Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 991

Archive 985

←

Archive 989

Archive 990

Archive 991

Archive 992

Archive 993

→

Archive 995

Talk pages

I am sorry for the dumb question. Can somebody explain to me how I get to something called a talk page. I made some edits and somebody said they violated Wikipedia policy I asked why and they said I should use the talk page for the subject. I don't know how to get to a talk page or what s talk page even is. I am brand new to editing Wikipedia. Thank you for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bringing TruthToWikiped (talk • contribs) 17:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Bringing TruthToWikiped: see Help:Talk pages. In this case, you want the page Talk:Tax protester history in the United States. In desktop mode, you should see "Article" and "Talk" tabs above article titles; the "Talk" tab links to the talk page. In mobile mode, I am uncertain how to locate talk pages. Eman235/talk 17:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

In mobile view the talk button is located at the very bottom of the page.  Nixinova  T  C  06:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

okay so follow up question I managed to find the talk page and I posted my comment how long should I wait before I start making the changes I feel need to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bringing TruthToWikiped (talk • contribs) 17:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bringing TruthToWikiped. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but disruptive editing is soon reverted, even if you "feel" you need to make the edits. Your account will be subject to blocking if you persist. Please read the articles posted on your Talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

okay I'm sorry to keep bothering you guys and I promise if you answer this one question I'm done. What do you do it so a place you could go if I feel like the article is not neutral and I want to talk about it because I feel like it's wrong and that I honestly believe tax protesters are correct and I honestly feel like you are not being fair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bringing TruthToWikiped (talk • contribs) ]31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bringing TruthToWikiped, please refer to the WP:BRD page for instructions on how to proceed with edits that become controversial. The gist of it is, when you think something is right, you just make the edit. If someone reverts your edit, you realise that there is at least one editor who thinks your edit makes it worse rather than improve things. So, you comment on the article's talk page saying why you think your edit is good. Mention the person who reverted you so they can discuss the issue with you. You may also leave a message on their personal talk page to make sure they know you want a discussion on why they reverted you. If the two of you can't agree on it, and there aren't many other editors joining the discussion so you can be certain what the community consensus is, you can request help from WP:DRN, the dispute resolution noticeboard. If that fails to convince you, you can then, request for comment from anyone who's interested in the subject by launching an RFC officially. Whatever that official discussion decides, everyone has to abide, whether or not they agree.

If the other user only reverts you but declines to discuss the matter with you or you get confused by anything, you can come back and ask here at the Teahouse, or you can also seek help from an editor or an admin by writing a message with {{help}} or {{admin help}} on a talk page. If you think the other editor's conduct is serious and ongoing or behavioural, you can report the incident to admins at WP:ANI. Finally, please note that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth; so your username suggests to me you might end up disappointed to a certain extent. The warning on the comment above was about editing articles; that does not mean to suggest that you are running out of questions here. There is no such limitation, feel free to continue to ask until you are certain. It's certainly better to make sure here, than make some mistakes out there on the articles that the world can see (which could be seen as disruptive). Good luck!

I noticed that you wrote your message on a discussion that was there from years before. Was it intentional? If not, note that there is a "new section" tab at the top of the page, which you can click to get a form to create a new discussion. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 19:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Four different editors have reverted changes you made to Tax protester history in the United States or Tax protestor. Please continue to take your arguments for your changes to the Talk pages of the articles. David notMD (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Whenever Wikipedia editors come across a username like "TruthInWikipedia", they're likely to assume it belongs to someone who is here to push their own opinions rather than to improve Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

BTTW now indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Maproom, does the user name Starcitizen2021 lead to a similar assumption?--Quisqualis (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: not in me. Maybe it's an allusion to some US thing which I don't recognise. Maproom (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

What to do after a submission is declined?

Hi all, I got discouraged after a draft post was declined based on lack of independent sources, but I'm finally trying to get back into Wikipedia, and am starting with that post again.

1) I think I found a source that does what the editor asked, and added it in, but I'm not sure what to do now. Do I resubmit? How can I point out the change? Or will the editor see that I'm working on it already?

2) Another question, should I have started with making a stub and going from there? Which is better, generally, creating stubs or full articles? Buddingecologist (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Buddingecologist

@Buddingecologist: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to make it better. If you are ready for the article to be reviewed again, there should be a "Resubmit" button on the draft that you can click to put it in the review list. RudolfRed (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Buddingecologist, I think you misunderstood the reviewer's comment. This topic should be handled as an addition to the university's article. A separate article for a division of the university is simply not appropriate. John from Idegon (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Buddingecologist: if your objective is "to get back into Wikipedia", I suggest finding some task other than trying to create new articles – and particularly, articles which you've already seen rejected. Creating articles is difficult, and unrewarding until you have some successful experience of it. And it's only a tiny percentage of the work of building an encyclopedia. Maproom (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I need bit of guidance to publish

Hi!

My content is just now declined for which i am sorry.

I really have no idea how to start, I would be really thankful if i get to know in a nutshell how to start & finally publish.

I do have basic knowledge of HTML but im not familiar with sandbox.

Shall I create a HTML page & copy the content for your kind approval, or i shall write it down directly.

1's approved & published, i will edit & keep updating it.

pls. let me know

Rgds, Shekhar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekhar in (talk • contribs) 2019-08-02T23:27:46 (UTC)

Hello, Shekhar in, and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't need to know any HTML at all to edit Wikipedia, though it is useful to know some Wikimedia markup. But to edit successfully, you need to understand Wikipedia's policies about verifiability and notability. It is unfortunate that so many new editors plunge straight into the really quite difficult task of creating a new article, as they often have a frustrating and dispiriting experience. I always advise people to spend a few weeks or months making little improvements to some of our six million existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before trying a new one. But whenever you do try this, your first article is the place to start. --ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You were correct to use Wiki code, not HTML. The problem was that your sandbox did not contain any information. An article must have at least one sentence about the subject, and preferably much more. You need to find independent WP:Reliable sources in which the subject has been discussed at length, and your article should summarise these in your own words, citing references for each statement. Dbfirs 22:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

How can I contact a page's editor to correct an error?

I'm not an editor, but I noticed a glaring error on the page concerning Katy Perry. This page identifies her as a "contralto." I have a degree in music, and Katy Perry is a mezzosoprano, not a contralto. It's a common error for those who have taken choir in middle or high school, since choir teachers tend to identify sections by the parts they sing, so many students believe a female signing in the lower range is an "alto." However, the word "alto" identifies the musical part being sung, not the singers. The female ranges are soprano, mezzosoprano, and contralto. A contralto is the rarest of the voice types, essentially a female tenor, and most have such rough "froggy" voices that they're unpleasant to listeners. Those with no musical training often assume that "alto" is a short form of the word "contralto," but the two words mean entirely different things.

My question is: How do I contact whoever wrote this so they can make the correction? I'm willing to learn how to do this & make the correction myself, but I don't want to step on any toes. Can you give me some idea how I can get this mistake corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fractal Kaleidoscope Spiral (talk • contribs) 21:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Fractal Kaleidoscope Spiral, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit', so there's rarely just one editor who wrote an article. You should open a discussion at Talk:Katy Perry, which should draw the attention of people interested in the article. Eman235/talk 22:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The word "alto" appears in dictionaries with the meaning of both the part and the voice, but I agree with using the word "contralto" which has two references in the article (and I've found a third). If you think she is a mezzo-soprano then you should look for references that say this. I've never heard her voice, so can't judge. Dbfirs 22:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But note, Fractal Kaleidoscope Spiral, that the claim that she sings in Contralto range is followed by two footnotes: citations to reviews in Rolling Stone and Variety: so reliable sources describe her as a contralto. If you want to establish consensus to change this, you will need to cite reliable published sources that say differently: your own knowledge is not enough (see WP:V). In fact, if you find such sources, unless the sources specifically discuss why other sources are wrong to describe her as a contralto, the best you can hope for is that the article will say that some sources describe her as a contralto and some as a mezzo. --ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Fractal Kaleidoscope Spiral, you are an editor. Articles do not have assigned editors. Everyone (with a very few exceptions) is allowed to edit any article. This is because all content in an encyclopedia article is paraphrased from reliable sources. No expertise is needed. Which brings me to the second part of my answer. What you know and what I know are totally irrelevant here. You can use what you know to find a source that states KP is a mezzo soprano, but unless you do and you can convince the other editors that the source you provided is a better quality than the existing sources that say she's not, the article will stay as it is. John from Idegon (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

edit conflict

Hi, just trying to update our wikipedia page and supply reference sources but keep getting this .........dont know what im doing wrong and now dont know how to save my version as its talking about upper and lower text area! Can anyone talk me through?

Edit conflict: Warren Bullock

You have a new message (last change). Jump to navigationJump to search Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it, resulting in an edit conflict. The upper text area contains the page text as it currently exists (without your changes). Your version of the page (with your changes) is shown in the lower text area. You will have to merge your changes into the existing text in the upper text area to incorporate your edits. Only the text in the upper text area will be saved when you press "Publish changes"; all other changes in the lower text area will be lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:B581:B800:71FC:135:BC53:B89A (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

An edit conflict is when somebody else published a new version of the page while you were writing your response - I often get them when replying to queries here! I find the best thing to do is copy the text you were going to add (scroll down to find it), then re-load the page and click edit again, then paste your comment below the latest one (being careful to INDENT appropriately). Hope that's helpful, GirthSummit _(blether) 01:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Further to the above, I just noticed that you said 'our wikipedia page' - are you connected with the subject of the article? If so, I should point you towards our guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest. You should not edit articles directly if you are associated with them - you should use an edit request to allow neutral editors to assess the changes you want to make. GirthSummit _(blether) 01:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

i meant my page...i just say ours as everything i have seems to be my wifes too so its habit now lol thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:B581:B800:71FC:135:BC53:B89A (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

If I interpret what you are saying correctly, I think you're saying that you are Warren Bullock, the subject of this article. Please do read WP:COI - you shouldn't be editing this article. Take a look at our guidelines on edit requests to see how you should ask for changes to the page. GirthSummit _(blether) 02:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, ive not made myself clear..my self and my wife are former pupils and fans of his show and we had started to edit it and add stuff as it seemed way out of date.

Approval request of my sandbox page

Hi, I don't know what to say. I just created a sandbox and want to know that if that information that created is able to get approve. If any changes that i need to do, Please tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omprakash inveda (talk • contribs) 05:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Omprakash inveda. If you think that your sandbox is ready for review, then you need to click the big blue button that says "Submit your draft for review".

That being said, your draft contains highly promotional language and is very unlikely to be approved in its current state. Every trace of promotional or advertising language must be removed. Do you have any financial interest in this company? Are you an investor, employee or PR person? If so, please comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. This is mandatory and not negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

Courtesy link: User:Omprakash inveda/sandbox.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 05:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Chris Stefanick

Why don't Chris Stefanick and his tv show have Wikipedia articles? He talks to 80,000 people a year about Catholicism and it's joys. He at least deserves a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flintmcneal (talk • contribs) 09:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Flintmcneal, welcome to the Teahouse. The simple answer is that no one has yet volunteered to write one. Wikipedia is built by whoever wants to contribute, and it looks like so far no one has chosen to contribute this article in particular. Someone might well decide to in the future. If you'd like to become an editor here yourself, take a look at Help:Getting started. I wouldn't suggest trying to write a new article straight away—it's difficult. Try improving some other pages, get a feel for the place, see if you like it, ask for more help here if you need it, and perhaps further down the line you can start filling in gaps where you see articles we should have but don't yet. All the best and, again, welcome. › Mortee _talk 10:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

PS: you can sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end of them. It helps us to see who's said what. › Mortee _talk 10:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Landlubber Clothing Rejected

I'm trying to get this published https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Landlubber_Jeans but since it was a major brand of the 1960's and 1970's nothing was published about it online except for long after it was gone. I can find more articles like this one: http://www.joyatri.com/joyatri-home-page/2012/12/13/nothing-is-better-than-landlubber-clothes.html but is it a good enough article. I guess I remember the brand because I was in high school during the 1970's. However, due to the lack of online references from "reliable sources" about Landlubber Clothing, it seems like it will just disappear from history if I can't fix this article. Yes, it's my first article so I expected issues and I like to fix things myself. However, now I'm stumped and any help would be appreciated.

Submission declined on 2 August 2019 by RoySmith (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Anyone that would like to contribute to my first article is welcome to do so and I'd be thrilled to have any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbiweb (talk • contribs) 16:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Rbiweb, check out a Google Books search. Many mentions of Landlubber jeans, go through the results and see if they provide significant coverage. Schazjmd (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! There are several books that mention the company. Do I take this entire very long URL as the source to cite? https://books.google.com/books?id=uN9UCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA58&dq=%22landlubber+jeans%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiT2bjA3eTjAhUoqlkKHdljBNkQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=%22landlubber%20jeans%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbiweb (talk • contribs) 17:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No, no, no! The search results are just to help you find sources, search results are not a source themselves. You'll need to read the books, determine what content belongs in the article, and reference each bit of content to the source that supports it. Schazjmd (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

And the part of the citation that matters, Rbiweb, is the bibliographical information (such as title, author, publisher, date, page number, ISBN if there is one) that will allow a reader in principle to obtain the book from a library. A URL, if provided, is a convenience, and not a core part of the citation. See HELP:CITE. --ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd, that isn't a search result, it's a link to page 58 of a book. Rbiweb, I really recommend this tool to help you generate references from Google Books URLs. It saves a lot of effort looking up ISBN numbers etc. I hope this helps › Mortee _talk 18:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Mortee, thanks for pointing it out. The link I meant to paste is this one, sorry about that! Schazjmd (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we just read "this very long URL" differently. I think Rbiweb was referring to the link they pasted, which is to one book, whereas you took them to be referring to your first link, which is to search results. Very easy thing to happen › Mortee _talk 18:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the long search results link I pasted. Thanks for all the helpful suggestions. I've added more citations from NY Times and from one book. I'm up to 15 citations now. Do you think it's enough or should i continue? Any other ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbiweb (talk • contribs) 18:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Also, the articles I've found do mention Landlubber Jeans. However, the articles are not about Landlubber Jeans. Will this be a problem?Rbiweb (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rbiweb. Potentially, yes. There are two points to references on Wikipedia. One is to let readers verify the facts. For that, quick mentions are fine if the sources are reliable. That part of the equation is why you end up with so many of them (I wouldn't worry about the raw number; what matters is that any significant claim, especially anything a reader might want to see evidence for, has a reference). The other is to convince other editors that the subject of the article is notable enough that we should have an article about them. For that, significant coverage is usually important. There might be other ways to show notability but in general you'd want something more in-depth. If you can find that, it would be very helpful. My own impression is that these have been mentioned widely enough, though not in detail by the first sources I found online, to suggest they're significant regardless, but, that also probably means there are more in-depth sources out there, they just need finding. › Mortee _talk 22:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Thanks for the info Mortee. this is where it gets a little discouraging. I feel like I'm trying to prove that Landlubber Jeans did exist but all I find is mentions of Landlubber Jeans and no substantial article specifically on the topic of Landlubber Jeans. Eric Clapton even wrote the music for Bellbottom Blues because of Landlubber Jeans but what good is that. I've resubmitted the article for approval and if it doesn't get approved this time I'd be happy to see someone else, more experienced than me jump in and take over. I know a young, slender female that was asked to be a model for their new jeans. When she told me about this I decided to look it up to see what happened to these jeans from my youth. Much to my surprise, I found nothing here in Wikipedia and I couldn't understand why. I think I get it now. I've got several New York Times articles, Elle Magazine, Eric Clapton and plenty of articles and books that mention Landlubber Jeans but nobody has written a book about Landlubber Jeans. Anyone else want to take over this project for me? Rbiweb (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this isn't your field of expertise but...

I'm sorry if you don't know, but is Wikipedia an ideal place for making and keeping friends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flintmcneal (talk • contribs) 11:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. For that you would need a social media site. or possibly go out and meet people. Yeah, radical, I know. Britmax (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Flintmcneal While people can and do make friends on Wikipedia, that is not its primary purpose. We're all here to help build this encyclopedia of human knowledge. There are websites like social media for people to make friends, or you can do things like join a club or team in your area in something that interests you. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Honeybee subspecies - A. m. carnica or A. m. carpatica?

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science § Honeybee subspecies - A. m. carnica or A. m. carpatica?

How to make my page where it shows up when searched

Hi I am working on Rick Rush who is a famous sports artists Biography. How do I add a picture and also its not showing up when I google search. Also there is a page set up in German can I translate that one to English? Thank you for any help you can provide. Brenda— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick A. Rush (talk • contribs)

Rick A. Rush Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Brenda, since you seem to not be Rick Rush, you cannot use his name as your username. Please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to have your username changed. If you represent him, please read and comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It appears that your draft has been deleted as not in keeping with Wikipedia's purpose. Please review Your First Article to learn more about creating articles. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Signed up two weeks ago. Can I start an article on someone I heard of and has online exposure?

This man is doing great things in his country and has built 14 schools in Liberia, West Africa. I want to write an article on Wikipedia about him but it seems like he already tried and failed. How do you check if ou can post an article please?

Thank you--User:Debs Real

Hi and welcome, User:Debs Real. Creating new articles is limited to editors who are WP:AUTOCONFIRMed. To become autoconfirmed, you'd just need to make four additional, constructive edits and then the permission will be automatically granted. However, if this is your first article I'd strongly recommend you submit it via the Articles for Creation process, and you can do this immediately. Almost 200 articles are deleted every day on WP and submitting through AfC (WP:AFC) lets your proposed article be exposed to another set of eyes who can make recommendations or suggestions to ensure the draft meets all of the myriad standards required for new articles. I hope this answers your question. Please don't hesitate to follow-up if you have any others, or if this is not clear. Chetsford (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Debs Real. In addition to Chetsford's good advice, I suggest you study your first article, in order to understand just what it is that makes it so hard to write articles that stick. --ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixing bare URLs

Hello. I have a question about fixing bare urls. I read over the info but am still confused and don't want to screw up. I've bookmarked this page: https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/. How do I proceed? Thank you very much.Caro7200 (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Caro7200, that is the first step. You open that link, enter the title of the page that has bare urls and proceed. The tool will give you a version of the page where the bare urls have been changed into formatted citations. You are advised to review the diff that it gives to see that it didn't mess up something it should not. Then you just save the page. The recommended course of action is to then edit the citations that it generated, if you have the time. For example, you may have a BBC link which will be formatted as "website =www.bbc.com". It's better to change it to "newspaper=BBC", and so on. Be BOLD and give it a try, if you mess something up, there's always the revert button. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your help.Caro7200 (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit Abuse

I have a real problem with an editor who has libeled me in an article this week then used Wikipedia to further promote these lies. I am Jesse LaBrocca the owner of HackForums.net. Unfortunately I have to be dramatic to deal with this issue. I'll try to provide the history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AvalerionV (editor in question)

1. AvalerionV originally created independently the Wikipedia entry for HackForums.net some years ago. 2. Recently a member was banned on HF that turned out to be AvalerionV. 3. He has verbally threatened me in emails with edits to the Wikipedia article. 4. He wrote a libelous article at his website HackHex.com. 5. He has now linked and self-promoted that article at Wikipedia on the Hackforums.net page.

As far as I know Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to abuse their positions to self-promote or to libel others. This is exactly what has occured. I apologize if I'm not editing correctly but his edits need to be removed. I'm already discussing his blog post with my lawyer and our best course of action against him. He is in Pakistan but we still have remedies such as domain and income seizure. That's going to take some time.

Unfortunately this person has decided to become malicious all over a forum account and has abused his position at Wikipedia. I'd like some guidance on how to deal with the Wikipedia issue as I don't do edits or contributions normally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotchynow (talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Just noting for any passing editors that I ultimately opened an AN/I thread in regards to the numerous legal threats from Gotchynow (talk · contribs). OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gotchynow. Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself. Wikipedia has a process in place to try and help persons deal with issues such as this. I'm not sure the Wikipedia Community can do anything about content appearing on other websites, but it can work to fix issues appearing in Wikipedia articles. Please also read Wikipedia:No legal threats and Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information because these are things which are also not acceptable and can lead to the Wikipedia community sanctioning you if pursue them. All editors are volunteers (i.e. nobody has a "position" at Wikipedia); so, any legal disputes you might be having them out in the real world are going to need to be resolved in the real world. If another editor is trying to use Wikipedia to set the record straight, then the Wikipedia community can step in to try and stop that; however, that doesn't mean you should also try and use Wikipedia in the same way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

my page

may i know why I was decilned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangogirl76 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

courtesy link: Draft:Ava Eagle Brown Eman235/talk 23:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Not you declined, the article declined. The reviewer wrote "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." That means the references are not good enough. I see that it has been resubmitted, but unless the article is significantly improved it will be declined again. Not allowed as references: interviews, Goodreads, AEB's own website, speaker bureau listings, etc. David notMD (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah - I see that your User name Mangogirl76 is similar to a book written by Ava Eagle Brown, "The Mango Girl," which suggests you are asking about an article about you. People are discouraged from creating or in this instance contributing to articles about themselves. There is also a concern that you are using User:AvaEBrown as a second User name. (AvaEBrown likely a different editor). David notMD (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

People keep reverting my additions to The Vineyard Beverly Hills

I want to add the following - can anyone tell me if ok?

The property is currently owned by Secured Capital Partners, as mentioned in the e-edition of the August 2, 2019 issue of the Beverly Hills Courier, and is now referred to more often as "The Mountain of Beverly Hills" . Also mentioned in the latest news are the facts that a judge has denied bankruptcy protection for the current owner, clearing the way for foreclosure. The property nearly went into bankruptcy before in 2012, when Secured Capital brought in the $57.5 million necessary to pay the debt from a purported Middle Eastern source, now looking for new investors. .

The property has had buyers and interest from some of the world's current most successful celebrities, including Tom Cruise, who recently considered an offer of $400 million . Prior to that, it attracted other top celebrity interest from stars such as Rhiannon in her Diamond Ball fundraiser at the Vineyard and James Cameron, Halle Berry, and Charlize Thereon celebrated the first "Fame and Philanthropy" Oscar event as well.. DOES THIS LOOK OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCWhiteGallery (talk • contribs) 02:01, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

This was undone as promotional by user:Roxy the dog. I agree that the content seems promotional, but the proper place to discuss this article content issue is on the article's talk page, Please discuss this at Talk:The Vineyard Beverly Hills where any other interested editors will see it and be able to participate. Meters (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Access to Wikipedia

Wikipedia's Internet entries give no clear answer to these 2 questions: 1) Can an individual place an entry in Wikipedia? If so, who composes it? 2) Does it cost anything to place an entry in Wikipedia, or is it free? Hope to get an answer to these 2 questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9E00:2D90:21C7:EFA1:5AA1:A866 (talk • contribs)

See these instructions on how to write an article. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of notable things that anyone can edit for free. We are all volunteers here. But just because anyone can help to improve it by editing or creating new articles, that doesn't mean we accept any old nonsense, or people's personable opinions. Writing a new article that conforms to our policies is the hardest task any new editor can so, so we advise starting slowly by making minor edits to existing articled first. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Uploading images from WP:FUW to a different language namespace

So there are some images that I uploaded with fair-use on the English WP:FUW, and I have implemented them in an English namespace article. (I didn't upload to Commons because it was a fair-use upload which can't be uploaded to Commons.) But, how do I refer to these files in a different language namespace (Swedish in my case)? I can't do [[File:<file-name>]] it doesn't work.... Is there some kind of :en: thing I can use? Thanks.... --Blue.painting (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The image would need uploading to Swedish Wikipedia, if it meets their requirements. David Biddulph (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Ok, thanks for the input. Best, --Blue.painting (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Blue.painting. You might want to look at c:COM:FAIR#"Fair use" allowed on some Wikimedia projects before uploading any files to check which of the Wikipedias allows non-free content or otherwise local files to be uploaded because not all of them do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks I will take a look at this. Cheers. -- Blue.painting (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hate speech in Wikipedia articles

How is hate speech handled in the Wikipedia editing process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl94965 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There are several users who watch recent changes to the wiki, who manually check a list, or use a semi automated tool to do so. If these users, or any other user, finds malicious content, the edit will be reverted returning the page to its prior state, and the user warned. If a user receives too many warnings, or is deemed to be a vandalism only account, the user can be blocked from editing. For the vast majority of vandalism, this is enough. If anything more serious is found, administrators can remove the edits from the history of the page, and only allow the edits to be viewed by other admins, using the rev del process - for hate speech, this could be removed from history, as it violates "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material", criteria 2 for rev del to be used. Very serious offences can be removed from history from all users, including admins, by the oversight process, for which there are strict criteria the list of which is here.

Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I was going to respond that you might need to provide some more context here, Carl94965. Are you referring to situations in which an editor adds what could be considered hate speech to an article, or are you asking about situations when article subjects engage in hate speech and whether and how Wikipedia should cover that? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Doing my best

Hi,

I was wondering how to make a page about the History Channel 754 as it’s my job to do so. I tried but my work go deleted due to it “Violating Wikipedia Code”. If the page cannot be made please let me know, but if I am able too it would be greatly appreciated for some help.

Thank you, History Channel 754 Team

@Historychannel754: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you need to request a change of username immediately; per the username policy usernames cannot be that of any organization. I will post some information on your user talk page about how to do that. Second, you must review and comply with the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy(the latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement) as you state you are here as part of your job duties. You will also need to designate a specific individual to exclusively operate this account(you use "team" above). Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet our special definition of notability. Wikipedia has no interest in what an article subject wants to say about itself. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, My name violates the policy and I understand why, how would I change is as soon as possible

Thanks Historychannel754 (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

As I indicated, I have posted information about that on your user talk page. Please ask any follow-up questions in the same section instead of creating a new section(you can just click 'edit' in the section header, or at the top of the page). 331dot (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

best way to deal with a bully

Hello,

I keep discussing a hotly debated article on its talk page and there is a user who keeps using arogant, disparaging, bullying, I-know-better, this-discussion-is-closed-already, threatening language. This is pretty irritating and discouraging. Calls for moderation do not work. What action would you suggest? I am sorry to bother, presumably there is a guidance and policy on this, but having browsed tens of noticeboards for different types of issues I got lost and am not sure where to go. Regards, --89.76.22.216 (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

See WP:Dispute resolution or, for urgent situations, WP:ANI. Perhaps the best option here is a WP:Third opinion. If you're talking about Talk:Warsaw Uprising, the tone of the conversation does seem to have been unhelpful at times. Hopefully you can resolve the issue through dispute resolution. Separately, you might consider registering an account at Wikipedia so your comments are tied together. It looks like your IP address changes, which makes it a bit hard to follow a conversation. All the best, › Mortee _talk 11:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

An IP user is trying to fool the reality. It does not apply to warnings in which, due to its vandalism, the Warsaw Uprising website has been blocked for IP users. It has been destroying and deleting information from the source for a long time, other users' comments and discussions are not working. LechitaPL (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Does a pioneering company merged with another company deserve a separate page?

Hi all, I am new to Wikipedia! i request you to guide me on my query. If there is a pioneering company in a specific industry category in a country, does it not deserve a separate page despite its merger with a larger company?

i would like to point out that RedBus is a pioneering company in India. It needs to have a separate page or atleast a separate section. It was started in 2006 and became the leading player in India in the next ten years. it was acquired in 2013. so i feel it should not be a small part of Goibibo. check history here - https://www.livemint.com/Companies/hhVYwRApppfXiEpEoF1faJ/Entrepreneurship-is-a-selfpurification-process-says-Phanin.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the pioneering company is notable (has at least one reliable third-party reference), it can be included in Wikipedia. So, look for reliable references about the subject you want to make an article about to make the article. I hope this helps. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 16:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Edits Being Reversed

Long story short. I wrote the article on [Hack Forums]. Yesterday there was a controversy section added by an anonymous IP. There were multiple attempts to revert the edits (1, 2, 3, 4) to the point the owner himself reverted it and threatened to sue me in this edit and this one too. Only today I figured the owner posted a thread on his website: hackforums.net/showthread.php?tid=5995824 requiring assistance from anyone who might be a registered user on Wikipedia and I quote him, "Anyone got solid connects with any Wikipedia higher-ups?" We had a debate here regarding the legal threats here and fingers pointed toward me over how I might be affiliated with the article in the first place. I understand I had a link to the publication website (where the article is published) on my profile page over a year ago but I told them the rights were transferred to another person hence I am no longer affiliated with the website in any way. Not to mention the article was published by anonymous contributor: hackhex.com/hacking/the-slow-death-of-hack-forums-7170.html

The last statement on the thread posted by the owner of the website is and I quote "Looks like I finally got someone to deal with it at Wikipedia. I gotta say that their whole system is NOT user friendly." This is a clear violation of editing policy and I find myself in a situation attacked by a mob affiliated with Hack Forums. What should I do in this case? Do I have a say in this? AvalerionV (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@AvalerionV: The first thing I'd say is "please learn to provide good diffs". You do this via the 'View History' tab and show the comparison between one version of an article and another. What you did was link to just one version and expect us to understand what edit (be it an addition or deletion) had been made. This isn't really as helpful as providing, this type of link. The link you provided to the Hackforum appears to require me to register and sign in, which I'm not prepared to do, so it's hard to appreciate what has been said on that forum (ah, but see below). We can only control what happens on this Website and its internal fora; and the recent discussion at WP:ANI that you linked to appears to be dealing with it well. Gotchynow has been blocked for making legal threats, and all editors - especially you - are advised not to cite unreliable, anonymous websites, nor to bring their petty spats onto Wikipedia. You appear to deny (against some scepticism) that you are connected to one or other website, and yet you say you are being 'attacked'. I see no evidence of that on Wikipedia on your talk page - and clearly we can't control what happens elsewhere on 't'internet. Where do you see this 'attack' happening, please? I should say that I feel you were quite wrong to revert the deleted 'controversy' section (with this diff] on the grounds that not only is it an unreliable source, but also that it makes accusations which I can't see stated in anything like the same way in that source. Please don't reinsert it again. Please also read WP:FORUMSHOPPING and remember in future to keep all your discussions on one topic in one please, rather than seek different opinions elsewhere. Having now 'nipped over to ANI' and read a pasted version of the off-wiki post, I see nothing significant other than a few nerdy people writing opinions about what happens here in blunt language. That's nothing new. Beyond that, I fail to see what further support or assistance we can offer you other than to ask you to re-read WP:BLP. (I now feel obliged to go back to ANI and declare a link to this discussion here) In answer to your question: There seems little needed to do, except develop a thicker skin when people use words like "assclown" off wiki about what I assume are your edits here (?), and ask yourself whether or not they might have a point. Remember that this is an encyclopaedia for writing about topics in neutral tones, and that it's important not to get 'involved' with trivial and unreliably sourced comments. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

YouTube reference

Hello: Can I reference something that was said by a historical person that I've seen on a posted YouTube video? If so, how would I show the reference? Thanks. Randy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 08maxwell (talk • contribs) 17:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 08maxwell. Per WP:RS, YouTube is not a reliable source. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 17:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, 08maxwell. The answer above is not fully accurate. There is no blanket ban on the use of YouTube videos, although a large percentage of YouTube content is not acceptable for various reasons. Here is what WP:RSP says:

"Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia."

In other words, YouTube videos from the official accounts of recognized reliable sources are acceptable. Other random YouTube videos are not acceptable. For information on one good method of citing videos, please see Template:Cite AV media. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The first formula for the prime numbers

How do i say my formula for prime numbers to world ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed Raoufi (talk • contribs)

@Mohammed Raoufi: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer is- you don't, at least here. Wikipedia is not for sharing original research or something you created with the world. That's what social media like Facebook is for. This is an encyclopedia and as one we are only interested in what independent reliable sources, unconnected with the subject, have chosen to write about it. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your formula works for n = 1 and for n = 2 but fails miserably for n = 3 because 1001 is 7*11*13 ; 1003 is 17*59 and 1007 is 19*53

Sorry to disappoint you. Dbfirs 20:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

About reliable sources

Hello Wikipedians, I have a doubt
Is the official website for an award, etc a reliable source to reference to the Wikipedia article? For example, can the Wikipedia article for the QWERTY Awards (only an example) get all its info from qwertyawards.org? --Caleb KG (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Primary sources cannot demonstrate notability. David Biddulph (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh OK. So if an article does not have any sources other than primary ones, it does not deserve to exist. Thank you!! --Caleb KG (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

True. If an article subject is shown to be notable by references to secondary sources, then primary sources can be used to support simple facts. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:Primary sources says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This means that I can use the primary sources to make straightforward facts, such as a list of awardees. Am I right? --Caleb KG (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Caleb KG, yes, you can use the website of an organization giving an award for verification of the award. However, that alone does not show that award is notable and it does nothing towards vetting the existence of an article on the award. The fact that an award was given and your verification of that by reference to the awarding organization's website also doesn't mean it should be mentioned in an article about the entity receiving the award. That would be a matter of consensus. John from Idegon (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh OK, I get it. Thanks a lot! --Caleb KG (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Help with a page from German to English

I have tried unsuccessfully to set up a page for Rick Rush the famous sports artist. It keeps getting deleted. Rick has one in German https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Rush is there a way I can convert that page to English and then edit?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenlinkous (talk • contribs) 21:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Have you done this with a different account? If the page had been deleted, you would have a notification message on your talk page. If you create a draft article in your sandbox, with sourcing, I'll be happy to take a quick look at it for you. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Brenlinkous. See Translation for how to go about this. I must warn you that de:Rick Rush does not appear to me to have adequate sources for an English Wikipedia Article. In order to write an article about Rush you will need to find sufficient independent reliable published sources about him, and then the article should in its entirety be based on what those sources say; so it may not be appropriate to simply translate the German article. Girth Summit: see #How to make my page where it shows up when searched above --ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah - that makes sense now, thanks ColinFine.

Brenlinkous - Colin has given some good advice there. Only write what you can find in independent reliable sources - don't add any of your own opinions, or stuff you know but cannot verify with sources. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 22:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

New user! Sorting stubbed articles/short articles by category?

Hey there everyone.

Is there a way to sort articles that need writing based on categories/tags/etc regarding the content within the article? I'm new and having a bit of a hard time figuring it out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoboDyerProjection (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@HoboDyerProjection: You should check out Category:All stub articles to find stubs/short articles. If you find a short article, tag it with {{stub}}, and it will appear in the category I mentioned earlier. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 22:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Are there guidelines regarding the need for citations to present balanced, or at least non-combatitive information?

I am inquiring about whether or not there are any Wikipedia guidelines about the nature of citations chosen for pages on Wikipedia. I am aware that the information presented on any give page needs to be balanced and "encyclopedic" in nature - presenting "both sides" as I understand it. I am, however wondering about the nature of the citations chosen to support the information presented. I am specifically referring to citations on the Children's Health Defense Fund page. And more specifically to citation 10 - where the author writes that those who don't support his point of view are "lying", "quacks" and in citation 19 where the same author writes that those who don't support his point of view are "clueless", " liars", "cranks", "stupid", "ignorant" and "con artists". Do the citations chosen also need to be balanced, or is there no requirement for that?Unicorn46 (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Article in question is Children's Health Defense. And "presenting both sides" is a flawed argument when evidence-based science overwhelmingly is on one side. David notMD (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Unicorn46. You might want to take a look at WP:UNDUE, WP:PROPORTION, WP:FALSEBALANCE and Wp:BALANCE since I believe they relate to what you're asking about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)