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it was spam or not, but it was a dead link so I've replaced it with another. Theroadislong (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Article rejected, review advised looking for advice here

Hello, My first article was rejected for the second time based upon issues of notability and lack of references. I've referenced virtually every statement from published articles, and added more information to increase the ability of readers to see what is notable about the subject matter. One of the reviewers recommended stopping in here. I'd really appreciate any advice from experienced Wikipedia contributors and editors.

My article is here: User:Janisadore/sandbox

Thanks in advance for any help.

Janisadore (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Janisadore. The only reliable sources I saw on your article were Huffington Post (which was only a passing mention and not the discussion in detail which is required to show notability) and WSJ. The WSJ article was a reprint from Business Wire, which is a website that reprints press releases, making it not independent. Independence is required for references to vet notability. John from Idegon (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I appreciate your clarification.

Janet Janisadore (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Feedback request on my article

Hello, could you please give me some feedbacks regarding my article Draft:Force-A before I re-submit it review? I am aware of the remarks and comments for the last decline, and I'm looking forward to hear from you whether I should include or change anything else. Thanks! Andrchan (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andrchan. I think the most important thing for you to focus on is better high quality secondary sourcing for expanded content (if you take out the lists of products and awards there really isn't all that much content) and making the article read from a more neutral point of view. In that regard, some of the language reads as rather promotional. Encyclopedia articles report on a company; they don't exclaim the virtues of a company. Examples: "thanks to its capabilities..." and "innovative solutions for a sustainable European agriculture" read as market speak from a promotional brochure. Some other notes:

• Citations go outside of punctuation. Thus, it's never: Text^[1], or Text^[2]. and always Text,^[1] and Text.^[2]

• Article subjects should not be written in all uppercase unless they are distinct acronyms ("NASA"). Thus: downcase all uses of the title in the draft to Force-A. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. Downcase all other products listed as well.

• Never use registered, trademark, service mark, etc., symbols in an article (except for rare exceptions, such as in an article about trademarks). Remove every one.

• External links do not belong in the text of the article. You might use them as citations, between <ref>...</ref> tags but you should not have links in the body like "SITEVI Innovation Awards 2013", and in fact you're already using the same external links as references. Remove all of them.

• Speaking of external links, they should not display in citations as URLs but as links to the title of the source. So, for example, instead of

<ref>http://max2.ese.u-psud.fr/publications/CerovicZG2012PhysPlant.pdf Cerovic Z.G., Masdoumierd G., Ben Ghozlena N. and Latouche G.. (2012). A new optical leaf-clip meter for simultaneous non-destructive assessment of leaf chlorophyll and epidermal ﬂavonoids. Physiologia Plantarum 146; 251–260.</ref>

use

<ref>Cerovic Z.G., Masdoumierd G., Ben Ghozlena N. and Latouche G.. (2012). [http://max2.ese.u-psud.fr/publications/CerovicZG2012PhysPlant.pdf A new optical leaf-clip meter for simultaneous non-destructive assessment of leaf chlorophyll and epidermal ﬂavonoids]. Physiologia Plantarum 146; 251–260.</ref>, which will format as

Cerovic Z.G., Masdoumierd G., Ben Ghozlena N. and Latouche G.. (2012). A new optical leaf-clip meter for simultaneous non-destructive assessment of leaf chlorophyll and epidermal ﬂavonoids. Physiologia Plantarum 146; 251–260.

• A very minor issue: remove the {{DEFAULTSORT}}. It is superfluous as the title does not need to be sorted by something other than its proposed name.

• I have removed the logo from the draft. Fair use images may not be used outside of the article mainspace.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. Thanks very much for your feedback. I have just made the modifications you suggested. Could you please check my article Draft:Force-A again to see if I can resubmit? Andrchan (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Andrchan: Anytime. The article is much cleaner now, but the most fundamental issue remains unaddressed. In effect, you've cleared out the messy shrubbery which would have been a problem also, but you have not planted the trees – which are the main exhibit. You need reliable, secondary sources addressing the subject in detail. I'm sure you're aware of the rejection basis stated by the reviewer for you, that most of the sources are mere mentions of Force-A, in connection with its products. Find reliable sources that discuss the company and which are unconnected to it and use them to flesh out the entry. Please understand that No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. So, I suggest you attempt to address these issues before you resubmit. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Help with Reference Editing

Please can any help me remove all the unnecessary referencing that you that was raised in the rejection of my article. And, can only one referencing 'Poker Knave' which seems to be a secondary source be accepted as a single referencing? The link to Newpaper publication 'The Sun Newspaper UK' is a secondary source, but only allows those with paid subscription to have full detailed access to it's publications. Your further verification is needed on this.If you need a screenshoots of the publications, I can make them available to anyone on request. Microbilo (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Microbilo and welcome to The Teahouse. It is not a requirement that people be able to access sources online, and I'm not sure whether you can provide screenshots to anyone. If they have the option of email, that would get around the idea of not posting copyrighted material here. One possibility is the resource exchange and I think I may have access to The Sun.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And now that I see your talk page, it appears that with the sources you have, you're not going to be able to do much with the article. If I can see The Sun tomorrow at the library, I can look at what you have, but I'm not optimistic.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This library does not have access to The Sun. In the London area it has Ealing Times, Enfield Independent, The Evening Standard, Fulham and Hammersmith Chronicle, Haringey Independent, Harrow Times, i: The Paper For Today, The Independent, New Addington Advertiser, News Shopper, This Is Local London, Times Series, and Your Local Guardian.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And none of these have any search results for "Michael Lord Smith" or "Microbilo".— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Links in references?

I am sometimes working on Gotland and today another user was kind enough to contribute with some information to the section about "Sports organizations". I am just curious about the way the user referenced the info, i.e. the fact that there were links in the references (number 56 & 57). This is an experienced editor and I know that this is common practice at the Swedish Wikipedia where every possible linkable word is linked, but I have not seen it here. (Well, yes I have seen it in Help:Referencing for beginners, but not at the articles). Have I missed something? - W.carter (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello W.carter. I usually wikilink names of publishers, publications, notable authors and so on, within references I add. This makes it easier for the reader to learn more about the source. I would consider it a "best practice". But wikilinking common words is not a good idea on English Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328, in this case it was sports organizations, so maybe the links are valid. Best, - W.carter (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding names to a list

How does one add names to a list of names? for example, if I want to add recipients for certain military awards, how is it done? I'm sure it's quite simple, but I don't want to do something improper. Thanks!

William von ZehleWilliam von Zehle (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@William von Zehle: Hi William. If you are talking about an article that is a list, say List of Korean War Medal of Honor recipients, you would click edit this page at the top, and then add your entry into the table, studying the code to see how it's done. Such an addition can be for a person who does not yet have an autonomous article on them, but only for a person who is notable in their own right (this is a disputed subject). Note that many list articles have explicit list selection criteria defined in their text which any addition should meet.

If you mean listing someone in a category, then they must already have an independent article. If they do, find an appropriate category (I find it easiest to go to a few articles on similar subjects and see what categories they are in) and then add at the bottom of the page the code [[Category:Name of Category]]. For some subjects, often for people, you need the name to sort by something other than the article title. If the article has more than one category, you can sort by placing above the categories {{DEFAULTSORT:Last name, first name}} If only one category you can use that anyway, but you can alternatively just pipe the sort: [[Category:Name Of Category|Last name, first name]] Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Warnings using Twinkle

Hey Teahouse. I was wanting to know the qualifications for the different tyopes of warnings when using the software, Twinkle. Thanks, Schoolskater (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Schoolskater. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "the qualifications" - do you mean in what circumstances they are appropriate? You may find what you need at WP:Twinkle/doc. --ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome back to the Teahouse, Schoolskater! Some helpful links that may answer your question are: WP:AGF, WP:Vandalism, WP:UWUL, and WP:WARN. If you are interested in anti-vandal type stuff, you may be interested in signing up for the WP:CVU and going through the WP:CVUA. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Want to Improve Wikipedia

I am free from studies and currently waiting for result. Now, I want to improve wikipedia because that it contains some incorrect information. But I do not know, what's the method? Kindly guide me Or give me training.39.42.126.119 (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not create an account and try out The Wikipedia Adventure? --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If you see an issue with a page, you can go in an fix it yourself by clicking the "Edit" tab at the top of the page. Check out our introduction to editing, and as Fauzan recommends, I would create an account and try out the Wikipedia Adventure. If you need more help, feel free to come back to this Teahouse and we would be happy to answer any questions. Mz7 (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome! I support the suggestions above: create a user account, try out The Wikipedia Adventure, and ask for help here when you need it (they have always been very helpful to me). In addition, for more detail you might want to look at the Wikipedia Tutorial. Then start with some simple edits, and remember to use the "Show preview" button before you save, just to make sure it all worked the way you intended. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)