Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 884

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 880 ← Archive 882 Archive 883 Archive 884 Archive 885 Archive 886 → Archive 890

Request

Please merge the histories of "File:The Accidental Prime Minister (Official poster).jpg" and "File:The Accidental Prime Minister film.jpg" and also rename the page as "File:The Accidental Prime Minister (film poster).jpg" without creating a redirect. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 15:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not the place for making this kind of requests. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 03:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Where to go then? Help me. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 07:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:AN. I am not sure if administrators can perform histmerge on files ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 07:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
No, the place would be Wikipedia:Requests for history merge Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
There's no need for a history merge anyhow; their purpose is to fix attribution issues and I don't see any here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Summoning @Primefac:. Added history merge request template to File:The Accidental Prime Minister film.jpg Harsh Rathod Poke me! 08:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@Primefac: Busy? Should I ask another admin? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 12:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You were told where to go, and that your request would be denied. Why ping me? So that I can decline it for you? Primefac (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: I will never ping you now. The best mistake I ever made, apologies. Waste. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 03:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

That seems a bit extreme, but to each their own. I'm always happy to give advice, just not when it seems unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: Don't take it as an insult. I said waste because I was expecting a more detailed information as to why not merge. What I learned from this discussion:

  • One can freely create a file page as long as it got different metadata as compared to its significant older version.
  • First-look poster and Theatrical release poster are different even though they are of same film. They need different file pages.

For future: I will remember this and ask for an explanation if I find someone overiding the first-look poster file page's photo with the theatrical release poster photo. My question would be if they are different indeed then why did the user override? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes people upload a different image onto an existing image because they don't realize they can just upload a new image. It's like if I took the article on Snoopy and changed it from an article about a dog to one about Snoop Dogg. Image hijacking isn't as common, but it does happen. And yes, I should have explained my rationale more (and will attempt to do so in the future). Primefac (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Difficulties Dealing with Another Editor

I asked about how to deal with what I feel is bias in the Incapacity Benefit article on the Request for Comment page, where the editor and I was told that it was too early in this dispute to ask for an RfC and I was sent to here. I have posted here in the past about a different issue.

I have been editing a number of articles relating to welfare for people with disabilities in the UK, including Employment Support Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Work Capability Assessment and Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment. While I have been editing these articles, I have come accross an editor name Dr Greg Wood. Dr Greg Wood appears to have some very strong feelings about the Work Capability Assessment. While I was editing the article on Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment, I looked at a section describing a doctor who used to work for Atos- the company who used to administer the Work Capability Assessment- who made some allegations against Atos in the media. The doctor wasn't named in the article. I looked at the references and found out that this doctor was also called Greg Wood. I reported this to the conflict of interest noticeboard, and another editor has dealt with this. I have noted this here for context.

In the Incapacity Benefit article, I removed a lot of what I felt was irrelevent content. The article mostly seemed to discuss the Work Capability Assessment. For those who are unaware, the Work Capability Assessment is used to determine eligibility for Employment Support Allowance. Employment Support Allowance is the benefit that replaced Incapacity Benefit. He reverted my edits. In the summary, he gave the reason for putting the content back as "undo deleterious change". I admit I have made mistakes; I could have explained what I was doing a lot more often. But I still think several of the articles Dr Greg Wood has worked on are problematic and he doesn't seem to accept there could be a problem. He doesn't seem to cope very well with editors disagreeing with him. After I edited the work capability assessment article, he re-classed it on the quality scale as a "D", and wrote in the essay summary that it was "Nowhere near a B now" (I know there is no D. It showed up as unassessed, so I changed it to a C.) Previously, he had assessed the article as a B.(I know this doesn't really matter, but I think this shows Dr Greg Wood's approach to editing Wikipedia). On his talk page, he has accused me and another editor of having conflict of interest. (I'd just like to say here for the record that I do not have a conflict of interest. I myself claim ESA. I do not and never have been paid or asked to edit Wikipedia by anyone. I have never had a job at all, so I have never worked for any organisations involved with the UK benefits system. Nor does anyone in my family or any friends).

How can I deal with bias in the articles Employment Support Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Work Capability Assessment and Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment? I'm fully prepared for someone to say that Dr Greg Wood is right or that the articles aren't biased, but my personal feeling is that if Dr Greg Wood doesn't stop changing articles to fit his personal viewpoint, the articles on these topics will remain biased and the article on Incapacity Benefit will continue to have a large amount of irrelevent content that I can't remove without being in trouble. It looks as if only me and Dr Greg Wood have edited these articles recently, so it's unlikely that another editor would give their opinion.

I have read about dispute resolution, but I was under the impression that this was for more serious issues (for example, threats of violence, contact off Wikipedia). I also don't want to end up in trouble myself for trying to deal with this if I'm in the wrong here. What can I do? CircleGirl (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, CircleGirl. There are several levels of dispute resolution; some of them cover the serious issues you mention, but there are milder options you can pursue for disagreements on content. You may want to post at the dispute resolution noticeboard, or request a third opinion. Hope this helps! –FlyingAce✈hello 15:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is added Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi sister's husband name with brief details.

Dear Sir, Good Day

According to your advice regarding edit, i am providing you reliable sources with complete details as below:-

1. Book Name: Afkar e Milli

Author: Dr. Qasim Rasool Ilyas Title: Afkar e Milli Publication: Afkar e Milli Publication Delhi India Year: 2000 Language: Urdu Page: 254

2. Book Name: Tarikh e Aine Tirhut

Author: Munishi Bihari Lal Fitrat Title: Tarikh e Aine Tirhut Publication: Bahar e Kashmir Lucknow India Year: 1883 Language: Urdu

3. Book Name: Bihar Vibhuti

Author: Narendra Narayan Yadav Title: Bihar Vibhuti Year: 2014 Language: Hindi Volume: 3rd

I think that these references will be enough for edit. Please add below information about Noorun Nisa on Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi page. " Noorun Nisa was married with Chaudhary Mohammad Kalimullah "Zamindar" of vill. Hayaghat Bilaspur, Dist. Darbhanga, Bihar"

Best Regards,

Masroor Chaudhary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masroor Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 12:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Masroor Chaudhary: you have started several new sections about this same topic, and I wonder if I could ask you to please keep to the same section (as long as it has not been archived, in which case it is fine to start a new section). To do that, find the section you started previously on this page and click "Edit" to the right of the heading. Then add your new post to the bottom of the section.
In addition, you seem to have created this post after you had added the text yourself to the article (but yet again without any sources!), so I don't quite understand why you posted here. This kind of request is actually better placed on the talk page of the article. Note that your additions to Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi had been removed not only because the sourcing was insufficient, but also because an editor felt that this kind of detail about a person who is not actually the subject of the article is not relevant. That is the kind of thing you should discuss on the article talk page, and try to reach a consensus with other editors about what content belongs in the article instead of restoring the content yourself. You find the talk page for that article here; you can always find an article's talk page by clicking "Talk" at the head of an article page. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Masroor Chaudhary: You have also made six posts on this page without properly signing your posts, despite us asking you twice to do so. Writing out your name at the end isn't enough! Please end every post to a talk page, or discussion page like the Teahouse (but never in an article), with four tilde characters (~~~~). Look at Wikipedia:Signatures for more detailed instructions. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hola!

donde puedo conseguir algunas cajas de usuario para mi página de usuario parece muy aburrido.

English: Where can I get some user boxes for my user page seems very boring. Snowstorm (u.t.c) 16:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hola Snowstorm in the arctic! There are userboxes for every occasion at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries. Happy editing! –FlyingAce✈hello 17:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! You can find the topic or the areas which interest or something which you're fancy about, by doing a simple search for a set of topics right here. You may also want to read the content guideline and policy established for userboxes. Lemme know if you've any questions about this. Regards, THE IP 182.58.205.181 (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Silly Question?

I've been a Wiki contributor for several years, and I've created one article that was published after some back and forth about its content. I'm just wondering if I'm allowed to remove the discussion items from my Talk page. Sort of an OCD thing. I'd like to clean things up and remove irrelevant things...and now that my article exists, I don't really think all that stuff needs to stay on there. I just want to make sure I'm not violating any rules by removing messages that were left there for me. Are my profile pages mine to do with as I like (obviously within reason and within the scope of Wikipedia) or is there some etiquette involved?

Thanks, and Joyous New Year! skatoulaki (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:Skatoulaki! I have removed material from my own talk page simply by selecting the unwanted items and blanking them to the page history. Alternatively, you could start a new page User talk:Skatoulaki/ Archive, and move the "mail" posts into that. Hope this helps a bit. Cheers! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Skatoulaki, and welcome to the Teahouse! The relevant guideline is at WP:OWNTALK. Though setting up an archive is preferred, you are still allowed to clean up your talk page by removing old discussions, if you so wish. Happy New Year to you too! –FlyingAce✈hello 17:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much! The Archive page sounds like a perfect solution! skatoulaki (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Very welcome, and I wish you a happy and prosperous new year! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, I wish to understand more about a comment made to me on October 11. I was accused of Vandalism. How do I understand the accusation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teratis (talk • contribs) 10:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain the relevance of "Pepi the frog" in the article that you edited? ... and the false edit summaries? These are classed as WP:vandalism. Dbfirs 10:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. I think my brother was using my account accidentally. He’s a special needs individual. I suspect that he likes frogs. Thank you, Dbfirs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teratis (talk • contribs) 10:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


Hi Teratis see below
  1. In 2018, various things have also been clearly heard (Pepi The Frog) - mind to explain how Pepi The Frog would be heard in the article of a territory in the Holy Roman Empire in 2018?
  2. added unsourced content - At Harvard, the Office of Provost is ceremonial. - but on edit summary you put typo
  3. changed invited to the Teahouse! to JackintheBox, you are banned from Wikipedia because you are insolent and a bit of a silly goose.!
Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You may also be interested to read Wikipedia:My little brother did it.--Shantavira|feed me 12:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The ONLY edits from your account are the vandalism edits back in October. Going forward, best way to avoid being accused of vandalism is to not commit vandalism. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me your account was blocked indefinitely for vandalism. Make sure to make a proper appeal without those excuses (or may be a proper verdict)... Quite unfortunate I'd say, you may challenge this block by placing {{unblock request|your reason will be here}} only if you'll properly follow all the policies and guidelines (and read some essays, quite useful in my humble opinion). If it's declined.. don't worry about it and agree to the terms they'll say. If not, then I'm afraid you've to move on. Also set some strong password or get encrypted passwords to avoid further disruption. It'll help you to keep that mobile away from everyone except you. Make that as a commitment and may be they will unblock you over this. Best regards, THE IP 182.58.205.181 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
No, per WP:BROTHER, it's admitting a compromised account. Which means all they have to do is create a new account. If it doesn't vandalise, then everything's OK. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The price of coffee in Canada

When asking for donations in Canada, I've noticed that it often compares a 3$ donation as the price of your morning coffee. The thing is, a lot of Canadians don't actually pay that much for their morning coffee. Coffee at Tim Hortons can cost less than $2, coffee at 7/11 can be as cheap as $1 (although they have recently increased their prices to be somewhere around $1.50 where I live). McDonald's is around the same price of Tim Hortons and offers every 7th cup free. A lot of people make their coffee at home, or buy beans or grounds from places to like Tim Hortons to make at home. This is the price in Canadian dollars, by the way.

My point is that comparing donating to Wikipedia to buying a cup of coffee might have the potential to distract from the point of donating to Wikipedia. I think you might have more success in donations by emphasizing the importance of the Wikipedia, or maybe even the convenience that the access and reliability of Wikipedia provides is important and should be supported.

I thought it'd be better to ask/comment about this here since it's more likely I'm forgetting to account for something important but I still wanted to ask/comment about this (just in case). Clovermoss (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:Clovermoss! That's a pretty good point concerning Timmie's and 7/11 but many many coffee shops charge more than 3 bucks. I think the WMF was trying to describe an average price to stress the value that 3 bucks could do for the Wikipedia. Cheers! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


I have no issue with Wikipedia asking for $3, I was just offering suggestions. In regards to Tim Hortons, if their advertising campaigns are to be believed, they sell 8/10 out of the cups of coffee sold in Canada, so it the price of their coffee might have a bit more relevance in general. Clovermoss (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
The campaign is outside the control of anybody in Wikipedia, Clovermoss. You might like to bring your suggestion toengaging with meta:Talk:Fundraising. --ColinFine (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I'll take a look at it. Clovermoss (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Peer review

I would like to have a peer review of an article ive written prior to resubmission Deanna Coakley 04:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanna Coakley (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Deanna Coakley. You must be talking about Draft:April M. Reign. This is a highly promotional draft that can never be accepted to the encyclopedia in its current form. It must be brought into compliance with the neutral point of view. Another point is that it is completely out of compliance with our Manual of Style but there are more fundamental problems as well. Please read and study Your first article, and implement all of the advice that you find there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I took the liberty of cleaning up some of the formatting errors and cut stuff in my opinion not relevant, but you still need to follow Cullen328's advice before submitting again. David notMD (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

How can we reign in the Deletion Nazis?

PREAMBLE In the past, I used to enjoy editing and adding to Wikipedia content but I have become discouraged by the vast power of "Deletion Nazis" who seem to get a thrill by deleting other people's content for its "lack of notability" or whatever. Many times I've found interesting and useful content, only to have it later deleted. As a result of this issue, I'm no longer wasting my time creating & editing content and, in protest, I've suspended financial donations until my legitimate concerns are answered.

My point to YOU Deletion Nazis: just because you think content is uninteresting and not notable, others almost certainly do NOT share your views. Please stop your power tripping and focus on CREATING content, not deleting the work of others.

Question: How can the excessive zeal of the Deletion Nazis be reigned in and what can I do when I see content marked for deletion?


Example: In this case, I reverted the "mark for a deletion" of an author who the Deletion Nazi thought was unimportant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Goodheart&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus451 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Markus451: Calling people Nazis just because you disagree with them is not welcome. If someone is not here to help, they probably would have been blocked by now.
The easiest way to ensure that things can't be deleted is to follow site policies regarding notability instead of throwing a temper tantrum. You can find a nigh-guaranteed plan for writing articles that won't be deleted at User:Ian.thomson/Howto.
"This is important to me" is not a valid reason to object to a deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Your made one edit since 2016 and it was an improper approach. An Articles for Deletion template was added to the Adam Goodheart article. The place to voice your opinion is at the deletion discussion. Instead, you deleted the template (which has since been restored). If you disagree with one editor, the places to disagree are at the Talk pages of the articles in dispute, or in this case at the AfD. (Where you have not yet posted a comment.) Generalizing to a rant against anyone who ever deletes (and name calling) does not help. David notMD (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Article not yet published

I have been working on this article for over a month now and I have more information than most other articles of similar topics, yet my article is still not being published. What else do I need to do?

JacobMinor33 (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)JacobMinor33

Hi JacobMinor33. Can you be more specific than "this article"? It will be much easier for others to help you if they know exactly which article your asking about. By the way, an "article" typically refers to something already in the mainspace (i.e., has been published). Perhaps you mean "draft"? I looked at your user sandbox and your recent contributions history to see if I could figure out what you're asking about. Your sandbox is empty and Draft:Czechoslovakian Vz. 53 Helmet has already been accepted as an article. Is there something else you're currently working on? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
If it's the latter, you published that yourself by moving it from draft to mainspace with this edit, JacobMinor33. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Marchjuly Cordless Larry Thank you for the quick response! I was unaware my Draft:Czechoslovakian Vz. 53 Helmet was accepted as an article. I guess I was just confused as to why when I search up the article on google it does not show up anywhere, but when I search it up on the Wikipedia website it does. (Sorry if I didn't format this correctly or anything like that, I am still getting used to Wikipedia). JacobMinor33 (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)JacobMinor33
JacobMinor33 Sometimes things take a bit to get indexed, and sometimes they have to be viewed a considerable amount of time to get indexed. Your formatting looks good enough, though improvements are always possible. May want a Template:Infobox_military_gear. Have a good time, and feel free to post any questions on my talk page! WelpThatWorked (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
WelpThatWorked Thanks so much for all the help! JacobMinor33 (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)JacobMinor33
New articles are NOINDEXed until they have either been reviewed through the NPP process or 90 days have expired. Your article is among more than 4000 awaiting new page patrol. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

When to archive

If a discussion lasts from, say, January to August, and you want to archive that discussion, would you put it in the Jan–June archive or the July–Dec archive?  Nixinova  T  C  02:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nixinova and welcome to the Teahouse. I personally would put that in the July-Dec archive since the closing date of the discussion falls in that period. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 06:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

How to Fix a Video URL

Hello! My article has made it to Draft for review, and I am attempting to improve my references. There is a Youtube video I must use to verify a point made in my article. I entered the URL, but it is a bad one, apparently because I was given a blackbox warning. I have tried to convert the URL, but it only converts to the bad one. Any suggestions on how to link this video to my article? Many thanks! Zuzuroo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Carole Basinger. I am not sure what kind of technical issue that you are running across, but many YouTube videos are not not acceptable to link to. Often, YouTube videos violate our copyright policy and/or are not reliable sources. Please read Linking to user-submitted video sites for more information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cullen! I am attempting to improve my article by "proving" my statements by referencing them. The Youtube video I would like to link supports my statement of "274K views." Would you suggest I remove the reference completely? Thank you for your help and suggestions. Zuzuroo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Carole Basinger, you might think about whether the "274K views" are worth mentioning. More generally, I notice that many of your cited sources are Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook, an interview with the subject, and the band's website: Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the others are not independent and so do nothing for establishing notability. —teb728 t c 10:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Who can help me write a notable article in Wikipedia

Hello! I recently got declined for my submission. I hope I can have someone help me write an article. I have recently encountered and then followed a personality, who I think deserve a space in Wikipedia. However, I don't know how to make my entry notable for publishing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndiMaravilla (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AndiMaravilla. I assume that you are talking about Draft:Lloyd Luna. Your draft is lacking the most important component of an acceptable Wikipedia article: In this case, that would be references to reliable sources that are entirely independent of Luna, but devote significant coverage to Luna. Such sources are the building blocks of an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Cullen328:Finding 3 - 5 sources that devote significant coverage to any person is a tall order save for a national politician,or a celebrity, mainly, and this this is a real problem, and one which might inspire negative comments like the one below. But the real problem is that significant coverage is like beauty it is in the eye of the beholder And this opens the door to abuse and overuse by someone who gets a rush out of exerting their power over new editors. Right or wrong I see analogy in an analogy in hazing. And the fact is that Anything, any position, can be rationalized and justified.I always assume good faith, or try to, but at times that is Bridge too far. And my observation is not limited to my own experience.Oldperson (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion the comments by Cullen328 on this and on the "Peer Review" query following were completely warranted. An encyclopedia is not about beauty. Rather, it is about a uniformity of criteria for inclusion and of formatting. One side of the coin is that anyone can be an editor. The other side is that all editors are expected to follow rules. In their present form, neither of these two drafts are there. David notMD (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
David notMD Apologies.When I made my comment above I assumed that the reader was knowledgeable of analogies/idioms in the English language. For when I said "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" I was not talking about the beauty of an article.'Twas merely an analogy anidiom. like one man's trash is another mans' treasure all meaning: "different people have different ideas and views about what is beautiful

not all people have the same opinions as to what is attractive or beautiful the perception of beauty is subjective it is not possible to judge beauty objectively what one person finds beautiful may not appeal to another" Source: theidioms.com"Idioms". In other words the issue which you did not address,but in your response reinforced. That which is notable, hence worthy, is highly subjective and dependent on ego, motivation and opinion of the editor/adminOldperson (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Opening sockpuppet investigations as an IP

Hi I'm having a doubt over opening some related sockpuppetry by a master sockpuppeteer and wanna open a investigation over it. Is it possible to do that? And is it necessary to link via differences of revisions (or diff(s)) request a CheckUser for it?

Regards,

The IP, 182.58.192.93 (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Also one doubt that will they close my case even if I provide strong connections in their habits? Or the CheckUser finds its unrelated, what to do then? 182.58.192.93 (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

pinging some established CheckUsers @Zzuuzz: @NinjaRobotPirate: 182.58.192.93 (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

If you find that you can't edit a case, you can make an edit request using {{Edit semi-protected}}. The most obvious place to put it is on the SPI case's talk page. If you can't find anywhere else to post the request, you could do it at WT:SPI. It is highly recommended to include a couple diffs. You can use this guide to learn how to do that. The best evidence concisely shows a sock master and the sock puppet making similar edits. For example: "X always misspells 'edit request' as 'edit inquest'. Here is a diff of X doing it, and here is a diff of Y doing it. They also both edit the obscure page Rabid Grannies. Here is X editing it, and here is Y editing it."

If you don't include enough diffs, it might sit in the queue for a while because nobody wants to do all the work themselves. If you include too many diffs, it might sit in the queue for a while because people don't want to sift through all the evidence just to find the most relevant parts. So, it's a balancing act of finding just the right amount. If the checkuser result is inconclusive, the checkusers may pass the case off the SPI clerks or patrolling admins to investigate. If so, you don't need to do anything, but it helps if you're around to answer their questions (if they have any). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_St._Pierre

The photo and the signature are NOT those of the person described. They are mine, and should be removed from this page.

Paul St-Pierre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.185.221 (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the signature. Where did it come from? Should it be removed from WP:Commons? It was put there by Psubhashish in 2011 claiming "own work".
There is no image in the article. Perhaps Google is mis-matching an image from elsewhere. If this is the case, then you need to report the error to Google. We have no control over what they display. Dbfirs 14:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I have checked Google and this is a problem with their Knowledge Graph. Google scrapes and summarizes Wikipedia's freely licensed content and often will find a photo, not from Wikipedia, but from somewhere else on the internet. Sadly, this type of Google error is fairly common when two people have the same name. Google needs to correct it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Publishing page from Sandbox

The "More" dropdown with the "Move" feature does not appear on my acreen. How can I move a page from my Sandbox to being published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkdevans (talk • contribs) 16:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You asked the same question at the Help Desk. See the answer there. Please do not ask the same question at multiple forums, as it wastes helper time. —teb728 t c 18:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Jkdevans. As a new editor, even when you gain the right to publish articles, it's a good idea to submit them for review instead - at least until you learn the ropes. Premature publication without going through the review process can often result in article deletion. User:Jkdevans/sandbox was moved to Draft:Bush League (band) but has been declined for publication because you haven't yet established that the topic meets the relevant notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Second opinion on removing a maintenance template?

Hi. I was wondering if someone might be able to give me a second opinion as to whether or not the maintenance template at PC Optimum should be removed. I've done recent editing for expansions and citations, but I'm not sure if it's enough to consider removing the template. Clovermoss (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

looks good to me. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Clovermoss and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for helping out with that article! There are now only a few unsourced areas left, as follows:
  • The last part of the second paragraph in the lead isn't sourced or mentioned in the body of the article, as far as I can tell. I would suggest incorporating the information into the body of the article and adding a source for it in the body.
  • The program is available at almost all Loblaw supermarket banners, with the exception of T & T Supermarkets isn't sourced or mentioned in the body of the article. Again, I would suggest incorporating the information into the body and sourcing it there.
  • PC Plus began in Ontario as a test launch in April 2013, expanding to all other provinces in November 2013 in the history section isn't sourced
If you can fix these points, I see no reason why the tag should have to stay on there any longer. :-) Again, thank you for helping out; I hope you continue editing Wikipedia! Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I've also made a few tweaks to the refs, as can be seen here. I mostly combined duplicate references and changed the position of refs so that they were in accordance with this guideline.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thank you! I'll try o find sources for the other statements as well. Clovermoss (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the maintenance template now, per my talk page.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 19:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TheWikiWizard

How can I add an edit notice for this page?--Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:EditnoticeWelpThatWorked (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to delete my wiki account

please help me to delete my wiki account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olegkozinets (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You've already asked this at the Help Desk and it has been answered. --Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Help resolving an issue

A new editor reached out to me recently for help on his first article Wizdom Khalifahd, a cinematographer and rapper. I checked out the article and found it has multiple issues. The subject is virtually unknown online and clearly not notable enough to deserve a WP aricle. A Google search yields virtually no biographical content, only information on a few of the songs he has created on Soundcloud and elsewhere. The article cites WP pages, a YouTube link, SoundCloud, and the subject's own website TJOD Entertainment. Again, none of these provide meaningful biographical information (not to mention that WP/YouTube/Soundcloud links should not be used). Furthermore, I think the creator of the article has close connections to the subject. He described the subject to me as his "blood brother" and his name User:Sufiabdul is listed as "starring" in a video created by the subject (the video is one of the sources of the article). When I informed him that the subject has to be notable and information must be cited by published third-party sources, he tells me, "All what I have written in the article is basically known to me."

Soon after the article was created it was nominated for deletion by User:Ifnord per WP:PROD. Soon afterwards the creater of the article removed it without explanation. After my conversation with him, all of which can be found on my talk page under "Please help me for my first article", I added the Template:BLP unsourced which he again removed. I added Template:Citation needed where appropriate, most of which he removed. He also blanked my talk page, possibly in protest. In response I wrote him a vandalism warning on his talk page.

I believe User:Sufiabdul has good intentions, but doesn't understand that the subject does not deserve a WP article. He has been uncooperative to me and others when it comes to understanding this. At this point I'm unsure what to do next. I'm looking for help from someone with experience to resolve this issue with me. Thank you! --Nannochloropsis (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nannochloropsis and welcome to the Teahouse. I have sent it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. You can take part here if you wish Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizdom Khalifahd. Theroadislong (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Theroadislong: Thank you. I have seen the AfD page. This is my first time dealing with this sort of issue so thank you for your help! --Nannochloropsis (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to delete my wiki account

please help me to delete my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleg.kozinets00 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted, but you can simply abandon it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Pls approve the article asap!

Hello everyone,

I received a message that I should connect all the articles with the sources of Draft:Benjamin Schnau . I did that already on my last change.

What are you still asking for?

User Whispering is saying it would be OBVIOUS I don't do anything to make the article better which is an assumption he is doing which is offensive and rude and completely not the case.

I did what was asked for before already and now get that as a reply. Very unsatisfying.

Pls review the page its all connected.

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Franklin187: The article is probably not going to be approved right now because:
  • Many of the sources you cited are not reliable.
  • I'm having trouble finding which sources are independent.
  • It's unclear what sources support what article material.
I've left instructions on your user talk page that explains the simple way to write articles that will not be rejected or deleted. You just need to summarize at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of Schnau but still specifically about him. That's it. Writing unsourced material and slapping on dozens of questionable sources is a waste of your time and ours.
Also, why does it need to be approved immediately? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say immediately I said as soon as possible which is different.

I'm having trouble finding which sources are independent What do you mean by that statement 'independent'. All these articles are independent created based on the work he did.

  • It's unclear what sources support what article material.

If you check the articles and sources you see the titles and the movies he was working on which is what the article is talking about??

https://www.stern.de/panorama/gesellschaft/benjamin-schnau--ein-deutscher-und-sein-harter-weg-nach-hollywood-7860132.html http://www.manilaupmagazine.com/issues/vol3-8/mobile/index.html#p=80 https://christoph-ulrich-mayer.com/unkategorisiert/von-den-besten-lernen-speaker-made-in-hollywood-2-2/ https://www.astrid-arens.com/the-german-oscars-2018/?lang=en

All these sources for example above are independent journalistic resources. I clearly don't understand what the problem is with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


Thanks in advance for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Franklin187: What you need to do is provide in-line citations. There are two in the article, which are insufficient. Also, both of those sources are IMDB, which is not a reliable source. IMBD is written by its users, not professionals.
As I've already explained here and on your user talk page, all you need to do is summarize three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of and unaffiliated with Schau. These should be in-line citations.
If you get on that as soon as possible, the article can be approved as soon as possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I have a feeling we are talking about different things here.

I'm talking about the external links you look at the reference field.

I added the journalistic sources to the reference field. Is that better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The draft still doesn't cite any sources. Until it does, it certainly won't be approved. Maybe you need to read Help: Referencing for beginners? Maproom (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Franklin187: My first post says I'm having trouble finding which sources are independent because you dumped the majority of references in the external links. It's unclear what sources support what article material points to the fact that you're not using enough in-line citations. Many of the sources you cited are not reliable addresses both sections.
It isn't an either/or problem, both are problems.
The work you have done so far has been a waste of your time because you did not do it right. If you just follow the instructions I left at User_talk:Franklin187#How_to_write_articles, you will have this over with as soon as possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hi Franklin187. It might seem strange to you, but the only thing you should put under the heading References is {{Reflist}}. Each actual references goes immediately after the statement that it supports, and the system inserts a reference number and lists the references where you put {{Reflist}}. I hope this helps you to understand how Wikipedia does references. Dbfirs 22:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dfirs: thanks for the info. That means I just put

right under the word 'References' and thats it? Thanks in advance.

@Dfirs: Hi, Could you pls check again now, I connected everything between sources and text of the article. Pls let me know. Thanks for the effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Franklin187: You've just replaced the text with external links instead of adding in-line citations to the end of the supported material. If you would just read the 8 simple steps I left on your user talk page, you'd get this over with sooner instead of wasting your time (and ours). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Franklin187 I converted the first of your references to a ref as an example of what should be done with the rest. —teb728 t c 23:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@teb728 Thanks for this example, that helped a lot. I did what everyone told me. Pls let me know. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I did what everyone told me. Except you didn't, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.Thomson: I'm assuming you are talking about point 4, 5 and 6 in the link you sent me? What do these 3 points mean. Even reading them doesnt fully makes me understand what to do? If I'm assuming wrongly, I would appreciate if you would let me know what exactly you are talking about. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Franklin187 I will ask again; do you work for or represent Benjamin Schnau? 331dot (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

331dot: Yes I do! Why are you asking?

You will need to review and comply with the conflict of interest policy as well as the paid editing policy and formally declare that on your user page or user talk page. The latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement for paid editors. Thanks 331dot (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

No this is a misunderstanding I don't get paid for that. What are you talking about? I do this in my free time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs)

If you are employed or hired by him to be his agent/representative/public relations person, you are a paid editor and must declare it. We have no way of knowing if you are on your free time or not. If you are just editing at his request and are not paid or employed by him, it is still a conflict of interest that you must declare. 331dot (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Guys can someone pls do me a favor and just tell me know what is still missing on this article beside that. I got this link to this article explaining the steps of how to create an article but have no idea what that means? I added in-line citations, what else is missing. I don't get it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

There are no deadlines here; feel free to take all the time you need to learn about what you have been told and make the needed declarations. 331dot (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

If you work for Schnau you must create a User page and declare that. Even if you are not being paid to create a Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Franklin187, after you have posted the required declarations, there are still points outlined in the post on your talk page that you have not addressed. The most important ones are a) citing sources properly, b) showing the person is notable, and c) removing promotional phrasing. You have gone some way towards a) by placing some of the URLs to your sources within <ref></ref> tags, in the relevant places, but there is still a list of unidentified URLs (not connected to any part of the article) in the "References" section, and you do have to cite the sources, that is, clearly identify them so that a reader can understand what the source is, and potentially find the information even if the URL should go away. The link to the information about that (which is also in point 4 in the list on your talk page) is Wikipedia:Citing sources. As for b) it doesn't really look as if you followed the advice in point 2. on your talk page - the sources in your article are still basically the same as they were before your draft was rejected, and as far as I can see without spending too much time looking into unidentifid URLs, there is really only one (Stern) that is independent and talks about Schnau in depth, as opposed to mentioning him in passing. This is what is required. (There are also several inadequate references on the page, including but not limited to links to Netflix, YouTube, and Wikipedia itself, which do not meet the requirements for "professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources".) As regards c), the draft is not entirely promotional, but it is also not neutrally written. That is often difficult when writing about topics where there is a conflict of interest, but it is not impossible. But again, before you look into these things you have to address the conflict of interest issue. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@bonadea: First of all thanks for your comments and feedback. Very valuable. I appreciate it. I addressed the conflict of interest on the user page. And would now work on the points you made in your comments. Is that ok? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

If you don't work for him, what is the urgency in getting the draft approved? 331dot (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Franklin187 has declared COI on User page. I cut and rearranged a lot, but still needs work, especially on referencing. And I also ask, what is with all the urgency? David notMD (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@331dot There is no urgency at all. Sorry if it came across like that. I just want to figure out what I still need to do to be all correct. @David notMD thank you very much for rearranging and cutting, I appreciate it. As mentioned to 331dot, there is no urgency, sorry if it came across like that. I just like to figure out stuff as soon as I can. I will rearrange the other references as you did and let you know once I'm done. Thanks for starting that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC) @David notMD I rearranged all the other references. Please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance Hi everyone, I hope you are well. I just wanted to follow up on my last changes. Can you pls let me know the status. I'm assuming I finished what David notMD has started. ThanksFranklin187 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC) --Franklin187 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)- Hi everyone, happy new year to all of you. I just wanted to check if you received my last message here. It would be great to hearing from you. Thanks in advance --2605:E000:92C4:6F00:40FA:C5BF:CE3A:B048 (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

How to edit a draft page in other than source mode?

I need to remove external links from the body of a draft page as I am told that they're not allowed -- How do I edit the draft without using the "Edit Source" which is all that I see? I want to remove the external links in the body of the article and also remove using Wikipedia as a reference (I didn't know that you couldn't do that either - Thanks!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untipoflaco (talk • contribs) 22:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You can try the visual editor. Click the Pencil in the top right of the edit window. WelpThatWorked (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Redirect requests for articles that don't exist

I recently found out how to move a page, but I'm not sure how to create redirects. I've just renamed the page Stations of the BBC to TV Channels and Radio Stations of the BBC but it doesn't come up when I search for it for some reason. So could someone make it so that it appears in search, along with creating redirects for articles which don't exist like: "Channels of the BBC", "List of BBC Channels", "List of BBC Stations", "List of BBC TV Channels and Radio Stations", "BBC TV Channels", "BBC Radio Stations" etc so that they redirect to the page TV Channels and Radio Stations of the BBC Danstarr69 (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Danstarr69 The redirect is there: It was created automatically when you moved the page. One way to see it explicitly is to click on Stations of the BBC and then click on the link to "Stations of the BBC" under the title "TV Channels and Radio Stations of the BBC" —teb728 t c 00:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

teb728 What I mean is that when I type TV Channels and Radio Stations of the BBC in the search box at the top right of the page, the article TV Channels and Radio Stations of the BBC doesn't appear. The only way I can get to that page is if I click on the redirect titled Stations of the BBC. That's why I'm asking for someone to make it so it appears in the search box, and add some more redirects to that article like the ones I suggested. The reason I'm asking is because we don't call TV channels "TV stations" in the UK, so I end up forgetting what I'm meant to be typing whenever I try to find that page. Danstarr69 (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The person who's just posted below has reminded me of the Page Information section in the left hand pane where you can see all the redirects https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/TV_Channels_and_Radio_Stations_of_the_BBC&hidelinks=1&hidetrans=1. As I've just found out by looking in there some of the redirects I suggested do already exist like:

Why is Stations of the BBC the only one that appears in the search box? Danstarr69 (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Danstarr69, I don't understand what you are talking about. I pasted each of the following into the search box. In each case the search box recognizes the name. If I leave off the last character, it offers to complete the title.
  • Stations of the BBC
  • TV Channels and Radio Stations of the BBC
  • Channels of the BBC
  • List of BBC Channels
  • List of BBC Stations
  • List of BBC TV Channels and Radio Stations
  • BBC TV Channels
  • BBC Radio Stations
Maybe you are typing only the first few characters into the search box, and the title you are looking for is not in the first 10 results? —teb728 t c 06:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

teb728 I've got no idea what's going on either. Either someone has changed something to make them appear, or Wikipedia was going a bit mental when I posted this 8 hours ago. When I wrote this, I would write the entire title and still would get 0 results in the search box. Now I'm getting multiple suggestions, and all the redirects are working. Danstarr69 (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_884&oldid=876892733"