Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 284

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 280 ← Archive 282 Archive 283 Archive 284 Archive 285 Archive 286 → Archive 290

Undo; no thanks

I am wondering about some negative messages like red minus signs and being suspected of being a 'false positive' for example,

1) Why do my posts invite "undo" but not thanks like everyone else? 2) A bot is asking whether my edits are "false positives" ??? and invites passersby to undo mine along with alleged vandals. 3) What are the negative numbers in red by some posts and positives in green on others?

Are the algorithms a little grumpy or is it just me? Ayeletshacar (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ayeletshacar, the thanks part of the software allows you to thank other editors for their edits. As you don't need to thank yourself for your own edits, it's disabled in respect of yourself. It was introduced as part of WP:Wikilove, I don't know how much use it gets as personally I don't like or use it. The undo option is always there because the ability to undo any edit, including your own, needs to be there.
I can't see that any of your edits have been bot reverted and I think you are misreading the message. On Rajarata another editor did vandalise the article and a bot reverted that edit restoring the article to the version after your edit. And that is what the edit summary says Reverting possible vandalism by Trolollololoolol69 to version by Ayeletshacar The false positive relates to the bot's identification of the reverted edit as vandalism not your edit(s).
The red and green numbers show how that edit decreased or increased the size of an article. It's nothing to do with quality; for example your edit to Linda Darnell decreased the size of the article by 505 bytes (characters) but by removing a copyright violation you increased the quality of the article. Nthep (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello Ayeletshacar and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason that you only get the "undo" at your posts is that you can not thank yourself for a post. Everyone else get to see a "thank" at your post. I'm not too sure what you mean by question 2), please clarify, but ALL post can be altered so all posts get the "undo". The red numbers have nothing to do with the quality of the post, it simply means that so many bytes have been removed from the text, the green numbers are to indicate how many bytes of text have been added. Again nothing to do with the quality. If you add anything incorrect to a text, you still get green numbers since text was added, and if someone removes that bad text (which is a good thing) they get red numbers. Preferably, the Wikipedia would like a lot of good edits added, making many large, good, green numbers. Hope this explains things for you. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you w.carter! I see how the undo:thank and the green and red + and - works now and am relieved I'm not doing something wrong. You asked for clarification on the second part of the question regarding the bot asking (assuming a question because of the question mark) if I had been a false positive. As you point out, I know that my contribution was not reverted, but was wondering why it was questioned as a false positive (a statistical term that I don't understand in this context). Here is the entry: "(cur | prev) 19:45, 8 December 2014‎ ClueBot NG (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,286 bytes) (+2,127)‎ . . (Reverting possible vandalism by Trolollololoolol69 to version by Ayeletshacar. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (2056574) (Bot)) (undo)" What does that mean? Thank you again for your helpAyeletshacar (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks also NtheP! Just found the 2nd response explaining the size changes in the articles. Still learning how to navigate here. Ayeletshacar (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Ayeletshacar I just wanted to say a bit about "false positive". There are many "bots" on Wikipedia. They automate various tasks. One thing that bots do is to automatically look at edits. For example, if someone inserts some nonsense text into an article the bot can detect it and in some cases revert it automatically. This is where the question of "false positives" come in. A "false positive" for X means the metric you were using to indicate X was present was triggered but when you looked in detail X wasn't really there. So in this case a "false positive" means that a bot flagged an edit as vandalism when it really wasn't. So in the case you site above it sounds to me like User:Cluebot is a bot that flagged an edit as vandalism and that notice is provided in case Cluebot was wrong and the edit wasn't vandalism. Those kinds of warnings and messages are very common. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding with the bot, MadScientistX11! Ayeletshacar (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Adding to the excellent answers above, Ayeletshacar, no bot is 100% perfect. A bot designed to detect vandalism will occasionally revert good content that looks a bit like vandalism. A passage about a writer who works in a highly innovative style might resemble vandalism to a bot, for example. Clicking the "false positive" button reverts the bots error but even more importantly, sends a report to the bot operator. These cumulative reports enable the bot operators to improve the performance of their bots. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
As Nthep said, "False positive?" in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajarata&action=history refers to the revert of somebody elses edit and not to the version by you which the bot happened to revert back to and mentioned in another part of the edit summary. See more at positive test and false positives and false negatives. The meaning of positive/negative may be good to know before you hear the result of a medical test. I wonder how many patients got an unnecessary shock when they were told a test was negative, or a nasty surprise later on when they learned what positive means. And then there are cases like pregnancy where a positive test may be good or bad depending on circumstances. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Attracting

How do I attract more people to my page? How do I make people wanna read my page

Which page are you talking about? Please sign your posts with four tildes "~". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking at your User page User:Confident468 and talk page User talk:Confident468 I don't think you understand the purpose of Wikipedia - we are an encyclopedia, not a social media site - we don't want people to be attracted to your user pages. - Arjayay (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I uploaded an image of a "benistor", but it was rejected due to "possible copyright violation". The image comes from a published US Patent from the USPTO website. The patent in question has lapsed due to non payment of fees, so the image is clearly public domain. There is no trademark or copyright on the symbol.

How do I resolve the issue? Am I better of to recreate the image in my own hand writing or computer design software? Or can I convince the editor that the image I used is public domain?

Thank you, RayRayMartan — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayRayMartan (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RayRayMartan. If a U.S. patent drawing does not contain a copyright notice, then it is in the public domain. See this blog post by an intellectual property attorney for the specific legal citations. I would resubmit to Wikimedia Commons using that information in the rationale. Going forward, please post new questions at the top of the Teahouse page, and sign with four tildes "~". Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Question

I am a newbie to editing Wikipedia and i believe i may have inadvertently edited a list of musicians and included a performing artist/group. The person who leads this musical group is a friend who will be playing at a birthday for myself. I looked at a list of musicians and was surprised to find that my friend was not included. I was given a 30 day editing pass.

Should I remove the musical group from the list? I am not even sure how to do that: I believe that the entity has a right on its own merit... website, international, recognition/awards, all documented well on the entities website? I do have a conflict of interest in that i am interested in this entity and wish it well...? Can anyone advise me exactly how to proceed... no harm was intended, nor do i believe that the entity aforementioned does not belong on the country specific list of musical performing artists and entities (groups.. for example duos, trios, quartets...etc,etc,Ileshanti (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Ileshanti Welcome to the teahouse. I think you are referring to the band: Sarah Elgeti Quintet(?) If that is the case they were removed by editor Fuhghettaboutit. You can see the edit history for List of Danish musicians by looking here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Danish_musicians&action=history (note you can also see that by going to the article and clicking on the "View History" tab). His edit summary said: "Undid revision 637577356 by Ileshanti No article and a quick search of books and news does not clearly indicate this topic would warrant an article WP:CSC" So what he's saying is that the band "Sarah Elgeti Quintet" doesn't meet the standards for wikipedia:notability in English Wikipedia yet and so it's not appropriate to add it to that list yet. If you disagree you can raise the issue on the talk page for that article: Talk:List_of_Danish_musicians However, since you are a friend of someone in the band you have a conflict of interest anyway and my advise would be to just accept Fuhghettaboutit's judgement on this. FYI: things like a web site and awards aren't enough on their own to merit a musical artist's having a Wikipedia page. That article I linked to earlier has more info on notability in general and this article: Wikipedia:Notability_(music) has specifics about notability for music and musicians. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcoming people to the Teahouse

How do we welcome people to the Teahouse? DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 09:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Like this: Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse....." then answer the question to the best of your ability. It isn't always done (I forget a lot) but is the recommended manner to begin your answers here.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello @Nahnah4:. And welcome to the Teahouse!...And I have just shown you how to welcome people to the teahouse! LorChat 09:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Lor and Mark Miller: I meant how to send a message on their talk page ._. (and why did you teahouse talkbacked me twice)? DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 09:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The script might've malfunctioned. My internet is bit laggy sometimes :\. Otherwise. Just type a message yourself in the normal manner. LorChat 09:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Lor: Oops sorry, that was done by HostBot. Sorry. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 10:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Nahnah4: With the clarification above of what you mean, while the bot does some welcoming, you are welcome to as well. The one it uses is {{Teahouse invitation}}. See also {{THInvite2}} and {{Teahouse thank you}}. For a list of non-Teahouse-specific welcome messages (some of which do link link to the Teahouse), see Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates. I personally am partial to {{welcomeg}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh thanks, Fuhghettaboutit. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

How to merge two ID in one?

I have two ID in wikipedia. One is around 3 years earlier, were using at English wikipedia. Desiring to work on bn.wikipedia, I opened another one. Now, I would like to merge both ID in desired. Please, Let me know how to proceed. --- Sufidisciple (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Sufidisciple - welcome to the Teahouse. Each Wikipedia is separate: you can't merge accounts between two different language wikipedias, unfortunately. You can have a global log-in (that is, use the same name across different projects), but not one merged, global account. LS1979 (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

LS1979, Thanks replying. But both of my ID are global then, how to proceed? --- Sufidisciple (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

They are global, but you cannot merge them. LS1979 (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
If you are concerned about people being able to see your global contributions, there is an option for that. If someone looks at your Contributions page, they have a link to see your contributions across the various Wikipedia projects in the list at the bottom of that page. However, as of now, there is no option to combine your accounts globally. Never say never - the WMF might be able to do it in the future - but for the moment, it's not possible. LS1979 (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The account User:Sufidisciple is from September 2013 and not consistent with the stated "One is around 3 years earlier". We can give more accurate answers if you clarify what the other ID is. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Sufidisciple, I will clarify things. Like Lstanley1979 mentioned, they are global, but merging cannot be done. For example, my account name is Nahnah4. It is the same if I click on other Wikipedias, or other WikiProjects. Your ID may be created in Wikipedia, but it can be used in any other websites by the Wikimedia Foundation, and hence the usage of it in foreign-languaged Wikipedias is also acceptable. You can try it out, and I guess you can log in with that ID when logged out (never tried before, I'm unsure about it). Thanks! DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

How to tag pic correctly!

Hi there, could you please direct me ho I can tag my own Pic on Wikipedia correctly? Please advise! Thank you. Guillaume Birindwa (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, Guillaume Birindwa. It depends on what image you have uploaded. Please clarify and we will help you license the tags properly. Cheers, DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I have seen that you have uploaded an image of yourself. Since it is an own work, please use {{Information}}. If you are still unclear, please see File:I Jethrobot.jpg. Remember to put a license. If it is self-taken, this will be okay. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I guess you will have to make a better name for it still Guillaume Birindwa. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dew, thank you very much! I make some changes as you advise. I hope it will solve the problem:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaume Birindwa (talk • contribs) 06:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Time Scale

We are a group of 6 BSc Students required to write an article and upload it to wikipedia and the ultimate goal is to have the article published. As we are working within a time schedule we need to know how long on average it takes to have an article reviewed and hopefully published.George+1 (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi George+1, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have deadlines, and so there is no guarantee as to when your work will be reviewed. If your professor is following the Wikipedia Education Program (and if they aren't, then they definitely should be) they will be aware of this and will have worked with their associated Wikipedia ambassador to develop a marking scheme which takes this into consideration. You should probably consult with them about this.
In addition, I'm assuming that the account George+1 is owned and operated by only one person - all six of you will need to have separate Wikipedia accounts, since account sharing is not permitted. Yunshui 雲水 10:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

How can I change the color of templates?

Hi. I'm an autoconfirmed user, but I'm still learning how to edit wikipedia properly. I was wondering, how do I change the color of the template titles? Right now infobox galaxy is green. It looks uncool and scandalous. How can I change it? I couldn't find anything in the source.

Follow up question: If I change the template, will it immediately affect all the pages the use it? Thanks Tetra quark (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Tetra quark, you can edit the template like you would any other page. However as the change would immediately be visible on every article where that template is used I really would suggest discussing the change first at Template talk:Infobox galaxy before implementing your suggestion. There doesn't appear to be any particular reason for the shade used but highly visible changes tend to bring out adverse reactions from other people if not talked about beforehand. Nthep (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I've already found out how to change the colors myself. The edit I'm going to make is to choose a more Astronomy-related color, like purple. Green is totally unrelated, if not the opposite. I believe it's a minor edit, so I don't believe it is necessary to start a discussion. In the worst case scenario someone will just undo it. Thanks for the suggestion by the way. Tetra quark (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Tetra quark: Hi Tetra quark. Please be aware of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility and its subsection at WP:COLOR. In short, make sure any color it is changed to is not a problem for those with vision impairment. To the extent it could become relevant, see also Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for those links. I believe the new color| I've chosen isn't a problem at all. By the way, I had a good time reading that article about edit wars. It was fun :) edit: fixed spelling Tetra quark (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you deal with articles on people where it is evident the subject or someone close to them has taken control of the page, steered it far from accepted form and resist any changes?

Hi there, one of my personal bug-bears is when articles are clearly used as vanity pages by barely notable people and threaten the integrity of wikipedia. I began noticing this with minor music artists (singers, producers etc) and it seems endemic amongst them to use wikipedia as a pseudo-independent extension of their own website/social media page/CV. I began reading into policies such as COI, advert, self-promotion, tone etc and set about, as a truly independent editor, to bring the article back to acceptable standards. Quickly enough, my edits were reverted. Although I often discussed in detail the reasoning behind my edits and invited discussion on the talk page, these were ignored. The editor would act as though they were genuinely interested in wikipedia and would come out with statements such as 'I think this version's better' without justifying it or addressing the issues raised. Tags were also removed. The editors in such instances were always transparent as they were only interested in one subject, and all their edits related to that single page (and associated pages, e.g. if the artist featured on a song, they'd edit themselves into the song's page). Because this always started an edit war with a stubborn and determined editor, I always had to back away eventually. Initially I took it to the COI noticeboard but they weren't interested. Sometimes I tried reaching out to other editors and the few times some would get involved, there would be a brief abatement, but as soon as people took their eye off the ball, the subject would come back and commandeer control of the article. This has not just happened once, it has happened a number of times. I think I could give you 10 examples, and there have been others I haven't even got involved with. I basically feel like I'm banging my head up against a brick wall. I'm pretty sure I'm in the right as I'm following all the guidelines and they are breaking them all, yet I am constantly the one who has to relent and as a result, wikipedia is suffering because some of its golden rules are being broken with disdain by people who are using it for their personal gain. Sometimes it is really obvious e.g. the editor's name is a company on whose website it says they are the PR company for said person, and they haven't declared it and are refusing to co-operate with other editors. Other times the link is more subtle. Other times it's just assumed in good faith because of the behaviour and actions of the editor. This issue causes me a lot of stress as an editor and I often feel I am unsupported even though I am trying to maintain the integrity of the service in the face of such clear and severe violations.....so my question is what can I do to request assistance in these instances? who are the best people to bring in to mediate/oversee/pass judgement on such articles? and is this an issue that is taken seriously? thanksRayman60 (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

My first comment is that your post is long. See too long, didn't read. However, I see that you are frustrated. I don't know why your use of the conflict of interest noticeboard didn't work; maybe that board doesn't have enough watches. If the subject of an article is not notable, or is barely notable and the article is too promotional, you can nominate the article for deletion via articles for deletion. You can propose in the AFD nomination that a complete rewrite would be an alternative to deletion. If the problem is that the article is needed, but is non-neutral and promotional, and your edits are reverted, you can, first, discuss on the talk page. If that fails, read dispute resolution and follow any of the dispute resolution mechanisms, such as third opinion, a Request for Comments, or moderated dispute resolution. If there is edit-warring, you can report it at the edit-warring noticeboard, but be careful not to edit-war yourself. You can report conduct issues, such as personal attacks, at WP:ANI, although that is unpleasant, and you need to be sure that your own hands are clean. ~~
In summary, choose whether to nominate the article for deletion, or to use dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Robert. I wasn't aware of third opinion. I think dispute resolution failed on a technical reason for me in the past. Request for comments seems like the best initial step for me for many of these situations. Will give that a try in the first instance and then take it from there. CheersRayman60 (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The objective of all the dispute resolution mechanisms is to involve additional editors. If you mean that moderated dispute resolution failed, it has various preconditions, and it can fail if disruptive editors fail to participate in good faith. In that case, administrators are often willing to block the disruptive editors who fail to participate. If you really think that the article is not appropriate in its current shape for retention, you can AFD it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
@Rayman60: also, if the username is blatantly promotional, you can report it on the usernames board. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
@Rayman60: Hi Rayman. I have great sympathy with this issue (and commend you for attempting to deal with it). It is a common problem, and yes, it can be very frustrating and thorny to deal with. My question for you is whether you are familiar with the section of the bedrock verifiability policy known by the shortcut WP:BURDEN? In my opinion (besides being one of the most important but under-used and under-cited policies for maintaining encyclopedic integrity and what gives verifiability any teeth) its application to this problem is key.

In a nutshell, you may challenge any material in an article that is unsourced or poorly sourced (i.e., the source is not reliable or does not actually verify the material it purports to verify even if it is a reliable source for what it does say), and the burden then falls on the person wishing to keep the material or return the material to the article to provide an inline citation that directly supporting the material. The challenge can be simply removal, which the policy allows. However, and though it depends on context, it is often good practice to challenge the material, without initial removal, by tagging it usually with {{Citation needed}} (others may be appropriate instead, e.g., {{Failed verification}}). Then wait some suitable span of time for the issue to be addressed (typically days or longer; not hours) and only then remove. Always accompany your removal with a clear edit summary specifically summarizing the issue and linking to it (Example).

To recapitulate the effect, such removed material cannot be returned within the bounds of the policy unless its sourced. That in turn means that you may revert such unsupported content on a clearly defined basis, and ultimately, after issuing appropriate warnings, report for a block if the returns continue. (One note of caution on this: some may not deem these returns vandalism – though I do once the issue has been explained to the person and they continue. That means that even though you are in the right to remove, some may not see continued reverts of returns as exempt from the application of the three revert rule; I have for a long time been meaning to start a discussion on adding language to WP:3RR to address this – maybe soon.)

This is not always the answer. There may be lots of material that is well sourced but does not belong for other reasons, such as it being undue weight for the topical scope of the article, but I've written this post (that Robert apparently would place under TL:DR;-) because this is so often applicable to fan material, comprising opinion, emotive gushing and original research that is all unverifiable and subject to it. The methodology and framework avoids the problem you described of it just being one voice against a tide of fans ignoring policy and provides for a remedy. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

First, I don't consider the post by User:Fuhghettaboutit, which is formatted into paragraphs, to be difficult to read. Second, I disagree as to whether the repeated removal of unsourced content, after explanation, is vandalism. I don't think that it is vandalism, and so it isn't an exception to WP:3RR, but it is edit-warring and disruptive editing. The removal of unsourced material from biographies of living persons is a different exception to WP:3RR. In general, editors who know that they are on the right side of a content dispute, and therefore that conflicting edits are vandalism, can be almost as disruptive as vandals. Being wrong in a content dispute isn't vandalism. Persistently adding unsourced material to BLPs isn't vandalism, but may be even worse than vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Names

Hello! I created a page for California ceramist Doyle Lane. I linked him to several appropriate categories (American ceramists, African American artists) but realized that his name is alphabetizing under "Doyle" and not "Lane." What did I do wrong and how to do I fix it? Thank you! Steinbee (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Steinbee, and welcome! You can add the following template to the article, and then the categories will sort properly:
 {{DEFAULTSORT:Lane, Doyle}}
This is typically added just before the categories themselves. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

How Do I Move a page?

Hi,

I need to change the title of a page as the company I work at rebranded and changed name a year ago and this needs to be updated on wiki.

I have become a member over 7 days ago and have made the required 10 changes/edits but the "move" button still hsnt appeared!!!

Could someone please advise or else if you have the autoconfirm rights do it for me?

I need to change the page called "Chartered Secretaries Australia" to "Governance Institute of Australia" I am under pressure to get this sorted asap so any help is greatly appreciated

thanks in advance

niamh brady Niamhbrady1983 (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Niamh. I have just checked and your account is autoconfirmed now (maybe you needed to make the eleventh edit, which was your post above). It sounds like you know the mechanical procedure but see File:Vector hidden move button.jpg for a visual. If you're not able to access the move button still, please report back. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Niamh. While Wikipedia always wants to get its information right, it has no deadline, and is not interested in anybody else's deadlines. If you are "under pressure to get this sorted", you or your superiors may be under the misapprehension that you have some sort of control or responsibility for a Wikipedia article. You do not: you do not own or control the article, and because of your conflict of interest, you are strongly discouraged from editing it directly. The edits you have so far performed on it, and moving it, are almost certainly OK, because they are uncontroversial (the name change should be supported by a reference, and I have tagged it as such) but please be very circumspect if you are tempted to make any more substantial edits to it. --ColinFine (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much Fuhghettaboutit for your prompt and helpful reply. I have checked and you are correct it is now working and I have been able to change it Thank you Niamhbrady1983 (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

status quo, reversions, and biased editors

Hi. I'm rather confused about wikipedia policies relating to who can revert and whose responsibility it is to gain consensus. Policies like "consensus" say that the status quo reigns in the case of a dispute. This seems to suggest that anyone has an absolute veto over any change until consensus is established for that change. That's certainly the way some editors have been acting. On the other hand, information about the three revert rule seems to imply the opposite. Doing the counting, if someone makes a change and someone else reverts it and this continues back and forth, its the objector who will reach three reverts first, suggesting that the change should remain until consensus is established against it. So which is it?

Another concern I have is that, reading "revert only when necessary", a change should not be reverted merely because it is unnecessary, but only if it actually makes the article worse. However, I have had edits reverted multiple times with the weakest, vaguest claim of "irrelevance" and the editor ordering me to gain consensus for the change. Moreover I have reason to think this editor is strongly biased on the topic, from looking at his comments on other talk pages. When I tentatively said that I found it hard to see how an unbiased person could object to this edit, he aggressively told me that "making accusations won't help your case" (though that didn't stop him making accusations against me). I have taken the issue to the talk page, presented an argument for the change, and asked for the argument against it. All I have received from him and another editor are vague, short assertions that they "still don't see the relevance", without addressing any of my points. How should I proceed? Colonial Overlord (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Colonial Overlord. Thank you for expressing your frustration. Can you please state who is the user? I will message him and ask why he reverted your edits. Secondly, the 3RR (3 revert rule) is considered an edit war, and if anybody does that you can report him or send him a {{Warning}} template. You will only revert edits if you see vandalism or any other unconstructive edits, before leaving a notice at their talk page to stop with this kind of demeanour as it is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Editors who have made accusations are unacceptable behaviour in this website (I know, I have been a victim) and talking sense into him would not work unless you ask other veteran editors to leave a message on his talk page. However, the user will still be reluctant, so the best way to resolve it is to stay away from the user or just wait till days later before making the edit again. I will now see your contributions and explain if this is a worth. Cheers, DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I have seen that you removed content from Loss of supply, resulting in this dispute. I guess now, it started because you removed the content without any explanation in your edit summary, which baffles other editors and do not benefit anybody, including yourself. Therefore, Colonial Overlord, I will dig deeper into the situation and update more about it later. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, the content removal from Loss of supply wasn't the root of the problem. I have posted a message on the talk page of the ongoing dispute, and I will see if any other changes are needed, Colonial Overlord. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The page in question was Premiers of the Australian States. Regarding loss of supply, I thought edit summaries were not required for vandalism, and what I removed certainly looked like vandalism.Colonial Overlord (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
First, edit summaries are desirable when reverting vandalism. They can be "rv vandalism" or something similar. Second, however, User:Colonial Overload did not revert vandalism. It was a content dispute as to whether a paragraph was appropriate. Do not claim that you are reverting vandalism in an ordinary content dispute. The claim that an edit is vandalism, when it is a good-faith edit, is a WP:NPA, and a very severe one. Do not refer to a content dispute as vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The paragraph said that the Senate blocked supply in 2014. I can't see how that can be anything but vandalism. Colonial Overlord (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I know that, Colonial Overlord. I have left a message on the talk page of that article. Please tell me about it. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 07:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You can read what happened in the edit history and the talk page of the article. There is nothing else to tell, save that what I would like is a proper argument as to why the edit should not be made and I can't say I have received that.Colonial Overlord (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia or image gallery?

I just stumbled upon the article of former pornographic actress Sunny Leone in Serbo-Croatian language here, an FA class article. The article contains one too many images. I'm not sure if all of them are in commons, but even so, just because images are available for free, does it mean to use them so excessively. Is it an encyclopedia or an image gallery? I could have made the query in the corresponding lang wiki but I don't know the language. I could have just edited the page to remove the redundant images but since it is an article of FA class, I don't wanna kick up a storm. Someone with inter-wiki abilities, pls. look into the matter and resolve it. Thanks 117.202.141.186 (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Internet user 117. The Teahouse is for asking questions about editing the English Wikipedia, so we can't really help you with a question about a Serbo-Croatian article. I took a look and there are about a dozen photos of her and none are pornographic. I believe that the number of photos is excessive if it was an English Wikipedia biography, but each language version sets its own policies and guidelines, within reason. Accordingly, I think that you need to take your concerns there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Worth noting is that our Good Article Abraham Lincoln, a former Featured Article, has 18 images of Lincoln, plus several other images and maps. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The word END

Why is there no page for the word END? I am a politically conscious man and find this appalling. The world is full of troubles and for people to have a clear sense of the meaning of this word is vital. Will someone who can help me to do this? Thank you very much. Perhaps, please there can be advise along these topics.

Giving pages natural links as such, I write utilities and it leads to utility.

A page related to specific techniques that are generally unknown to wikipidia editors?

Simply a young man trying his best to give the world impartial views of the reality in which we all must live in.

JerryMuzsik (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, JerryMuzsik. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Please go to Wiktionary. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 07:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi JerryMuzsik welcome to the Teahouse, we appreciated your concern about the subject. But Wikipedia doesn't predict the future. In Wikipedia content with reliable, published sources are accepted. Otherwise it's considered as original research. So I don't think it would be a good choice to create an article about a view or judgment with no reliable sources exist.--Chamith (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand, End is a definitive thing. It has many elements of philosphy, ethics, day to day life, it is a word of many meanings, I will try to create a page, if it is deleted, so be it. I will research first, find references, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryMuzsik (talk • contribs) 07:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JerryMuzsik. I had no idea what END means, other than the common word "end" which is so unambiguous that it does not deserve an encyclopedia article. I did a Google search, thinking that it was a highly significant acronym, and came up dry. So, what the heck are you talking about? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate what is said, but to me, idealistically, this website is a source, not simply an encyclopedia of impartial views, as I said, of reality, and it is best to define things which our future brethren can possibly hold onto to rightly formulate a future that is not as terrifying as it appears and doing simple little things such as making a page that describes the word END in many contexts will do something for them and help them to grow as peoples of conscience. I apologize for the running sentence. thank you. END. a final part of something, especially a period of time, an activity, or a story. Beautiful use of words, no?

Well yes, what you've done there is to succinctly define the word "end". However, that sort of definition belongs in a dictionary, which Wikipedia is not. As Nahnah4 (DEW) pointed out above, the site that could make use of this sort of definition is Wiktionary, Wikipedia's dictionary equivalent. An encyclopedia, however, doesn't provide definitions of common words. Yunshui 雲水 09:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't wish to be rude, JerryMuzsik, but Wikipedia is what it is, not what you would like it to be. Its articles summarise in a neutral way what has already been written about a subject in reliable sources. I wonder if the article eschatology is what you are looking for. --ColinFine (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Are any of the "end" articles listed at End what you are looking for?--ukexpat (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You guys are right. Ukexpat is the closest to what I want to do. There is not much of a link. I will try and think of a way to make that right, perhaps expanding it in certain pages such as philosophy or sociology or such, I am still learning. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.215.130 (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I need help with an insistent, immature editor

His username is ‎Jai1971. I'm not linking to him so he won't receive a notification.

The problem is in the articles Moons of Saturn and Moons of Jupiter. He insists on adding an information about an indian astronomer who, in the 5th century, discovered that Jupiter and Saturn had more than 60 moons.

He linked me to this: https://archive.org/stream/Brihatsamhita/brihatsamhita#page/n149/mode/2up/search/%22sons+of+jupiter%22

go to page 132. It says "There are 65 comets known as Vikacha or hairless who are the sons of Jupiter". That information isn't scientific. Also, if you turn the page, you'll see this indian guy talking about the 51 sons of Mercury. We all know Mercury has no moons. It is evident that indian "astronomer" wasn't talking about satellites. At that time they didn't even know that it is possible for celestial bodies to orbit something else besides Earth.

So, even after proven wrong, he keeps insisting. What should I do?Tetra quark (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tetra quark welcome to the teahouse. First, I think it's not good form to initiate a discussion about some user without pinging them. In my experience that's not the way things usually work here. We don't divide up into cliques or sides, everything is supposed to be totally open. I'm not going to ping the other user since you didn't but I think they should be involved in resolving this question. Second, I just took a quick look but I don't think I agree with your description of the issue. If the other editor was trying to insert language that was about the moons of Saturn as described today and said they were "sons of Saturn" I agree that's hardly scientific. But what the editor was doing is making a claim about an ancient text that he thinks is the first reference to Saturn's moons and that text called them "sons of Saturn". E.g., in this edit which you reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moons_of_Saturn&diff=638236988&oldid=638236753 IMO, the way that was written was perfectly reasonable. The issue is does the reference really back up the claim. I.e., did Varahamihira's Brihat Samhita actually "[associate] Saturn with 60 celestial bodies calling them 'Sons of Saturn'" around the 6th century CE? If it did then I think the other editor's edit makes sense to me, but if not obviously not. Also, in edit summaries I recommend that no editor ever use language like "you are being immature". Those kinds of comments add no substantive info and end up getting people angry rather than having them focus on reaching a consensus. If you think another editor is being unreasonable (I'm not convinced that is the case here but I haven't looked at the edits closely at all so I could be wrong) then there are a number of options. The one I've used the most (although I almost never use it) is Wikipedia:Third_opinion where you formally ask another random editor to give an opinion. That's not binding though. More rigorous is Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. In both those cases though they require you've put in a significant effort of good faith work trying to resolve the issue on the talk page before resorting to other options. Sorry if that wasn't what you wanted to hear. Hope it was useful. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
That stuff is definitely used in a tendentious way, trying to suggest that people in India back then somehow "knew" about those satellites. User talk:Materialscientist#Moons of Satuen, Jai1971 speaks about how this is supposed to be remarkably close to the current numbers. It was pure speculation, which becomes quite clear when that astrologer talks about Mercury and Venus (which in reality are moonless). To add something about this in these articles would give it undue weight. --JorisvS (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Worth remembering is that Isaac Newton, widely considered one of the greatest physicists and mathematicians of all times, wasted a lot of valuable genius time fooling around with alchemy and the search for the Philosopher's stone. But we don't include his misguided musings in our chemistry articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

how to email/message wiki editor?

Looking to send this user a message. Can someone help me find this user? User:RonSigPi

(C.dunkin (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

At Special:EmailUser, you can type in the name of the editor you want to e-mail under the "username" field. Happy editing, :) --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Navigate to the editor's user page or talk page. In the left pane, you can see 'Email this user' under Tools. Just follow the link. -- Sriram speak up 01:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
@C.dunkin:: You only get 'Email this user' if both you and the other user has enabled email at Special:Preferences. User:RonSigPi has not enabled email so you cannot send an email even if you enabled email yourself, which you haven't currently done. But a far more common way to contact a user is to edit their user talk page, in this case User talk:RonSigPi. I see you did that after posting here.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Checking source reliability

Hi Teahouse hosts. I am seeking your insights on the reliability of citing Kirkus Indie as a source seeing that I used it as a reference on the article I submitted for review. Multiple arguments[2] emerged on whether or not Kirkus Indie Reviews should be cited as a source in view of the fact that it is a paid service, as stated in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Unbiased review will be sent to the author who decides whether or not he wants to Kirkus to publish it. The review remains unchanged. If the result doesn't appeal to his taste, then he can keep it private BUT it will never be publicized. It was established that if it appears on the main Kirkus site it is a reasonable evidence of notability but if it is under the Indie Program - it's not. Kirkus Indie policy states,this is also stated in the Kirkus Reviews wiki article, these reviews will be subjected to the same standards. [3] This is also supported by Karen Schechner, senior Indie editor at Kirkus.[1] So if reviews from Kirkus Main and Kirkus Indie goes through the same policy, that clearly means ALL REVIEWS released are based on the same standards and should be treated as is regardless if solicited or not. why then would confirmation be given to Main and not the latter? it's an assumption that because it's a paid service, it will always be biased and therefore not reliable so the policy is BS (I'm sorry for the term) and should be sued for it. Are we not reinforcing that we would base everything on wikipedia from documentations? I would stand by my notion that although one source cannot and does not constitute notability, BOTH sources should still be allowed to be cited. I would appreciate someone giving me a feedback on this. Thanks Pmanz2014 (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Schechner, Karen. "Why reviews matter: Kirkus Indie's Karen Schechner weighs in". Retrieved 2014-12-15.
Pmanz2014, interesting question but as there is already a discussion underway at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Kirkus_Reviews, you are best voicing your question/opinions there rather than starting a separate discussion here. This keeps all discussion on the topic in one place and leading to one consensus rather than risking multiple and potrnetially different outcomes developing. Nthep (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Nthep Thanks so much for getting back to me. And great point that this should be added on the current discussion, I agree. I was just hoping to get Teahouse's (or host's) feedback in line with this.Am I making any sense as I believe I am or do you feel otherwise? Thanks again Pmanz2014 (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Pmanz2014. I agree with Nthep here. Discussing a specific issue at multiple venues is highly discouraged here on Wikipedia. Please read about forum shopping. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

article in sandbox... can someone take a look at it?

Hi,

This is my first article and I put some time into it. It is not entirely done, but the majority is there. Can someone take a look at it and let me know how it looks and if there is anything major (or minor) that I may have missed?

Borister (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Borister!!! Welcome to the Tea House.
I think your article is fine (in my opinion).
Can you add a picture of the artist?
Best wishes
Aftab Banoori (Talk)
That looks excellent, User:Borister. Further to what User:Aftabbanoori has said, pictures can be added, but only if you can get a free image - please be careful. As it's possible to get a free image of a living person, we can't use a non-free image in these circumstances. This is difficult in practice, so as a result a lot of biographies of living people do not have photographs. LouiseS1979 (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

How and when to request deletion of a substantial article?

Hi there, I was recently looking over 2013 Korean crisis and found that it was not up to date as far as looking at the crisis from a current perspective. As far as I understand, nothing materialized from the threats made by North Korea, although this is not yet reflected in the article. Additionally, the format of the article's timeline is not very useful, and contains a lot of information that retrospectively seems non-notable. The whole thing just comes across as a work in progress.

I made a note about these issues on the talk page, and User:Jack Upland responded suggesting that the article could be deleted based on WP:NOTE. So I'm wondering if a) Experienced Teahouse editors agree with this evaluation, and b) how one goes about creating an RfD. Thanks in advance. --Sennsationalist (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Sennsationalist Welcome to the teahouse. I don't agree with the suggestion to delete the article. Usually, I hedge my answers a bit but in this case I'm giving a pretty emphatic no to deletion. That article had 214 references and at least some of them were to very good wp:references such as the Guardian. So unless the claim is that those references are not really relevant to the topic then the topic absolutely is wp:notable and should not be deleted. I agree there are a lot of issues on that article that need to be addressed but when an article has issues we either fix them or tag the article so people know about the issues when reading it. If there is material in the article you think is not supported by the references you can delete that material but that is different than deleting the whole article. FYI, if you want more info about the deletion process you can find it here: Wikipedia:Deletion_process but unless I'm misunderstanding something here I don't think that article qualifies to be nominated for deletion. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The information in the article is well-referenced, but the article itself is unjustified. There was a series of events in 2013 related to the Korean conflict, just as there were this year, just as there were in 2012 and every preceding year going back to 1945... Wikipedia is not news.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Jack Upland - you're right, Wikipedia is not news, but that policy does not invalidate covering historical matters that are on record. If a historical event happened, whatever the outcome, it's not going to change. Notability does not go away or dissipate.
The fact that it did not come to anything wouldn't invalidate it being mentioned in Wikipedia. If (to take an example that is in no way equatable to the Korean situation) the UK Independence Party fail to make significant headway at the 2015 General Election, and the main parties win back the two seats that fell to them at a by-election, that still does not mean Wikipedia would be wrong to mention that they won those seats or make the relevant articles on the Clacton and Rochester and Strood by-elections invalid or non-notable.
If the crisis was significant and notable and covered as such at the time in reliable sources, in other words, Wikipedia can keep the article documenting it. Wikipedia is also not paper and keeping this article around does not mean we are using up space in which to write others. LouiseS1979 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that deals with what I said.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The topic is notable, the references are abundant, and I will oppose any attempt to delete the article. Work to improve it, instead, if you are concerned about the current shortcomings of the article, Jack Upland. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, you're ignoring what I said.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I am ignoring nothing, Jack Upland, as I have read all your comments here about this article and find them without merit. It is not necessary for editors who disagree with you to analyze each and every one of your comments, phrase by phrase. If you think the article should be deleted, then take it to WP:AFD, but be prepared for a "snow keep". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_284&oldid=1131880318"