Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 769

Archive 765

←

Archive 767

Archive 768

Archive 769

Archive 770

Archive 771

→

Archive 775

Lead section fix/improvement

Hello! While reviewing Epigenetics of anxiety and stress-related disorders and fixing some formatting minor issues I tried to figure out how to improve the lead section to comply with WP:MOS. I'd like to fix this instead of just labeling it. Someone with a broader range of knowledge in medicine can help. Thank you! Robertgombos (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Robertgombos: It certainly could be made a lot more accessible, per WP:LEAD. WP is not a specialized medical encyclopedia: WP:MEDMOS is an integral part of WP:MOS, not a separate style manual. Accessibility to a lay audience is paramount for all WP articles: technical, medical, or whatever. Keep these links handy if your good edits get reverted without good reason. The reader comes first.

As you admirably wanted to do this yourself, I will only say where I might start. First: Feel the pain of the lay reader. Make it real. Imagine yourself as a confused sufferer of some epigenetic anxiety or stress-related disorder. You are nervously hovering over the article's wikilinked title from another relevant article: you will quickly scan only the first sentence or two before deciding whether or not to click through - try it now yourself. Ugh! Ouch! Awful, wasn't it?

To make it clickworthy, you might start with translating the article title into plain English, in one or two sentences at most. Keep the wikilinks where they matter, just after being introduced properly. One starts explanations from the familiar and ends a clause or sentence with the less familar - wikilink that last. Next clause or sentence picks up on last of previous and continues pattern. Repeat until done. E.g.:

"Common words are used to introduce the lay public, including all readers of Wikipedia, to technical terminology or jargon, often used for precision by professionals such as scientists, engineers, and doctors."

Start with making the opening noun - "epigenetics" - accessible in an opening clause ending in wikilink of "epigenetics". Add a comma and then quickly downshift to its prepositional modifier - "of anxiety and stress-related disorders". Are those terms in need of paraphrase, or can they be introduced simply with a wikilink? Depends on where you go with next two sentences. Probably use these latter two to give more detail on epigenetics as specific to these conditions. Your call.

How does the Epigenetics article begin? Is that helpful? How do the anxiety and stress-related disorders articles begin? Is that helpful? If not, don't imitate bad models of lay explanation, look for alternatives. Try a dictionary or two.

I would love to see that opening paragraph earn a click from the casually curious, perhaps those most in need of it, and not only medical professionals. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

One thing that makes the article hard to follow, even for someone equipped to understand the biology and biochemistry, is that the word "stress" is used in two different senses, without explanation. The stress a soldier suffers, sometimes causing PTSD, is not the same as what biologists call the stress produced by depriving an embryo of a nutrient. Maproom (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Need citation help

Article Joshua Giddings, note 2, I cannot figure out how to include the author (Joshua Giddings) of the book Thompson wrote an introduction for. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done, @Deisenbe: this is what the contribution and related tags are for in {{cite book}}. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Need to change article name - I´m a new user

Hello, I need to update the article name of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyndham_Grand_Chelsea_Harbour as the hotel is not part of Wyndham chain anymore. The hotel now is owned by Millennium hotels. Here is the official website: https://www.millenniumhotels.com/en/london/the-chelsea-harbour-hotel/ How can the article title be updated with the new official hotel name without Wyndham? Thanks for helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeruskaDina (talk • contribs) 11:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The article name is the very least of it's worries. It needs major work to even get to notable. - X201 (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi VeruskaDina, welcome to the Teahouse. Pages can only be moved by accounts which are at least 4 days old and have 10 edits. I have moved Wyndham Grand Chelsea Harbour to Chelsea Harbour Hotel. The article was created in 2009 by an experienced user. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Google is mixing up two actors with the same name. Only one has a Wiki page

Please advise. I've noticed that over the past few years Google has been merging the profiles of two different Ben Davies actors into one. The Ben Davies who has starred in the Sony film COURAGEOUS and 10 other films plus been an All American athlete, is being confused with Ben Davies a British actor who Wiki has listed as Ben-Ryan Davies. The American Ben Davies has many more credits, but he doesn't have a Wiki page.

Please advise who to get a Wiki Page established for Ben Davies of COURAGEOUS and I'M NOT ASHAMED so that Google will stop mixing their profiles.

With appreciation FORD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford10 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ford10. We have articles Benjamin Davies (actor) and Ben-Ryan Davies, (though as the latter has not one single independent reference, it does nothing to establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notabililty, and may get deleted), but not apparently one about the Ben Davies you are talking about. If he meets those criteria (basically, that a couple of people unconnnected with him have been interested enough to write in some depth about him and been published in reliable places), then there can be a Wikipedia article about him. You are welcome to try writing it, though I would caution that writing an article that sticks is not easy - start by reading your first article.

But if he does not meet the notability criteria, then Wikipedia will not accept an article about him, irrespective of how Google may be mangling the information. A standard response about Google's Knowledge Graph follows:

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. --ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a recent AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Davies (American Actor) - that concurs. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

lost Dr Who episodes

I distinctly remember that back in the mid to late 60's (?) that there were episodes where the Dr was played by both Roger Daltrey and Timothy Dalton. I have not seen any mention of these people in the articles on any of the sites of actors playing the DR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:C200:7AFF:A5F2:DF99:BED9:5502 (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps not. According to Doctor Who, those men are not listed among the Doctors. There is an extensive discussion of missing episodes from the 60s, but William Hartnell and Patrick Troughton are identified as the actors through 1969. Dalton would have turned 20 in 1966, so, really, not him. David notMD (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Consider asking your question at the Reference Desks. They tend to have someone who, if it happened, could possibly find out. On a side note, it does not seem likely. Besides what was mentioned above, a google search of "Roger Daltrey" OR "Timothy Dalton" AND "Dr. Who" yields nothing promising. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's not a matter of "unlikely," it's a matter of "didn't happen" -- no need to take this to the Reference Desk. Such things are why Wikipedia has a strong rule about potentially controversial information needing to be able to be sourced to reliable, independent, third-party sources, rather than to personal recollections. Ravenswing 06:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Be aware that the article Doctor Who is about the BBC series - there are also movies (starring Peter Cushing and Paul McGann) and various TV shows where people have played that character (especially charity parodies where the role has been played by the likes of Rowan Atkinson, Richard E. Grant, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Grant and Joanna Lumley). But I can't find any source that supports either Roger Daltrey or Timothy Dalton.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Timothy Dalton did appear on Doctor Who, though, playing Rassilon. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

RE: Account login

Hello again i have gotten 4 messages so far and they were both dated may 3 saying someone is trying to get into my account. can someone fix this thanks CanadiaNinja 18:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

We think it's an error. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#"a failed attempt to log in to your account" alerts. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, CanadiaNinja, and welcome to the Teahouse. This has bene happening quite a bit lately -- thousands of attempts have apparently been made. See earlier threads here on the Teahouse, and see This thread on the technical area. If your password is strong, and is not used on any other site, you should have no problems and can safely ignore these notices. If your password is weak or is reused on other sites, you should probably change it to a strong and unique password. You can check your contributions. If you made all of them, ther is no problem. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Using a source more than once

If one source supports multiple claims throughout an article, how should it be cited? Should a citation appear for each claim it supports? If so, should subsequent references be abbreviated? Scd123 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Scd123, and welcome to the teahouse. All significant non-obvious statements should ideally have their own source citations. If you are using <ref>...</ref> tags, then one (often the first ) use of the source should look like <ref name="name">content</ref> and all the others like <ref name="name" />. These are called "named refernces". See WP:REFNAME for more details on how to use them. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, DES. Scd123 (talk)

Number of citations

Is there a case when it would be good to have more than one citation to back a fact? I have seen up to three in a row. If there are several sources that I know support a fact, is there any guidance on how many I should include? Scd123 (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Scd123. If the sources more or less duplicate each other, then having too many at once may be Wikipedia:Citation overkill. If each supports a different part of the statement, that is a different matter. Having two different sources cited can be a good thing to show that a point is not derived from a single place, although if the point is obvious and non-controversial, one is plenty. Having more than two is often not a good idea, although everything depends on the exact circumstances. Pick the best one or two sources and things will probably be in good shape. If there is an option, choose sources that provide an in-depth discussion of the topic, not ones that simply mention it in passing. Always choose a source or sources that explicitly support the specific fact being cited over those that do not, or do so only by implication. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

John Battaglia image

Hi,

I dont know how to edit wikipedia and I honestly havent tried to, I was just wondering if someone could change the picture on this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Battaglia. The man in the photo killed the two children in that photo. Its repulsive that after death they are still included with him. Please can you change it to his mugshot or anyhting else. Thanks the Reddit Community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56.0.84.24 (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that is a good point. In my opinion the image at John Battaglia is in very poor taste. But that discussion would have to be taken up on that article's Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

This was discussed at some length at Talk:John Battaglia#Image about 3 months ago. The matter could surely be reopened, however. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. You make a good point. I should have looked at the Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Protected ref desk for newly registered user

Hello! I like the ref desk a lot. I registered because it was semi-protected. But now I once again can't ask a question on there because I'm a new user with few edits. Would it be possible for edits I've made as an anonymous IP to be retroactively applied to this account, or for this restriction to be waived on the ref desk, or something like that? I don't want to go editing pages where I have less than thorough knowledge in order to get past this ten-edit minimum to post questions on the ref desk. (The pages on the kinds of stuff I specialize in are generally quite well-written and sourced.) Thanks for your time. Temerarius (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Temerarius: and welcome to the Teahouse. No, an exception won't be made. Period. Sorry.

The busy Ref Desk administrators from time to time place such access limits to help them in their always successful battle against attempted vandalism of those highly visible pages. Soon the wannabe vandals will tire of wasting their own time to absolutely no effect.

In the meantime, why don't you get some risk-free practice (and edit counts!) by introducing yourself on your User page (just click your name. Practice what you learn from the WP:Help resources on a public but temporary Draft:Sandbox (disappears daily) or work on draft questions, edits, and even articles in your private Sandbox pages. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Temerarius: - I agree with Paulscrawl - 10 edits is not a particularly high threshold on a platform where many editors have hundreds of thousands, and will afford you a good opportunity to practice editing, as alluded to above. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Does it matter how often I click "Publish Changes"?

Is there a benefit to publishing sections of my work at a time? For example, I make several punctuation changes, and then I decide to add a paragraph and citations. Would it be better to publish after the punctuation changes, or does it not really matter? Scd123 (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Scd123, and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer your question, it doesn't really matter that much how often you publish your changes. When in doubt it's probably better to make fewer edits compared to content changes, but it's not a big deal at all. It would only be a slight problem if, for example, you made one capitalization change, saved the article, another capitalization change, saved the article, and then did that 20 times. But for your case, if you make several punctuation changes and then add a paragraph and citations, either way works just fine. Hope this helps, and please let me know if you have any other questions.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 20:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It is my view, Scd123, that more numerous, smaller changes, are generally better, within reason of course. There are several reasons for my views. First, there is less work lost should a glitch or power outage cause your device or connection to fail. Second, there is less chance of an edit conflict, and less of a problem if one does occur. Third, if you use proper edit summaries (as you should) it will be clearer exactly what your purpose was for each edit. Fourth, should someone object to one of your changes and revert it, the revert will be smaller and more tightly focused, allowing better discussion of just what changes are needed. Obviously the example by SkyGazer 512 of makign 20 separate capitalization changes in one article would be unreasonable. In any case, this is a matter of style and personal preference, and there is no rule requiring you to edit in any particular size of change. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Naming of children in an article

I've started to work on the article Webb Simpson, a professional golfer. At the opening it mentions his four children by name and gender. I always thought this was frowned on by Wikipedia editors as a potential endangerment for the child. Is there a "common practice" suggestion that children not be named? I seem to recall a deep discussion (who can remember where) on the topic. ―Buster7 ☎ 00:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Buster7: this is covered in WP:BLPNAME. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding to List of social science journals

Dear Sir

I was trying to include a journal in Political Science Journal list but failed. Can you tell me how to include new journal in the list. Journal details is below:-

PEACEWORKS: An Interdisciplinary Journal (www.development-peace.org/journal.htm) is an bi annual (w.e.f 2018) Journal, supported by Indian Council of Social Science Research, New Delhi meant to promote interdisciplinary writings on varied issues of peacebuilding and development in South Asia. The journal invite contributions in form of research findings and original research articles based on any issues related to peace and development. The published articles are peer reviewed by at least two reviewers of the related field.

Thanks Rachana Rachana.narayan (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Rachana.narayan, you included it in the list, but I have reverted your edit. The lead of List of social science journals says: "The list given here is far from exhaustive, and contains the most influential, currently publishing journals in each field. As a rule of thumb, each field should be represented by at most ten positions, chosen by their impact factors and other ratings." I'm not convinced that Peaceworks is one of those. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks for replying but We are keen to link our journal, PEACEWORKS: An Interdisciplinary Journal on your Database.

PEACEWORKS: An Interdisciplinary Journal (www.development-peace.org/journal.htm) is an bi annual (w.e.f 2018) Journal, supported by Indian Council of Social Science Research, New Delhi meant to promote interdisciplinary writings on varied issues of peacebuilding and development in South Asia. The journal invite contributions in form of research findings and original research articles based on any issues related to peace and development. The published articles are peer reviewed by at least two reviewers of the related field.

Can it include in any section of journal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachana.narayan (talk • contribs) 04:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Rachana.narayan, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to cover notable topics (see WP:NJOURNALS), not to help promote your new journal. Please also have a read of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

vokkaliga

I want to upload notable vokkaliga people and subgroup of vokkaliga how can I upload it to the vokkaliga page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venkateshhsgowda (talk • contribs) 01:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Venkateshhsgowda - As this comes under our Caste/community rules, ONLY people with their own Wikipedia articles, AND a reference from a reliable source that confirms that they are of that caste/community, can be included. Surnames, parentage and places of birth are not acceptable "proof" of caste/community membership. If they are alive, you should provide a source where they self-identify as being members, as people who wish to disassociate themselves from the caste/community should NOT be included. For more information please see User:Sitush/Common#Castelists - Arjayay (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

is Wikipedia neutral.

I would like to know if the people here at wiki are neutral when it comes to politics cause in this day and age many people say they are neutral but are not and as a conservative I kind of fear that Wikipedia could get tainted with an all liberal mindset so I hope that you guys here at wiki do not care if a person is conservative or not thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adultcartoonlover56 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

An editor made a biased edit regarding the Democratic Party. Arbcom marshalled their power, and as punishment confiscated their shell collection - is there no limit to their power?

@Adultcartoonlover56: - Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, as enforced heavily by our policy. With specific reference to US politics, content is under discretionary sanctions from the Arbitration Commitee, ensuring a heavy clamp-down on biased edits. As such, Wikipedia is neutral, reporting on what reliable sources claim. It is worth noting that, if you believe that media is leftist, as many conservatives do, this will carry over, as Wikipedia is built on reliable citations from that self-same media. However, as stated in the policies and measures above, we do our best to remain unbiased. I hope that this assures you as to the fairness of the encyclopedia. Ultimately, we are all here to build an encyclopedia, so political persuasions will not colour peoples' impressions of you. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

clamp-down? Or can you provide a non-copyright image of a heavy clam? David notMD (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

See Cataplana. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

My joke was funny with Stormy clouds initial misspelling: "heavy clam-down on..." David notMD (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Adultcartoonlover56: Stormy clouds is quite correct about policy, but in practice Wikipedia articles are written by people. Those people have the same range of biases as any others, and this can affect their writing, deliberately or not. It is surprisingly hard to write a completely balanced article, however hard you try. So distortions do sneak into our articles, and hopefully it will be noticed by other editors who will improve the article. We're not perfect, but we aim to keep improving.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles of Topic

Hello, you can call me Vital. I don't work with football but watch the game everyday, and I like to create articles of players within my expertise, I have now started some in my sandbox. However I have two questions/requests. 1. - How do I create multiple drafts for every single player and, 2. I read that I have to be autoconfirmed to publish them, and I don't want to wait 4 days, may I ask that an Admin give me this right so that I can publish my articles? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by VitalPower (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, VitalPower, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can use the draft namespace to better organize your drafts. In your case, you can move your works to Draft:Kenny Doublette, Draft:Sergei Jarkovsky, Draft:Julius Kaljo, and Draft:Edmund Karp. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

NotTheFakeJTP Thank you, I have done that. May I get the autoconfirmed right to move pages into article space, an AfC would be a waste and football is kinda my expertise, I would really need the right to publish my articles, thanks --VitalPower (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)--VitalPower (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@VitalPower: If it were me, I'd go through AfC. It decreases the risk of deletion upon movement to mainspace, or ask a reviewer from WP:WikiProject Football to look over it. You won't be able to become autoconfirmed for four days, and I don't think your reason for wanting confirmed status early will fly with the administrators. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, VitalPower. Those drafts are all stubs with a single cited source each. They are really not ready for mainspace. Indeed if they were moved in the current state, they might be nominated for deletion. I urge you to find and cite additional sources in each of them, and add additionl content, before asking that they be moved to mainspace. By the time you are done with that, four days may well have passed. As an admin, I will not grant confirmed status in these circumstances, although you can apply at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

DESiegel Hello, hope you're having a good day: I 1. have not finished the articles, I soley created a draft, I also know much about football and I am good with Estonian football players, it would take me perhaps 10 minutes to write a good standard football article or atleast a good stub article. I would hope you could give me this right so that I 2. can move my pages into or out of drafts, 3. to use the bot WP:Twinkle which I have read you'd need the confirm right also. - Thank you, I hope you understand my reasons, --VitalPower (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, VitalPower. If it will only take you a few minutes to "finish" the drafts and create a good standard football article out of each of them, then please do so and show us rather then tell us. It is normal for pages to be developed to a much more finished state than these are while still in draft mode, befofre being moved to mainspace. I myself, when creating a new article, usually have dozes of edits or more before moving to mainspace. I am sure you know much more about football than i do, so please make use of that knowledge. If you can get all three to a decent Class-C status or better, it will add some weight to your request. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

DESiegel Hi, yes, I am currently working on Draft:Thomas Panny that should be done in 15 minutes. --VitalPower (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

DESiegel see Draft:Thomas Panny now.--VitalPower (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

VitalPower Good work so far! You'll still need to replace citations from twice-cited German Wikipedia article. That won't work, per WP:CIRCULAR references. More reliable secondary sources OR less unverifiable content needed to make good stub. Keep going! . -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help ya'll! I have managed to create the drafts and also been at it on a couple AfDs, I also got some help from the help desk. --VitalPower (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)}}

VitalPower three of the drafts you link tro above are still one-source stubs, and the 4th still has a cite needed tag where I removed a "citation" to another Wikipedia article. Not a convincing display of readiness for mainspace or early confirmed user status. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, VitalPower. Please understand that Wikipedia is not impressed by an editor's expertise, but rather by the quality of the articles they create according to Wikipedia's criteria. In fact, being an expert can sometimes be a hindrance, because experts in a subject are often used to people respecting whatever they write. Wikipedia doesn't work like that: it is not interested in what you or I or any random person in the internet knows or thinks about a subject; it is only interested in what is said in a reliable published source. If your writing on football has been published by a reliable source (such as a major newspaper, or a book from a reputable publisher) then it can be cited in an article (though you should avoid doing so yourself, as you may have a conflict of interest). But in writing an article you should rely entirely on what you find in reliably published sources, and use your expertise to find those sources, and to structure the material that comes from them. Please see WP:EXPERT for more discussion of this. --ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Should "wikipedia editors" be reaching out to companies to offer to write company entries for them?

Got the following solicitation from a "wikipedia editor." I could respond to find out what the catch (cost) will be, but it seemed a bit inappropriate. Is this something that wikipedia editors typically do?

Hey there,

I hope you are having a good day.

I was searching some reputable companies on my break today and came across your company <insert company name here>.

I see you have been doing a great job with your business. Well, being a Wikipedia editor, I have an interesting proposition for you.

Since <insert company name here> has been the subject of numerous articles in major news sources, I believe it qualifies as a notable company to be on Wikipedia. Would you like me to write a Wikipedia page about your company, reflecting all your offerings and services and a basic idea about your platform in an encyclopedic tone?

A Wikipedia page can give you a very nice looking Google search result. Let me know if interested.

Regards, <author's name goes here>— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:c2:c000:ce2:c067:a304:c0f5:b2b4 (talk • contribs)

These are very often scams. I would strongly advise against sending this individual any money, or showing any interest at all. We've heard about a lot of cases where the individuals offering this "service" doesn't follow our rules and correspondingly the articles get deleted, and then the person who has the money vanishes. It is not something offered or sanctioned by Wikipedia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

We'd be very interested in knowing the author's name. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Firmly agree with Ian.thomson - out the author. If they are a reliable editor, who is compliant with our paid policy, it's fine. If not, things may get interesting. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Seraphimblade may or may not be right, in this case. Paid editing is allowed, under certain rules, but most people here frown upon it. The overwhelming majority of articles, including on companies, are written by volunteers who have nothing to do with the subjects and for no compensation. See Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia?. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are encouraged to create articles on notable companies. But if they "reach out" to the company first, they are up to something dishonest, and should be suppressed. Maproom (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. If a good-faith Wikipedia editor wants to write an article about a company, they will write it. The only valid reason I can think of for them to contact the company is to ask if the company will release an image under a free licence so that it can be used in the article. There is absolutely nothing else relevant that the company could provide to them (all information must be published, and approval is not required).

The only thing these people could validly promise the company is that they will write the article: they do not have the power to ensure that it remains as they write it, or even that it does not get deleted. I can't see that they have anything to offer that is worth money. --ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Review process question...

Hello, My suggested article "The Smile Machine" has gone from "review pending" (8 weeks) to "no longer under review"...meaning I think it is on a sort of back burner. At least I hope it is, perhaps that is a sort of limbo... I would like to know if possible, why this step was taken. Was it in response to something I put on the page? I am trying to make the article as complete and "disinterested" as possible, but perhaps something in the content doesn't seem kosher. If this is the case, please let me know and I will change it/delete it/etc. I am trying to keep in step with the guidelines and spirit of Wikipedia. Thank you, Dickturner (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Smile Machine is still "Review waiting". There is no "back burner", as far as I'm aware. (The entire section "The Smile Machine Package" seems to me non-kosher, being in effect an advertisement, with no independent sources.) Maproom (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Maproom and thank you for your response, if that section seems non-kosher to you I will remove it. It is just a literal description of what was in the package. I don't sell them...it's true I did 26 years ago...it would be impossible to buy one in fact...from time to time I make them for art-performances...the Smile Machine is an art-work and what I did was try to describe the artwork... And, in fact, the Thirty Points and the other aspects of the package are mentioned in the Baltimore Sunpapers article which is referenced. Who makes the final decision about articles anyway? Is it a jury decision? I would be happy to present my case before them and whatever they want is OK with me. Thank you,Stargazer9000 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Vikram Gandhi

I reviewed Draft:Vikram Gandhi and declined it as not establishing notability. Also, there has already been a deletion discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Vikram Gandhi. In my opinion, it reads as if it was written to praise its subject rather than to describe him neutrally. I said that if the submitter wanted the draft considered further, they should provide a copy of the deleted article for comparison. User:Kntrolsp said that they don’t have the deleted article, and wrote the draft themselves, and asked what needs to be done. As a reviewer, I won’t accept a draft if there was a previous deletion unless I am satisfied that the draft is better than its predecessor and won’t be deleted again. They can request a copy of the deleted article in user space via Requests for Undeletion (since it wasn’t deleted for copyvio, which is never restored). Do other experienced editors have comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I just examined the text of the deleted version, as it was right before the deletion. It was by no means identical with the current draft, and was in my view more promotional. The deletion reasons expressed in the AfD discussion were a lack of notability, and concern about a promotional tone to the article. My view is that under those circumstances, if a draft clearly establishes notability, it is obviously better than the previous version. However, if you wish, I will email you the wiki-source of the previous version for comparison. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

User:DESiegel - I will take your word for it, having read the deleted article. I also thought that the draft was marginal on establishing notability, and that the draft had a promotional tone, and that I should ask for the views of other experienced editors as to whether they agreed with me. I would not have accepted the article if there had been no AFD. I cannot be sure whether I would have declined the draft or deferred it to another reviewer. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Sally Struthers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Long time editor - first time Tea Houser. I'd really like some sound advice and not personal opinion; based on WP policy for writing a good editing on a BLP within the guidelines and content structure based on similar articles. I brought the subject topic to the BLP noticeboard and received no response. Furthermore, the BLPs Talk Page [1] is so poor on traffic, that this is the only topic even brought to it for discussion. Receiving a productive and constructive multi-voiced discussion on this page is next to impossible. I refuse to enter into an edit war; but I feel strongly that with the BLPs notability, this one topic Legal Troubles is not only undue weight (since they have never had any other "legal troubles" to warrant an entire section), but is more tabloid than encyclopedic; and was recentism for its original inclusion. I am sure some editors will say that without consensus, this topic is dead in the water and I should just leave it be; and perhaps I should. But I feel that it is not good writing, and has more cons than pros for a WP article on a BLP. Especially in keeping with other BLPs minor media run-ins that are not mentioned due to non-notable reasons. "Legal troubles" just does not imply a one-time DUI in Ogunquit Maine. I have already removed the overkill citations that included tabloid media. Thank you for your time and attention. I appreciate it. Maineartistsn (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Maineartists. I agree with your assessment, and have removed that section of the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Cullen³²⁸. I really appreciate your weighing in here and also taking the initiative to remove what I have always thought to be wrong for the article. Best, Maineartists (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Maineartists thanks for bringing this up, I learned a lot trying to reply. Cullen328 I see you took care of business, citing WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Well done. Could you critique my analysis?

Sticking strictly to WP core content policies as I understand them, I am struck by the triviality of that two-sentence article section devoted to an isolated - albeit reliably sourced and verified - factoid. It is unimportant. I might flag the sentences while addressing in Talk, just before deleting. Once upon a time x did Y. So what? Adds nothing to knowledge of article subject.

Relevant WP policies I would choose would not focus exclusively on WP:BLP, as these will be irrelevant at time of subject's death. But see first example of that BLP Policy page, section WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so ...". I would say the isolated incident in question is not important to the article.

The template "Importance section" usage note reads: "sections in an article that is about a clearly notable subject should themselves be of encyclopedic merit and both relevant to the topic of the article and non-trivial (i.e. "important" in the context). " I am tempted to add it now.

But consider, in addition, the several relevant WP content Policies noted on WP:NOT, which will apply even after the death of article subject. These include WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER: "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Many more to choose from on that page, but I see a senior editor has done the right thing already. Perhaps his comment or this content may be useful on the Talk page of that article for future reference, perhaps not. WP:UNDUE certainly covers life after death, but I fear content may yet reappear in future without some closure on article Talk page. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say, Paulscrawl. However, we cannot "lock" the article to prevent future editors from trying to add this incident. Perhaps a very brief mention of the incident might be appropriate if the article was expanded, so that it does not constitute due weight. Consensus can change, as can the structure and comprehensiveness of an article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328, that makes sense. I don't see it happening in this particular case (unless Sally takes a serious turn for the worse beginning in her wild and crazy seventies), but a valid point. Thank you for your thoughtful response and presence here. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

All these points are exactly what I attempted to raise on the Talk Page, but since it garnered no traffic, it fell on only one opposing editor's ears that wanted the tidbit included based on personal WP:ILIKEIT views. I have always agreed that: "yes" if the article was vastly expanded and covered much more of the BLP's life and career, perhaps a DUI might warrant a single mention during her Ogunquit appearances in Maine; but even so, the category in which this falls within the WP spectrum does not constitute viable inclusion. Thank you for bringing up these policies that should alleviate future need for entry. Best, Maineartists (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Maineartists: @Cullen328: My original involvement in this succession of events of removing a section from an article was because proper procedure was not followed. In addition I do not find the reasoning of doing so as sound or entirely accurate. I appreciate sincerely the invitation to be included in this conversation and now understand how you bypass an opposition to an interpretation and that a lack of attention after a period of time equals a consensus in my favor. Where is the inclusion of my input not just to procedure but that the information is validated by reliable sources and should remain in the article in some less-newsy form? Not one word of mine has been recognized or addressed with any rebuttal to my points or concerns other than pointing at WP:UNDUE. When I read WP:UNDUE it is referring to giving a theory or opinion with slim or no reference held by a small or minute minority a representation or position greater than its overall support. It does not address "triviality" or "tarnishing" but rather giving promotion to an ideal that has been loosely interpreted and has a lack in factual basis and general acceptance, especially when in an opposition or contradiction of the article itself. Anything else I have had to say on the subject is on the talk page where it belongs, and has been ignored entirely. My motivation to continue my goals here has been terribly soured by this. I spoke up for unbiased neutrality, accurate information, proper process and at a minimum open discussion. It seems I am still doing so.
---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Darryl.P.Pike Please don't forget my acknowledged, reasoned objections, citing specific content policies and standard operating procedures. Cullen328 and Maineartists, may I respectfully request you reconsider my penultimate suggestion above, to copy all this to article Talk page. Optionally, then close here (not generally needed at Teahouse). Thanks to all three of you for your interest. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is the strange line, or strange content on the edit page?

Someone removed this content: de:Et tu, Brute? (It was enclosed in double brackets, which makes it invisible.) It was removed from the edit page of the article Et tu, Brute?. It was at the bottom, below categories. I don't know what it is. I think it may not be visible on the article page, but it was there on the edit page. It may be a secret code. Thank you for considering this question. Rutabagasubu (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Special:Diff/840837057 Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it was an unsuccessful and unnecessary attempt to link to a non-existent German article on the same subject. I don't know why it was there, but it has now been removed as indicated above. Dbfirs 19:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I am upset with this user box.

I was looking up userboxes to put on my home page and then I came around this {{Template:User nodemocrat}} REALLY IT SAYS THAT THE USER WHO USING THIS WILL BE DELETED OR IS GOING TO BE WOW WHOEVER MADE THIS SHOULD BE ASHAMED JUST WOW this tells me that there is some political bias on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adultcartoonlover56 (talk • contribs)

@Adultcartoonlover56: The userbox {{User nodemocrat}} has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User nodemocrat. We don't know whether it will actually be deleted and nobody has suggested action against the user who made it or users who display it. And many userboxes are deleted for different reasons. Don't immediately assume bias. Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content restrictions says: "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." People are generally OK with userboxes which express support for something but not userboxes which attack something. {{User nodemocrat}} seems to be in the latter category. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that it' not technically possible to "delete" a user. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Adultcartoonlover56: I fixed a coding issue which could give the impression that user pages displaying the box could be deleted. That is not the case. Only the userbox is nominated for deletion. And even if a user page is deleted for other reasons, a user account cannot be deleted as Cordless Larry say. Although users can be blocked from editing. By the way, when the box was nominated it said "This user knows the Democratic Party has been corrupted ..." instead of "This user believes ...".[2] The old version claiming a truth instead of an opinion was more inflammatory but the current version is certainly also problematic. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The box also fails to explicity state, in text, which "Democratic Party" it is about. The photo shows a US flag but that is inaccessible to users dependent on screen readers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

How Wiki works

I have been wondering, how do you find other peoples talk pages to see the cool edits they made? Also, is anyone able to vandalize pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Searcher of useful facts01 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. First off don't vandalize. You can find other people's talk page in their signature labeled "talk" or in my signature "Let's Chat" etc. You can find other peoples contributions by hitting the contributions tab on the top right of the page. Thegooduser Let's Chat 19:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick correction; the "Contributions" tab at the top right shows only your own record. To see someone else's contribution log you should firstly be at their user or talk page, then the "Tools" menu will have a link to "User contributions". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

However, to answer the second question, anyone is able to vandalize pages, unless the pages are protected, and the vandalism is almost always seen quickly, and anyone who vandalizes pages will be blocked quickly. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

A number of users are also involved in countervandalism efforts. If you feel inclined to read more about vandalism, I would encourage you to read the appropriate page on vandalism. - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 22:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

oops

I just uploaded a new article about an admittedly minor 19th century Virginia politician, Thomas Shanks, who has the same name as a couple of other men with wikipedia articles. However, when checking the links after uploading it, I realized that I misspelled "Virginia" as his distinguishing feature, and that one of the links refers to him with the "politician" qualifier. I'd appreciate help in correcting it either way, although frankly I don't think his political career was particularly distinguished. Thanks.Jweaver28 (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jweaver28. The consensus, expressed at WP:POLITICIAN, is that all state and provincial legislators are presumed to be notable. So, there is no need to assess whether or not his career was "distinguished". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi want to get adopted

Hi i want to get adopted by someone and also I have requested a review of my user page I want my name in user page hall of fame regards to everyone☣LearnLurker☣Chat 16:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@LearnLurker: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would ask if you could change the display of your signature so it is more traditional; it is much larger than normal and can affect how others view the page. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@LearnLurker: - I agree with 331dot vis-á-vis the signature. It is also worth noting that, while not impossible, it will be difficult to gain respect and have people take you seriously given your love for Comic sans - a lot of people don't like it (even reliable sources), and it is a bit meme-y. However, that is your call. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You know my question has not been anwsered☣LearnLurker☣Chat 17:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@LearnLurker: Technically, you didn't ask one. But if you want to be a productive Wikipedia user, we have some advice for you. To follow up on the signature issue, yours actually is a violation of the signature guideline; you can't have templates or parser functions in your signature, which includes things like your {{#switch}}. You need to remove that bit, especially given the vast amount of vertical space it consumes in the source editor. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@LearnLurker: - I'm impressed! The radioactive symbols are a nice touch. But I would be even more impressed if you filled in that Articles Created section. ;) After all, we're all here for a reason, right? -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 17:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, LearnLurker. I will be a bit more direct. This is a project to expand and improve an encyclopedia. User pages are for editors to describe themselves in the context of building the encyclopedia. You have not yet made a single edit to an encyclopedia article. What are you doing here, then? Please get to work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes of course that why I am asking to get adopted make more sense now☣LearnLurker☣Chat 18:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@LearnLurker: If you want to be adopted, you might find more assistance at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. You may also find the tutorial The Wikipedia Adventure helpful. As Cullen328 suggests, focus less on your userpage and signature and more on what work you want to do here. You also still need to remove the parser function from your signature. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I have offered adoption. Septrillion (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I accept your offer☣LearnLurker☣|☣Chat☣ 17:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I fixed my signature I could not fiqure out what was wrong with it so I copied and modified one☣LearnLurker☣|☣Chat☣ 17:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

LearnLurker is now blocked and globally locked as a confirmed sockpuppet of MaysonMage009. See the sockpuppet case I have filed here for evidence. theinstantmatrix (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

UNIX Shell Username

Respected hosts, How can I get a UNIX shell username. If it is exists, how can I find it. Kindly please help me.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 02:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Path slopu You have one on your Ubuntu system: isn't one enough? ;) Sorry, shell access isn't available to mere mortals on Wikipedia. Maybe you can ask after you become an senior admin, but I wouldn't hold your breath - most everything administrative on Wikipedia is carefully scripted to avoid the need for opening up that huge security hole. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia administrators don't get shell access. Wikimedia Foundation employees with the "system administrators" permission have access to the servers. Anyone can set up their own MediaWiki site, though. It open source software. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Guidance needed for Annette Lee

Dear Editors,

• I had been asked by some editors to make changes to the article of Annette Lee to address the maintenance tag issues
• I have since done so, but an editor had still said these are insufficient
• I wanted to get guidance on how i can further improve, or if my improvements are sufficient.
• To address notability, i had even started a discussion on the talk page
• I will be grateful for your guidance

Iz55 (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what you mean by "asked by some editors" to make changes - do you mean asked by editors on Wikipedia, or by people off-wiki? If you are editing the article of someone you are connected to (see WP:COI), or are being paid/employed to edit an article (see WP:PAID) you must disclose this fact first. As to the page itself, I agree with Chrissymad that the article still reads like a press release. For example, "...have grown to become one of Asia's most recognisable characters" isn't the kind of phrasing you'd see in an encyclopedia. I'd recommend looking at some good articles about other singers and performers to get an idea of the kind of writing style we need. <them style="font:bold 12px Verdana;">Richard⁰⁶¹² 23:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I had proposed new content on the talk page, but an admin asked me to fix the maintenance tag issues first :) So since I am a fan of the subject in the article, and to comply with the guidelines, i've added the WP:COI to the talk page. I've also changed the phrasing and rewrote some parts based on looking at Taylor Swift and Andrea Day's articles. Additionally, another tea house admin David notMD has helped to make changes including removing content. I am so grateful to him. I would be grateful if someone could let me know if these are sufficient to have the maintenance tags removed and what other improvements are needed, if any. Thank you!! Iz55 (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)