Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 366

Archive 360

←

Archive 364

Archive 365

Archive 366

Archive 367

Archive 368

→

Archive 370

Requesting a review of page content

Hello editors I am trying to describe what products a company sells and not sound like a brochure. I deliberately removed all adjectives. I based this on the product section of Sierra Wireless's page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Wireless Looking for guidance on whether this is written correctly many thanks Lynda

Products

Redline's primary product line is the RDL-3000 which includes:

RDL-3000 Ellipse: manages security, traffic scheduling and Quality of Service (QoS) functions for Redline’s family of outdoor wireless TCP/IP remote data terminals and transports wireless traffic between the base station and multiple remote sites

RDL-3000 RAS-Elite: a nomadic terminal used to provide secure wireless transport from the base station to temporary field offices, rigs, trucks and other semi-permanent locations.

RDL-3000 RAS-Extend: a series of mobile terminals provides secure wireless transport from the base station moving vehicles and vessels

RDL-3000 Edge, eLTE-MT, Enterprise and Connect terminals: used in various applications to provide secure wireless transport between each other or to an RDL-3000 Ellipse at a base station.

Lpartner (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is Redline Communications. It has already been promoted from draft space to article space, and has been edited. I think that if the reviewing editors had thought that it read like an advertisement rather than an article, they would have said so by now. I think that you succeeded. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

thank you. I had the product info in the first draft but removed it before the article was promoted. I think you are suggesting that I should try putting it back in? Lpartner (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Dinesh Soi isn't the author. Websites cross check before publishing.

Hi Vchimpanzee ... I am still not getting the process. More over, how can Dinesh Soi be the author when articles/news have been published by different team members of those particular Websites and newspapers. Yes, I agree that most of these were the interviews in which top notch websites/newspapers ask a known/notable person some questions and verify those cautiously before publishing Sonam R Thakur (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. You can respond by clicking on "edit" under the same topic you already started. If you know who the author of each article is, put the first name after "first=" and the last name under "last=". For multiple authors, use first1, first2 and last1, last2. You have used these but put Mr. Soi's name. My Internet is slow and going to a new website would be very time-consuming, so I didn't investigate this. I suspected Mr. Soi did not write the articles. Interviews, by the way, do not establish notability but would be treated as primary sources. You are better off not using those until the article is accepted.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. Now, we have again re edited the article on Casting Director Mr. Dinesh Soi and tried our level best to make it acceptable. As written earlier, we are new to Wikipedia and its our article. We have learnt a lot of things and the process is still on. Whenever you get time, please see the article and let us know if still which thing is lacking and what should be done to make it acceptable. Thanks Sonam R Thakur (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Unclear about unclear citation style message

I created a page using the Visual Editor and used the Cite tool provided to include inline citations. However, soon after I published the page it was flagged with the message "This article has an unclear citation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking. (July 2015)". I have no idea what this means and attempting to look it up doesn't help.

What it is referring to? The coding of the citations (which the tool did, not me) or the citations themselves (which are all valid online references)? I used nothing but the Cite tool and provided all of the information requested. I also put a note on the the page's talk section but have had no reply. (I even included the mysterious four-tilda signature!)

The page is Rupert Williamson William Syntagm (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, William Syntagm and welcome (back?) to the Teahouse. Sometimes the cite tool doesn't do as good a job as manual editing of the citation can. However, in this case I don't see the problem. A number of the citations don't include author or date information, but this seems to be because the sources don't provide it. The tag was added by Rambunctious Racoon, and I suggest asking him or her at User Talk:Rambunctious Racoon. DES ^(talk) 13:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

They processed my page to deletion?

how can i create a verified original page?Shadyvivek (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Articles summarize professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, plenty of them, all independent of the subject but specifically about them, and cannot be used to promote or advertise anything, especially when the article creator has a conflict of interest. The articles you've been creating fail most of those points, especially the parts relating to not using Wikipedia for promotion or advertising, and conflicts of interest. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

How to Cite Relevant Articles with COI

I'm a journalist who has written for many publications, such as Variety and Popular Science. Stories I cited from Hollywood Daily Star this month were removed by an editor who quoted the COI rules to me. I used to write for HDS and am still an adviser. As a journalist, I have met many of the famous people that HDS writes about, have interviewed them myself in the past.

HDS stories are authoritative on TV and film premiers. The editorial mandate at HDS is to be the best source of accurate information about today's TV or film premieres and to do that it quotes the star. That's different from a fansite that publishes rumor or an industry biz site like Variety where stories center on the deal, not the show.

I want to cite the star's quote about their project, but I know everyone, the authors and the stars. How do I do that?

Below is an example of my edit that another editor removed as COI:

Kingsley stars in the ''Spike'' series ''Tut'' premiering on Sunday, July 19th, 2015. “TV is now the home for great historic drama,” says Spike Tut star Sir Ben Kingsley. “The extraordinary thing about Tut is that it’s absolutely timeless, although it’s set in ancient Egypt. The three forces vying for power behind that young throne are, the military, the clergy and the politicians. Nothing’s changed.” Spike original programming EVP Sharon Levy says “Tut is the biggest and most ambitious project in Spike's history.”

Robin Rowe (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Robin Rowe and welcome back to the Teahouse. If you are referring to this edit on Ben Kingsley it was removed as unsourced, not as COIU, and as posted no source was cited, not the HDS or any other source. If you are refering to this edit to Tut (miniseries) it was removed as "Not appropriate for the lead--probably not appropriate anywhere in here". Remember that the lead section (except on stubs where it may be the entire article)should summarize the rest of the article, rather than including content not found elsewhere. Remember also that excessively gushing or promotional quotes, even if accurately cited, may led undue weight to a particular point-of-view or aspect of a subject, and may give an article a promotional tome rather than an encyclopedic one. The HDS should be an appropriate source for appropriate content, but no source is good for content that is itself inappropriate. DES ^(talk) 16:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Edit headline of a Wikipedia entry

Hello Wikipedia Editors!

Our School of Diplomacy and International Relations has a Wikipedia entry in English, Portuguese, and Chinese. Since we have had a name change, we need to edit the articles to reflect it. The English entry has been successfully changed, but no one can tell me how that was accomplished. Only that it took almost two years. Now, I was tasked to edit the Portuguese and Chinese articles as well. I was able to edit the text of the article. Basically everything but the headline. And I cannot edit that headline for the life of me. Is there anyone out there who could assist me in the matter? Help and tips are much appreciated, thank you! 149.150.236.159 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

To change the title of an article you simply have to move the page, which can be done be clicking "move" under the "more" tab at the top of the page. I doubt IP users are have the permission to do this though, so I would recommend you request for such a move or create an account. And of course, make sure that the move is actually necessary... -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 18:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Only autoconfirmed users (accounts with 10 edits that are 4 days old) can move pages. See Wikipedia:Moving a page. I assume the page in question is School of Diplomacy and International Relations, which used to be called John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations. The Chinese article doesn't seem to include "John C. Whitehead" in the title; is there are problem with the article title? And what name do you think "Escola John C. Whitehead de Diplomacia e Relações Internacionais" should be changed to? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer PotatoNinja!

That's what I feared. I do not have a Wikipedia account, much less an editing history.

You are correct, the English page has been successfully changed. The Chinese page is more difficult. I was able to edit the only mention of our old name in the text itself.

When it comes to the Portuguese page, the name needs to read as follows: "Escola de Diplomacia e Relações Internacionais", basically just delete the "John C. Whitehead" from the headline, that is all we need.

Would you by any chance be able and willing to do that? I hope you do not mind me asking. 149.150.236.159 (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Bilorv, I want to thank you as well and direct my inquiry about the possibility of you changing our Wiki entry according to what I specified above. We would greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter.

To answer PotatoNinja's question, yes, the change is definitely necessary. Our name has changed, and we need that reflected in our online appearances. Thank you! Sodir (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

In state , we have a famous rapper , he has give the rap song which we called the Rap song of our state bihar, and i want to see him on Wikipedia

In my State , Rapking -Sonu Aryan who is the first Rapper of bihar , his song is denoted by name The first Rap song of bihar. He is too much famous and i can't find him on Wikipedia, what is this ?49.14.156.15 (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia requires that all our subjects are notable, otherwise they cannot have articles. If you think this rapper is notable, you need to find some reliable independent secondary sources to demonstrate this. Unregistered users can use Articles for Creation to submit drafts for review; if accepted, the page will be moved into the article space for readers to see. You might also want to read WP:42 and WP:1ST on how to create a page, or if you don't want to create the page yourself you can post at Wikipedia:Requested articles, preferably also giving links to reliable sources to demonstrate notability. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Make sure to check the wikipedia policies on content; and check that there isn't an article on him as part of a larger article, or under a different name.

Brackattax (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Help dealing with abusive account modifying our Wiki page

Hi all,

My name is Steve Rose and I work on content for both Faith Matters and Tell MAMA UK. We are having issues with a user on this site called Flexdream. As you can see from their history, they enjoy modifying our Tell MAMA wiki in a negative manner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Flexdream

Is there anyway to stop this user from editing our page?

Thanks for your time,

Steve Rose

Splrose (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are related to Faith Matters and Tell MAMA UK please read our conflict of interest guidelines. I am afraid you are discouraged from editing pages relating to you or your companies because Wikipedia strives to be neutral and free from promotion or censorship (e.g. removal of information which portrays a company in a negative light). You do not own any Wikipedia article: Wikipedia is a "wiki", which means that we encourage collaborative content and anyone can edit here. We do have methods to stop unconstructive users from editing, but from a cursory glance Flexdream does not appear to be a vandal; I have not looked at their edits in detail but they seem to be just trying to maintain a neutral point of view in articles. If you have problems with these articles about your company, it may be best to just discuss these issues on the talk pages, pointing out any errors and offering solutions, so other editors without conflicts of interest can make these changes on your behalf (if they deem them appropriate). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Splrose: to further elaborate (or perhaps belabor), these are NOT "your pages" - they are Wikipedia encyclopedia articles which (should) reflect what reliable sources have discussed about the organizations (subjects about which you have a conflict of interest.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Nice to see that the anonymous ip who has/have been editing the Tell Mama article (which has been settled for a long time) has now revealed themselves as having a vested interest in the article. Without discussion they have accused me of bias. Maybe they are naive, but, I am happy for anyone to look at the edits made and draw their own conclusions as to who is biased. Me being abusive is a ludicrous allegation. There are several references in the article where Tell Mama itself is the source. Should these be removed? I see no problem with including them if identified but Splrose et al objected to Gilligan describing his own position because it was 'not an independent reference' [1]. I'd welcome a wider discussion with them or others. --Flexdream (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Can someone help source this article, please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Arthur_Vogelsang67.177.84.152 (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You are the only person who has any idea what the numbers you have scattered throughout the text are actually supposed to mean. There are a few actual references in the draft, follow those examples and replace all the numbers with similarly formatted actual references. Once that is done we can take another look at it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

article question

Hello, can you tell me more details about requested article?

Qarva is a company based in Tbilisi, Georgia. Qarva creates software solutions for TV service operators, for IPTV/OTT TV. We are proud that we have the solutions that will hold very important page in IPTV/OTT development history. Our products are “know how” products for the best IPTV and OTT TV systems. We are the first company who can announce such thing and our demonstrations around the world always prove this idea.

Company Qarva has a great role in the era of Internet TV(OTT). And we live in this era. 94.43.85.2 (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

What is your question? I see that a user was recently blocked for using the user name, User:Qarva Software. That is a username block, and can be corrected by changing the user name. If you want to create an article about Qarva Software, there are two problems. The first, and less serious, problem is that, as an unregistered editor, you cannot create articles. You could solve that by renaming your previous account. The more serious problem is that you have a conflict of interest. I suggest that you first change the name of the blocked account, and then go to WP:Requested articles to ask some neutral editor to write the article for you without using promotional language such as "we are proud" and "very important". Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 94.43.85.2. You could create an article in draft space without registering. In fact, you should do that anyway. Click on Draft:Qarva Software. But make sure independent reliable sources have discussed the company in detail with a neutral point of view. Your description above is not neutral.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

prompting feedback.

Seeking feedback

I am developing a proposal to rewrite the existing article rationality. I want to make it comprehensive by integrating material from other articles: instrumental rationality, instrumental value, instrumental conception of technology, reason, rational action, rational choice theory, bounded rationality; sociology rationalization (sociology); psychology rationalization. Only rationality and instrumental rationality appear to be active sites.

I have talked on several of these sites to no avail. I could just insert my proposal and see what happens, but that seems arbitrarily violent. I could write directly to editors who have recently edited or talked about any of these articles, but that seems personally intrusive. I don’t understand how a sandbox could be used to float new proposals.

Can a sandbox be used to generate feedback? Or is there some other avenue? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Pedantic note: a "sandbox" refers to a test page; you're just talking about "talk pages". Unfortunately, some talk pages just aren't looked at very much; if you don't get a reply, sometimes it's best to just assume no-one disagrees with you. One of our most important rules here is be bold: if you're fairly sure that your changes are positive, just go ahead and make them. Someone might undo ("revert") your changes if they don't agree with them, and then you can start a discussion with them. But if you don't make the edits in the first place, the problems with rationality might never be fixed. Go ahead and make them. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@TBR-qed: One thing to watch out for here is copyright attribution. If you copy content from other Wikipedia articles you have to give credit to the source. It's not very difficult. Just state in the edit summary that you've copied content and from where, linking the copied article. So, a model edit summary might be Copied content from [[article name]]; see that article's history for attribution. For more information, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, and its subsection at the shortcut WP:PATT. Note that if you are going to be placing content copied from all those article in one edit, then you can use a series of dummy edits to provide the attribution, For example:

This edit included content copied from [[article name]]; see that article's history for attribution. (See next edit summary)

The edit also included content copied from [[article name]]; see that article's history for attribution.

The edit also included content copied from [[article name]]; see that article's history for attribution.

and so on. I know this got a little more complicated than what I started with, but copyright attribution is very important. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Rejected article, inadequate sources or just not notable?

Hi, I've now had the draft of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Penniless_(musical_group)&redirect=no rejected twice and now I'm wondering whether I should keep working on it or just scrap it.

I've read the notability criteria for musicians and ensembles, and as far as I can see, the band in question would meet the criteria defined in sections 1, 2 and 11. Would you say that it is not enough, or that the sources used in the article are inadequate as such? Any general advice on how to improve the article?

Thank you in advance!

Reaason (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Reaason hello and welcome to The Teahouse. The article looks good enough to be accepted to me, so the problem must be the type of sources. We prefer respectable books, magazines and newspapers when trying to establish notability. If you can find these and the band has been discussed extensively, you should be okay. But just from a quick look I believe the band qualifies as notable and should have an article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Reaason. Respectable online sources, such as Allmusic are also perfectly acceptable. I don't know anything about the music scene in Bulgaria, nor can I read the non-English sources, but I wonder if some of them are not independent, and others do not discuss the band in detail but are simple event listings or the like. If any opf them are the equilivant of blogs or fan sites, please replace the with more reliable sources. Since the citations are using {{cite web}}, you should know that it supports a parameter |language= which can be used to indicate the language in which a source is written. If the title is not in English, a translated title my be added with |trans-title= when available, author and publication date should be provided. Remember that multiple independent reliable sources which discuss the band in some detail are normally needed. DES ^(talk) 22:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Have mentioned Authors in References as you said

Hi Vchimpanzee ... I guess you must be busy but when ever you get time, just have an overall look on the new article of Casting Director Dinesh Soi. I have done the needful alterations in References as per my best knowledge. I am still confused on mentioning the name of the author, like in case of Wikipedia/any other article sometimes none of the author's name is being mentioned on the page. And its difficult to recollect who had written it. Please guide. Still if any alterations need to be done, just let us know. Thanks for the valuable concern. Wish you have a nice time Sonam R Thakur (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Sonam R Thakur. Please don't start a new section every time you want to reply: Edit the current section, and add your reply, starting each paragraph with a colon (':') to make it indent.

If the author's name is not mentioned on the page, then you should not put it in the citation the point of putting information in the citation is to help the reader find and evaluate the reference. I haven't looked at all the references in the draft, but most of them tht aren't to iMDB seem to be interviews, which means that they are not independent sources, but Soi's own words. Sources that are not independent of the subject are called primary sources, and can only be used in a very limited way as references. A Wikipedia article, especially one about a living person, should be nearly all based on what people who have no connection with the subject have written about them: if there are no such sources, then it is impossible to write a satisfactory article (we say that the subject is not 'notable', in Wikipedia jargon). You need to find at least a couple of articles about Soi, in which neither he nor his friends or associates had any part, and base most of the article on what those sources say. --ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert Wiki team. Now, we have again re edited the article on Casting Director Mr. Dinesh Soi and tried our level best to make it acceptable. As written earlier, we are new to Wikipedia and its our article. We have learnt a lot of things and the process is still on. Whenever you get time, please see the article and let us know if still which thing is lacking and what should be done to make it acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonam R Thakur (talk • contribs) 12:43, 24 July 2015‎

Sonam R Thakur sorry, I'm not here much. But there are plenty of people who can help you. I'll have a look now.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Dinesh Soi still needs a lot of work. There is almost no content other than the lead. If you can provide more details in the other sections, that would be nice, but they must be from independent reliable sources. The Youtube link does not belong in the text but it might qualify as an external link. Don't say "recently" (I have been guilty of that) because by the time someone reads it, it might not be recent any more. There are spelling and grammar problems too.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Add Person

I am working on a project to increase the liklihood my friend's image will show up in google image search when you type his name. Right now the man who murdered him is the only thing that shows up. I was told if I added him to Wikkepedia that would increase the chances, but I cannot seem to figure out how to do that. Any help is appreciated. Mikelswank (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mikelswank. I'm sorry your friend was murdered, and I appreciate that you would like to make him more visible. But I'm afraid that Wikipedia may not be used for that purpose, whether it would increase the google ranking or not. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means it hosts only neutrally written articles about subjects which have been extensively written about in independent reliable sources. If your friend were notable (which in Wikipedia means "written about by independent people and published in reliable places") for some other reason, then we could have an article on him. If the only reason why he even might be notable is that he was murdered, then I'm afraid that is almost certainly not enough to justify an article. --ColinFine (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Image problems

Hi. I have just started this article Baldock Cemetery and none of the images will show. I haven't encountered this problem before. Can anyone help, please? Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That is really strange, I've never seen it before either. Interestingly, the images are view able in their full url [2]. You could try uploading them to commons, that might fix it. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give it a try. Jack1956 (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jack1956: There is something fishy going on with the pictures today. I saw the same thing with a pic on the Main Page (the one with Obama and Castro File:President Obama Meets with President Castro.png) when I click on it I get the "X", so I don't think it has anything to do with just "your" pictures. Best, w.carter-Talk 22:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The same problem appears to be happening at NBA 2K16. —DangerousJXD (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Jack1956, W.carter, See WP:VPT#photos in an info box. The problem seems to be site-wide and known, but not fixed. DES ^(talk) 23:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all. I'll leave it until the morning to see if it's sorted by then. Jack1956 (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course, Jack1956, if the photos are under a free license, they might better be uploaded to commons anyway. VPT says commons is not affected by the current problem, btw. DES ^(talk) 23:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

clicking the image shows it is linked to your desktop and not hosted online. In order for the image to show it must be uploaded online. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldock_Cemetery#/media/File:Baldock_Cemetery_Sign.jpg

Mikelswank (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Mikelswank, The image is in fact hosted online, as you can see at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/43/Baldock_Cemetery_Sign.jpg but the scaling down for thumbnail display (also used in infoboxes) isn't working correctly at them moment for recently uploaded images. DES ^(talk) 00:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

adding footnotes

Hi, I have created a draft of a new page. It is unapproved because I need to add footnotes for my citations, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how to do that. Any advice/help is appreciated! RDHayes (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

RDHayes hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I have taken the first step and added what is necessary to get footnotes to display properly. What you need to do is put everything between <ref> and </ref>, including the <ref> and </ref>, in the article itself, with the source after the information contained in that source, which you have supposedly summarized or put in your own words. There are formatting issues but we can work on them later. Don't put brackets around the information unless you have a title for the source as well as the URL. When you have both, there is a space after the URL and then the title. More is encouraged and we have templates you can use if you want, or someone can add them.

Also, Draft:Andrea Mangione Standish reads more like a resume than an encyclopedia article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RDHayes. I recommend Referencing for beginners as a good explanation of various ways to format references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Anomiebot fix

Hello teahouse hosts, I was puzzled by AnomieBOT and this edit but also wondered if there is a COI with the previous editor who shares the same name as the text being edited? CV9933 (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@CV9933: I agree, it was a weird bot edit- as it broke 1 of the references, I reverted the bot. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The bot has made the same edit again. I've posted on its talk page and tried to undo the edit again. (I think perhaps it might have made the edit again because you restored a previous version rather than directly undoing the bot's edit, but I could be wrong.)

But the original query was about COI. Yes, it does look like that person has a conflict of interest. Their only edits have been to introduce what appears to be a quote from a message they posted to Quora. That content definitely doesn't belong there, although I'm tempted to leave at least the reference there for a few minutes to see if AnomieBOT makes its odd reference name change again. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302, Bilorv: According to Help:Footnotes#Footnotes:_using_a_source_more_than_once "Names may not be purely numeric" that is why the bot is changing the name. DES ^(talk) 16:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• The bot was only exposing the existing problem, the ref was not correctly formatted or used in the article. Fixed now. KylieTastic (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
• However that does still leave the issue of is the whole edit wrong and should it be reverted anyway? Linking to your own answer on a website, is that just COI or WP:ORIGINAL? KylieTastic (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Quora, which is where the reference led, is not a reliable source. I've removed the quote. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help.CV9933 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Skill

How to improve my skill foe editing ? STORM BOYS BD (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi STORM BOYS BD if you look just above the questions here you'll see a link to The Wikipedia Adventure that should help improve your editing 'skills' - Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't cleanup tags be explained on the corresponding talk page?

To begin, I'll admit I'm a little sensitive at the moment because I've added new two articles over the last 24 hours and that has generated a moderate-length discussion about whether the articles should be merged because "it's the way we always do it." However, that's not what this is about.

It's a little disconcerting when someone patrols an article I'm watching and they drop in a cleanup tag and it isn't obvious what they're calling out. Isn't there a convention where cleanup tags be explained on the corresponding talk page? I get if the complaint is completely obvious, but sometimes what is obvious to one person is oblivious to another.

Help me out here. And be kind. I'm feeling needy.

 Mikeylito  ► talk 19:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems. Although that is an essay rather than a guideline, it does imply that explaining the concern briefly on the talk page is helpful. Placing tags on articles without explaining the concern is sometimes called "drive-by tagging" and is deprecated but not forbidden. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I can certainly empathise with people tag-bombing articles for unclear issues. I'm afraid, however, that from what I've seen just about everybody who adds tags does not explain on the talk page—at best, they'll explain in their edit summary. I think some tags are self-explanatory (e.g. {{Lead too short}}), but if you don't understand a tag it's usually best to contact the user who added it on their user talk page. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

can an administrator block themselves

Can an administrators blocked themselve for any time or ban themselves Jacob Hartin (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I can answer half of your question. An administrator cannot ban themselves, because, except for Arbitration Enforcement, one administrator cannot ban an editor. I assume that an administrator can block themselves, because an administrator can block another administrator. (A case about a block of an administrator by another administrator is currently before the ArbCom.) At this time, only the ArbCom can desysop an administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Jacob Hartin, An admin can technically self-block, but per WP:BLOCK: "Sometimes, people request that their account be blocked, for example to enforce a wikibreak. Typically, such requests are declined. However, there is a category of administrators who will consider such requests." DES ^(talk) 18:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Administrators can both block and unblock themselves. It's sometimes done for testing or possibly by accident. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Hi, 1st part of question may not make sense, but last night I just made a typo in edit summary while editing through mobile. Is there anyway to edit the edit summary ?

And is there any article on standard ways to write edit summary ? Thanks! Peppy Paneer (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Peppy Paneer! No, there is no way (as far as I know) to edit edit summaries. If you think you have missed something terribly important in a summery, you can do a dummy edit (something totally unimportant) and add the text in that edit summary explaining things. As for articles, there is the Help:Edit summary and Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 08:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi w.carter Thank you Peppy Paneer (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

If something really bad is in an edit summary, like libel,m or personal information, the edit summary can be redacted (oversighted) by the appropriate functionaries. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC).

a mere typo in an edit summary is not corrected or removed, except in something pretty unusual , say maybe the wrong vowel in nagger or botch -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Why change a clear citation to put the file URL first?

Editor Bgwhite changed one of the references on the Knights of the Forest to show a link to the file followed by the normal citation. Before this change, it was easy for the reader to see the citation and then view the PDF if they so chose; after this change the citation is buried after the URL. I think this change is unhelpful to readers -- Can someone explain why it makes sense? Peterkc (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears you're talking about this edit by Bgwhite. It was made using a semi-automated tool called "AutoWikiBrowser" so it's possible the change was automatic. But I don't understand what you mean by "the citation is buried after the URL". When you view the citation, it looks vaguely like "Mankato Review, 18 April 1916, page 1 (cont. to page 3)". The entire citation is a link to the file. This makes a lot more sense to me than "Mankato Review, 18 April 1916, page 1 (cont. to page 3) [2], because the link to the file is much more visible.

If the syntax is what seems to be confusing you, [https://en.wikipedia.org Text to be displayed] is the code for "Text to be displayed". It seems like the link appears first but that's not what actually happens: it turns the text into a link to that web page. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 11:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hi Peterkc, the best way to find out why an editor made an edit is too ask them. I see you posted here and on the articles talk page but didn't ask them. Most editors are happy to answer such questions, I'm sure Bgwhite would have been happy to explain. By the edit summary it was probably just a Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser rule based on a Wikipedia:Manual of Style guideline. I see your point that it makes it harder to notice the actual link to the file, but your way looks a tad ugly with File: and underscores so I've added text to the file description which I think meets both requirements. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The syntax was part of the confusion and these replies clear things up!Peterkc (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Peterkc, Bilorv, and KylieTastic: It was a manual edit and not done by AWB.

1. The entire URL was not needed. That's why I converted [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File: to [[:File: Also, as mentioned above, underscores are not needed.
2. The name of the publication, date and pages are not to be in the link. What goes in the link is the title of the PDF, but one wasn't given in the article. Thus, I used the name of the file as the title. I've subsequently changed the ref to use the newspaper headline given in the link.

Bgwhite (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, I understand the possibilities much better now.Peterkc (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Category, templates and Userboxes

Can I create categories, templates? How to create new userboxes? --Aero Slicers 07:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Creating a new userbox, I'm afraid, requires you doing a bit of coding. Wikipedia:Userboxes#Creating a new userbox explains how to create a userbox, but in all honesty, I've found the best way to make a userbox is to copy someone else's and change some of the parameters until you get what you want. (You can use {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#FFF |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#FFF |id=ID |info=Content}} as a starting point: copy it into a sandbox and start changing the text and the colours.)

You certainly have the technical ability to create new categories and templates, but whether you should or not depends on what you want to do. Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization provide some basic information on categories, but unfortunately, I've always thought there's quite a scarcity of information about creating new categories. The term "template" is incredibly broad and can encompass everything from messages to navboxes. But Wikipedia:Template namespace and its Guidelines section might provide you with some information about what a new template should be used for. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 08:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Need help in re-writing an Article

I am writing this email in regards to a profile page for one Mr. Ashraf Abu Issa. We want help in re-writing it the wiki way. Can someone help us? Please include the price information in your response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashraf_Abu_Issa

78.100.43.82 (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

One issue you can immediately see is that most of the references are either primary or don't describe the subject in enough detail, so you're going to have to supply more third-party sources to establish the subject's notability, Also keep in mind that wikipedia does not contain "profile pages", but rather sourced articles on notable subjects that are written in a neutral fashion. -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 10:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

glutamate manipulation

How does the 5-HT1a receptor work concerning glutamate manipulation and how does this affect the brain and or mood? 2602:302:D129:A0E0:5054:68E4:FB63:F70B (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This page is for questions about how to edit Wikipedia. I suggest the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. DES ^(talk) 19:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Why small stub articles are not approved

I had purchased an antique box and it had American Fluid Co and was used to carry embalming fluids. I checked eBay and other sources and the box went for $50 to hundreds of dollars. There is no information on American Fluid Co except a few vague references. I took the only references I had and made a small article and even include pictures (now on Commons). I was not planning on doing more than to have basic information available as stub. As I find more information I planned, like in the old days, just revise the article. I was hoping collectors would find it and add more information.

I do not understand why articles must NOW be perfect to publish. I would prefer that we get some stubs and build up new information. That is what I did with other articles and while doing so met interesting folks on-line and we created a better article.

I am not sure what the point is if we have to be perfect to publish. Maybe I am misunderstanding the new processes. I just want to quickly add some good information and support it and grow it.

Michael R Wild 15:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Michael. I haven't a definitive answer for you, but I'll put in my two pennyworth. It certainly is not the case that articles must be perfect to be published. But it is required that there be a reasonable likelihood of their being perfected at some time. If there is simply no (or hardly any) reliably published information about a subject, then it will be strictly impossible to write a satisfactory article about it - in Wikipedia jargon, the subject is not notable, and it is a waste of anybody's time creating a stub.

I'm not saying that that is the case about the American Fluid Co; but unless you can find substantial writing about it - not just entries in a directory or a sales catalogue - then there will be no realistic chance of a worthwhile article. (Sources don't have to be online, so an article in an old newspaper in a library might well be enough).

One more thing: please sign your contributions on talk pages and project pages (like this one) with four tildes: ~~~~. --ColinFine (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

What you can do is to Google on American Fluid Company and see if you find any magazine articles indicating that the company is notable in the peculiar Wikipedia sense. Because you have the article in draft space and used the Articles for Creation process, you still have the ability to improve the article. You did the right thing in not creating the article directly in article space, because in that case it might have already been deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I created a Draft article about Frank Furstenberg - has it been submitted for review or do I still need to do something more?

I created a Draft article about Frank Furstenberg - has it been submitted for review or do I still need to do something more?Julie4109 (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Julie4109: and welcome to the Teahouse. In order to submit a draft for review, you need to add {{subst: submit}} to the top of the draft, this submits it for review; I've now submitted Draft:Frank Furstenberg for review on your behalf. You are allowed and encouraged to continue editing the draft whilst waiting for a review. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

joseph - you are awesome. thank you and glad i asked. Julie4109 (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)