Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1000←Archive 1005Archive 1006Archive 1007Archive 1008Archive 1009Archive 1010

Editing the Title and other beginner questions

It's my first attempt at editing, and the first issue I saw was that the title of the article (Hooghly River Bridge Commission) doesn't match the official name of the agency (Hooghly River Bridge Commissioners), but I couldn't find in the editing history any explanation of the mismatch, nor can I figure out how to fix the issue. Would I just note that in the Edit Summary?

Also, there's a notation that to use Indian English. Should I move to an article with American English to begin? Or is there a handy reference to point up any reasonable deviations in grammar/usage/punctuation? Does it follow British usage in the main (spelling, comma placement with other punctuation, etc.)? Or does it not really affect the copyediting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JodiGMc (talk • contribs) 16:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, JodiGMc, and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. I agree with you about the title, and I have moved the article. (This is an operation you are not yet able to perform: it is unavailable to very new accounts, as a protection against vandals). As for language variants: it might be easier for you to start with articles in the variant you are used to; but if you make honest mistakes, nobody should hold it against you (this is a general principle in editing Wikipedia, not just on language variants). The general policy is WP:ENGVAR, but if you read our article Indian English you'll see that there are some differences in vocabulary, and in expressing large numbers, but spelling generally follows British English. --ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, ColinFine. Makes perfect sense why that would be a limited editing feature. (And how embarrassing to start my first interaction with an editing artifact that should have been deleted.) Loved the Wikipedia Adventure--that was exactly the kind of tutorial I was looking for! JodiGMc (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I tried to help

I tired to help here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patrick_Vahe as someone pointed out that I made a mistake. What should I do? Should I delete my previous comment regarding delete? IndusFish (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@IndusFish: - given that the RfD will be viewed by an admin prior to its closure, and the deletion or maintenance of the article, and your error has been corrected, you should be fine. You should not delete the comment, but rather, it would be good practice to strike it, by enclosing the erroneous text as detailed here. The markup effect is like this. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Historical populations problem?

I suspect a problem with Template:Historical populations. Several pages are showing up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_citations_using_unnamed_parameters with the error: " "Bevölkerung im Land Brandenburg nach amtsfreien Gemeinden, Ämtern und Gemeinden 31. Dezember 2018". Amt für Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg (in German). July 2019. Text "https://www.statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de/publikationen/Stat_Berichte/2019/SB_A01-07-00_2018m12_BB.xlsx" ignored (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)"

but that URL is not in the article source, e.g. Carmzow-Wallmow

Any ideas?

Moe

Quebec99 (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Quebec99. The Teahouse is not really the right place for this kind of question. I've raised it at Template talk:Population Germany. --ColinFine (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@Quebec99: I tracked it to [1] which accidentally removed url= near the start. I have readded it and the error in Carmzow-Wallmow went away. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix.

Quebec99 (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Where can I ask a question to get a consensus

My question involves the Native American name controversy. This issue has not been resolved for wikipedia. I see many articles that use the word Indian, which many native Americans perceive to be racist and pejorative (some admittedly do not and use the name) however Indian is too generalized and could refer to a person of the sub continent of India (Its proper use). My preference is to recognize the incipient racist (hegemonistic) undertones of the word Indian, and use Native Americans. An example is the Indian massacre of 1622 both the article name and its lead sentence are pejorative and misleading, at first it appears to be an article about the massacre of Indians. The actual event is popularly known, for centuries and in various literature, as the Jamestown Massacre. I am of an inclination to Move the article to Jamestown Massacre, and to change the wording in the article to reflect the change. Where is the proper place to discuss this and obtain a consensus (both the use of the word Indian vis native American (at least AmerIndian) and my Move idea.Oldperson (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson, any changes you wish to make (that you have sources for) to a specific article, just make them. If anyone disagrees with your change, they will revert your change and then you discuss it on that article's talk page. If you wish to develop a naming standard for Native American people, that would be a Manual of style issue. There may be one already. You'll either need to search through the MOS, or perhaps someone else may know the specific chapter. With near 6 million articles, there are many that are in variance to MOS. John from Idegon (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: Thanks. Been there done that (changed wording to include Indian to Native American and it was reverted, I then tried "Indian" only to have that reverted. If I reverted the revert I get into revert warring. There is at least one editor that has an intense interest in keeping the word-Indian. I tried the Manual of Style once but couldn't figure out where to post the question. I would appreciate a link.Oldperson (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The link to MOS is WP:MOS. As I said I have no knowledge of a specific chapter on the names of races. I see no mention of discussion in your reply. WP:BRD only works if you actually discuss the issue. Also, please learn to be succinct. 95% of your original question is just yak. Why you want to know, and things you've done related to why you are asking the question are irrelevant. Everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer and most are primarily here to write an encyclopedia. Some are generous enough with their time to answer questions here. A nice gesture on your part would be to recognize that people are giving you their time and knowledge with the only compensation being that hopefully we get another good editor. Do this by being succinct. Editing Wikipedia is an exercise in writing, research and to some extent, debate. The less words you use to accomplish that the better. After all, editing an encyclopedia is primarily an exercise in condensing what others have written. The first step in doing that well is to learn to condense your own thoughts. John from Idegon (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Editors at Wikipedia seem to be promoting content that is in Violation of a Court Injunction Against the American Medical Association relating in part to Bastyr Universities Programs

The Editor has Deliberately Filled the Bastyr University article with Links that are of a very Defamatory and Un-professional tone, from organizations such as "Quack Watch" which is run by a "Retired Psychiatrist" who has a personal vendetta against Bastyr Alumni apparently -- I would like to point out that "Psychiatry" as a profession has no scientific lab tests to test for mental illness -- There is no blood test that "Psychiatry" uses in diagnosing someone with any Disease. The Ft. Hood Mass Shooter was even a "Psychiatrist" who prior to the shootings "Diagnosed" hundreds of Soldiers out of VA Benefits, GI Bill Benefits, and Civilian Employment Illegally. "Psychiatric Diagnosis" is not considered medical FACT in civilian legal proceedings until a Judge and Jury make this legal determination.

PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER AGAINST AMA (Regarding Defamation of Chiropractic and Naturopathic Practice) Susan Getzendanner JAMA. 1988;259(1):81-82. doi:10.1001/jama.1988.03720010059044 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/370078

For the Bastyr article, I would recommend a review board that included retired PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS (DO, MD), CHIROPRACTORS, NURSE PRACTITIONERS, PA's, NATUROPATHS and others Related to Primary Care, and Psychology and the other majors the university offers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmwmurray (talk • contribs) 19:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

If there is a court injunction that is somehow binding on Wikipedia itself, that should be communicated to the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, using the appropriate address listed here. The same goes for any content alleged to be libelous(see WP:LIBEL). 331dot (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Wmwmurray, Welcome to Wikipedia! I would add that this is a volunteer project, and we do not have review boards of experts, but rest assured we have very dedicated editors from the medical community participating here. Expertise, however, is of limited relevance. We work under the criterion of Verifiability from Reliable sources. Wikipedia values verifiability over truth, and this is by design. What you are in right now, is a content dispute. And the place to discuss that is at the talk page of the article. Please remember to assume good faith, focus on the merit of the content, rather than the qualification of the contributor, and if you get nowhere, the dispute resolution noticeboard is the next port of call. Please consult the bold, revert, discuss cycle of collaborative editing. Regards! Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 20:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that in the Talk Pages, the Editor References the AMA as though they are a Law Enforcement Agency or Other Government Entity such as a Court which as I mentioned is the only place legal FACT can be determined, when the AMA is in-fact a professional association. As such this subjects Wikipedia to this Court Injunction -- Wikipedia's trustee's have the appearance of acting under the AMA's direction. I would like to request a legal review of this matter. Wikipedia can be subject to a Defamation Judgement as a Co-conspirator to mis-guided parties at the AMA. I have notified security and legal staff at Bastyr. The state(s) and federal government have authorized Naturopathic practice primarily in states where AMA guideline medicine does not have good solutions for all the common and uncommon medical conditions in these locations. The Governments see value in this and the Editor who most likely has never done primary practice in a state allowing Naturopathy seems to not understand this. Until the editor can present the Legal Facts and dispense with opinion in a reference article I do not feel comfortable dealing with this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmwmurray (talk • contribs) 02:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You say "I would like to request a legal review of this matter". Nobody here is preventing you from doing so. Contact the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, using the appropriate address listed here. -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I have blocked this editor for violating the policy Wikipedia:No legal threats. People can choose one of two things. They can choose to edit Wikipedia without making legal threats. Or, they can pursue legal threats and/or lawsuits off-Wikipedia. But they simply cannot do both things at the same time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Why no Pokémon anime announcement this week?

Before the latest ep of Sun & Moon aired there was a little teaser for the next anime which we’ve got a whole new look for the anime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:93b0:1350:4495:36ed:f3d3:a7e4 (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The above question appears to be related to Draft:Pokémon the Series: Sword and Shield (anime), on which there has been much feedback. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Why can people change information in Wikipedia?

The reason why Wikipedia enables the edit sign is because they thought people who changed the information was going to put in TRUE information.Instead, other people decided to use it as an advantage and put in inappropriate and FALSE information.You maybe asking why doesn’t Wikipedia just get rid of the edit button.Well I am not really sure but, I do have one assumption.I think that they keep it there since it draws attention making people want to come to Wikipedia more often.I am pretty sure Wikipedia is embarrassed that the rumour has been going on for ages that Wikipedia is a bad site to use.I both agree and disagree at the same time.Why you may ask?Well that is because some things people search can not be edited.For example, if you search up the word pencil, in the top right hand corner you will see a pencil.If you see a pencil but there is a line through it that means Wikipedia has blocked it to prevent vandalism.If you don’t believe me, then press on the icon and in words it will appear that Wikipedia has blocked it Tom prevent vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydneydancediva (talk • contribs) 00:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Sydneydancediva, this is a forum for new users to ask how to questions about Wikipedia. It isn't a place to hold a general discussion on the merits of Wikipedia philosophy. Perhaps you may find one of the pages at the village pump more suitable for your discussion. John from Idegon (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sydneydancediva:I have no idea what you are talking about. I searched pencil and this unremarkable page came up Pencil here is a a link to the Village Pump https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pumpOldperson (talk)

Oldperson: you have pointed Sydneydancediva to the Wikimedia Commons Village pump. The place to discuss Wikipedia policy and philosophy is WP:Village Pump. --ColinFine (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Sydneydancediva is using the mobile version https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil witn an account which is not autoconfirmed and cannot edit semi-protected pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
... so three more edits and three more days and the problem will disappear. Sydneydancediva, please read WP:Autoconfirmed for details. Dbfirs 06:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked from editing?

I tried to edit an article and some random user threatened to "block me form editing this article".Although I proved my information's truthfulness with reliable sources and gave a valid reason for editing the certain article he still would not let me edit the page and contribute to Wikipedia. This is pure censorship! He just did not like what I said (which is the truth) and he aimed to misinform the readers by provided fake and generalized facts. What should I do and how do you let this happen? Wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia where people can share the knowledge and improve the website by providing more information. What is the point of enabling users to do that if they will be "blocked from editing" because someone does not like what they have to say?

JupMc (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)JupMc

For anyone looking into this the article in question is The Legend of Korra: Turf Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). JupMc is deleting huge sections of the article and, although they are leaving long edit summaries, they aren't providing sources to prove those statements. MarnetteD|Talk 06:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
More discussion regarding the edits can be found at Bennv3771's talk page here User talk:Bennv3771. MarnetteD|Talk 06:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi JupMc, you removed referenced information from the article, and added an unreliable source (Quora is just random editors' opinions and is definitely not a reliable source). A content dispute should be discussed on the talk page of the article. Please do not edit war. It is WP:edit warring that might get you blocked. Wikipedia always welcomes improvements to articles, but if changes are challenged then they must be discussed to obtain a consensus. Please read WP:Reliable sources. You are doing the right thing by discussing this on Bennv3771's talk page but if you want other interested editors to be involved then the article talk page is a better place for discussions. Dbfirs 06:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I did not delete huge amount of information and I provided sources. I also added new information.

Dbfirs, thank you so much for being polite! Finally someone on this website is polite!!! So, should I discuss about those changes with other users? How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JupMc (talk • contribs) 06:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Just start a new section on the talk page of the article, but remember to find WP:Reliable sources to support your suggestions. Dbfirs 06:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thank you so much Dbfirs!

JupMc (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)JupMc

info on RM:TR

Hello Fam , Hope u guys are Doing Well I am a bit of stuck with this term called RM:TR , Can anyone please help me out a bit in Knowing it !! Thanks Kundaliniwar (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Kundalinawar. I'm guessing (and this is an absolute guess, because you have given us no context whatever for your question) that you are referring to the Wikipedia project page WP:RM/TR. Have you read that page? What is it you don't understand? --ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine (talk)

Thanks So much for the info , I was not aware of that shortcut , this place is helpful and amazing :) Kundaliniwar (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kundaliniwar: For a whole load of useful (and not so useful) shortcuts, see WP:SHORTCUTS. (WP:THF is my most well-used shortcut) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I use this script to make a TH link in the menu at top of pages:
$( document ).ready( function() {
  mw.util.addPortletLink(
    'p-personal',
    mw.util.getUrl( 'Wikipedia:Teahouse#footer' ),
    'TH',
    'pt-TH',
    'Go to Teahouse',
    null,
    '#pt-preferences'
  );
});
You can place it in your common JavaScript. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

What are the basic criteria to create a page in wikipedia

I am trying to create a page for renowned artists of Nepal to give them bigger exposure through wikipedia. But the problem with me or us is that we don't have web links of the creation which is mandatory in wikipedia. Please guide me about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.166.217.97 (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to give exposure. The criterion for a Wikipedia subject is existing notability through published reliable sources, though those sources need not necessarily be on the web. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
If you just want to tell the world about artists from Nepal, you should use social media or an alternative forum. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Please also see WP:NOTPROMO. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

English

Who invented the first airplane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biziwe (talk • contribs) 11:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Biziwe, and welcome to the Teahouse. What a pity there isn't an online encyclopaedia, where you could easily look up the answer to this sort of question. Oh, wait a minute! There is! It's called Wikipedia, maybe you've heard of it. You could look in the article called Airplane. --ColinFine (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Biziwe, you already asked this at the Teahouse before and have been told that this forum is only for questions about editing Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions. Please do not ask the same question at the Teahouse again. Interstellarity (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Horse

Are horses fish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradmererrer (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The Teahouse is a place to ask help. Do you have a question? LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 16:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Modern Practitioner Research: Complaints from Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq.

Hello Velella, I noticed you removed my improvement on practitioner research. Please re-add it. Every importation contained in that improvement is authentic. I have been a practitioner researcher for well over 20 years. I am a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

I am also a transnational legal research and dispute resolution consultant. My law firm, Prof. Teddy Idiabeta Law Consult is a full in-house practitioner research law firm registered as a Nigerian law firm with registration number 2946457. Modern practitioner research is my business. It was practitioner research I employed to do some matters in Dubai on three different occasions.

I am the founder of the Advanced Business School of Research and Legal Innovation studies, Online. Everything you read in the work on modern practitioner research was what I introduced to practitioner researchers, professionals, research interns, journalists and members of the public in the practitioner research public lecture on 21st April, 2119 at the College of Education, Warri, Delta state, Nigeria. Hence I want my improvement of the article restored.

Thanks.

Sincerely, yours

Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq. (talk • contribs) 13:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Can you specify what the article is? Anyway, I assume you are in a content dispute. The appropriate place to bring this up is on the other user’s talk page or the article page. See also: WP:EW and WP:BRD. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 14:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I think its Practitioner research. OkayKenji (talk page) 15:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a considerable element of forum shopping here. Nevertheless, there is a response on my talk page where this "Complaint" was also posted.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Page review on my draft article

I've made a draft article, Draft:Badimo (Roblox user group). I want someone to review my page an see if it's okay to be in the main namespace. other than placing the draft article template on top of the article (because my draft article doesn't have one automatically generated) and pressing the submit button, can any administrators or experienced editors help me review the page and comment me under this topic or at my talk page? Radioactive Uranium, 92 (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Radioactive Uranium, 92: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I saw your draft, but unfortunately, it has a chance of getting declined because it fails notability. A subject is notable if it has been covered by multiple reliable sources. Roblox is not a reliable source, and most of your references are from Roblox. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 13:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@LPS and MLP Fan: So how should I improve my draft article? Radioactive Uranium, 92 (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@Radioactive Uranium, 92: Well, you need to find more reliable sources for your article. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 13:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@LPS and MLP Fan: So can we do it together to make it more reliable? I would like to have my first draft article being moved to the main namespace. Radioactive Uranium, 92 (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@Radioactive Uranium, 92: I would like to help out! However, I am afraid that the draft will get declined. Nevertheless, I’ll see what I can do. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 14:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@LPS and MLP Fan: Thanks a lot! Message me on my talk page. Radioactive Uranium, 92 (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@LPS and MLP Fan: Actually, message me on the draft page's talk page instead. That would be more convenient. Radioactive Uranium, 92 (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Radioactive Uranium, 92 and welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest you read the essay WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, to help you fully understand what people are telling you. --ColinFine (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

How to make a new category

I want to create a new category in a wikipedia page.

I am very new,so could you please assist me in this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easicon (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Easicon, and welcome to the Teahosue. It would help if you would clarify what you mean. Are you talking about Categories in Wikipedia's sense (collections of articles grouped by some common property or relation) or are you using the word in a different way? --ColinFine (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Is Hindi a dialect of Urdu?

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

sir, is hindi a dialect of Urdu, because i found many proofs that Hindi ia a dialect of Urdu like In olden times, Sanskrit was not allowed to be spoken by anyone, because Sanskrit was spoken by the Gods of Hindus. the result was that Sanskrit started to end. Hindus had to save their tongue. So they stole Urdu and Hindi came into existence after replacing Arabic and Persian alphabets with some Sanskrit alphas in it. the word Hindi means Indian or related to India. read more from http://www.qmuannt.blogspot.com/2019/09/how-hindi-has-come.html - PK-IN User (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@PK-IN User: Welcome to the Teahouse. This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Teahouse is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. If you have any other questions about editing Wikipedia, please return. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@PK-IN User: just to be a little more specific you can ask your question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. MarnetteD|Talk 18:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
You can also read the article Hindustani language, which discusses the question in some detail, PK_IN User. --ColinFine (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Re-pinging, because I got the name wrong: PK-IN User. --ColinFine (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
This is not a question. PK-IN User is almost certainly not here in good faith. This is an exercise in spamming/POV-pushing, and I expect them to be blocked soon. No need to waste time here. I expect the SPI to handle it well enough, so no need for new reports either. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 19:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to create a redirect page

Hi!, Police have idenified the Odessa, Texas shooter, how can I create the redirect page for [name of the perpetrator] to the article?, as done in every other incident like this. PS: I didn't see constructive naming the shooter here so that's why the brackets. Thank you. --CoryGlee (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: Please take a look at Help:Redirect. Thanks. William2001(talk) 21:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Also see WP:SUSPECT. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I would note that in this case the suspect was killed by police. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

City of Anderson SC

Hello, I am an employee of the City of Anderson with full authorization to update this page. I did edits yesterday to include additions of information on parks, honors, shopping, etc. Someone whom I cannot identify or verify has rejected the changes. How do I proceed to get the additions made to the page and provide the public with proper information? thank you, Beth Batson City of Anderson SC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beth Batson (talk • contribs) 16:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to read the advice on your user talk page regarding verifiability and about citing sources. You also need to read about conflict of interest, and about the mandatory requirement to declare paid editing. After you have made the requisite declaration of paid editing, you can use the article's talk page to propose changes, providing that you can support them with references to published independent reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Also please note, Beth Batson that your authorizaton is of complete irrelevance to Wikipedia. This is the encyclopaedia which anyone can edit. So almost every person in the world is 'authorized' to edit that article (and most other articles) except people in your position, with a conflict of interest, who are strongly discouraged from editing it directly. --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me. I am just trying to do the right thing. I'm sorry if I offended your sensibilities regarding this. The page has incomplete information and I simply want to get it right. I'll keep trying and I appreciate your patience. Beth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beth Batson (talk • contribs) 17:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Beth Batson In looking at your edits, what you want to do is more appropriate for social media or a website owned and operated by your City. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about an article subject, and Wikipedia has no interest in what the subject wants to say about itself. As noted, if you have independent reliable sources with significant coverage that support the changes you feel are needed, you should make a formal edit request on the article talk page. You will also need to formally comply with the paid editing policy as soon as possible; this is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beth Batson (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

​I've left some (hopefully) helpful links on your talkpage. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Courtesy: article is Anderson, South Carolina. Not about 'offending sensibilities.' There are strict guidelines about undeclared paid editing. After declaring the paid relationship on your User page, standard practice is to start a new section at the Talk page of the article, and therein propose changes - with appropriate references. Other editors will review and decide to incorporate into the article or not. David notMD (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer but found it surprising that a major 1938 supreme court decision was not on wikipedia.

Draft:Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company

So, thinking I'm doing wikipedia a favor, I found the only two articles directly relating to subject from leagle.com and Cornell university, which were both identical duplicates of the supreme court decision. I cut and paste the decision in and then took a bathroom break. And came back to find the piece denied -

I was not wanting to get dragged into a week long process, but believing the piece is worth publishing have now spent quite a few hours trying to make it acceptable. The last attempt had the last comment who believes that its not acceptable to copy and paste a supreme court decision into an article. I'd already reduced the court's opinion by over half, and definitely don't have the time or legal qualifications to summarize such a complex decision!

I could certainly just delete all of it and send the reader to the external link. But what's wrong with posting a supreme court decision on wikipedia?

The last section of notes where the actual law being decided upon was included as reference material for the decision above it is also part of the cut and past. So both segments were and still are in the proposed draft and how it currently stands.

I would like to keep it in. But it is being blocked. I have no idea how wikipedia makes decisions but in this case it appears that one person has blocked the piece because the decision is too long - maybe 2 pages at best...

Since this particular court decision and the Public Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935 that its is about has been fought over and even repealed after decades of legal fighting - the idea that such an important piece of history may be lost from wikipedia simply because the decision was cut and paste???

I'm at a loss. Energynet (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Energynet, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the text is in the public domain (I have no idea whether it is) then you could upload it to Wikisource. But Wikipedia relies almost entirely on secondary sources. If nobody has written about the case (and been published in reliable places) then it fails notability, and no article will be accepted. If at least a couple of writers (unconnected with the case, I guess) have written papers, articles, or sections of books about it, then there can be an article on it, based almost entirely what these commentators have said about it. --ColinFine (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For clarity, no, official works of US government employees are automatically in the public domain. However, Colin above is correct. An encyclopedia looks to give a broad overview of a subject based on reliable sources. Wikipedia generally doesn't host the full text of those sources. For that, we have WikiSource, which does exist to house a free repository of such documents. GMGtalk 19:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company exists, and has been submitted for a third time. A problem in looking at it is a lengthy discussion about the merits of the article is located between the Submission template and the article (rather than on the Talk page of the draft). David notMD (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The entire decision is at wikisource and was one of my original citations... https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electric_Bond_Share_Company_v._Securities_and_Exchange_Commission/Opinion_of_the_Court

So my problem here is that because the decision itself is large and complex, I feel that I shouldn't be the person to summarize it in any detail. So should I just say - see wikisource for the full details -

and

that the court upheld the constitutionality of the Act which gave the SEC the power to regulate the industry which included the power to reorganize and breakup electric holding companies that did not conform to the law.

As I really need to move on. Personally the piece needs a legal scholar and researcher since there were so many followup attacks on the Act and how the SEC carried out its duties. Going back and looking at the SEC's annual reports on all the litigation around the Act are pages long of court cases - as mentioned at one point there were 58 different legal challenges against the act that were dropped after this decision but then took on other strategies. The last reference I just posted at the end of the background comes from a 1973 book that I just got in the mail this week that detailed the political battle to pass the law in multiple chapters by Funigiello but then devotes not a single page to the legal case!

being dragged into ever more time trying to defend this after going through pages of google books only found one other even remotely detailed summary of the law/ACT.

https://books.google.com/books?id=C5W8uxwMqdUC&pg=PA25&dq=Securities+and+Exchange+Commission+v.+Electric+Bond+and+Share+company&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNlK-_sqvkAhXzoFsKHUcVD404ChDoATAJegQICRAC#v=onepage&q=Securities%20and%20Exchange%20Commission%20v.%20Electric%20Bond%20and%20Share%20company&f=false

but it is not a summary of the legal case. In this situation, there is a rather major difference between a legal analysis of the summary vs. an electric historian's summary which is what the above is. And when we are talking about something on par with what might be the first real attempt to regulate Google or Facebook - the legal case history and the battle to regulate a giant industry for the first time should have current interest.Energynet (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Energynet: You are to be applauded for your tenacity in wanting to make an encyclopaedia page about this judgement. Bear in mind that I'm in the UK and know nothing of your legal system, but what you're unfortunately coming to appreciate is that the skills of collating and precis are an essential and often under-appreciated prequisite to creating a really great and informative Wilipedia page that anyone can understand. Providing you are prepared to stick at it, and to put the time in, I can assure you that the sense of achievement you'll get will be worth it.
But, the biggest problem as far as I can tell has nothing to do with copyright. It's all to do with the article's content and structure. It is simply far, far, far too long, and isn't succinct enough to yet have the characteristics of a Wikipedia article. That's the issue you now need to address to turn it from a draft full of a complex wall of text, albeit with potential, into a proper article. Honestly, we don't need walls of text copied from Supreme Court judgements. That can be provided with one simple hyperlink in a reference. What your draft article needs to do, and in just a few simply-worded paragraphs, is to summarise what the court case was about, its significance, and to base any interpretation of that significance, not on your own opinions, but on what contemporary or subsequent sources have said about it. Thus, I would be happy to have a short lead summarising the entire article, a background section, a summary of the judgement and an implications section plus maybe a See Also section if there are other Supreme Court decisions that are subsequent to it which are relevant, and I think that should be it. Better to start with a short article which meets our Verifiability and Notability criteria than a much longer one which is incomprehensible. I wonder if this helps you in anyway? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@Energynet:Nick MoyesGuidance is accurate and very good (speaking from personal experience). I would place close attention to him. There is the issue of copyright, and having read the comments and templates on the articles talk page. Ihave to say that they appear to be in error as regards copyvio, as anything paid for by the U.S. Taxpayer, that means the U.S. Government, and that includes the Supreme Court and Congressional Records is copy right free. The only caveat is that quotations have to be clearly marked and mentioned as such with quotation marks, "<blockquotes> and be short, succint and relevant. Lengthy quotes won't do, that requires paraphrasing which in the case of legal decisions can be diceyOldperson (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Niki I like the slip wilipedia! :) I'm not quite sure how to use the ping thing so will just hope people come back and respond again. You answered one question - okay just leave the decision at wikisource.

But the other problem is a hard one. I have not found any current review of this case anywhere! By this, I mean, there is the difference between a history major - me or any other history person writing a summary - vs. a lawyer writing a review.

I have only found one or two pieces that summarize the law, and nothing - not a single legal summary of the legal case or their expertise about the case - just historic reviews not legal reviews... nada...

Because I can't find one, and I've already been down many pages on google books and there is nothing anywhere I can find about somebody that has written about this legal case that is online, I'm at wits end.

I have posted a reference to 20 page battle leading up to the laws passage, but all I have found once it was passed, were references to the case from the agency - SEC - that took on the case.

My problem here is that I'm not a legal scholar and don't know where there might be such a review

I'm already daunted by the scale of this case, and almost feel like the reason that its not already posted is for the same reason that I'm now trapped. After a week looking at this the only other dramatic discovery was that this very case may have been where President Roosevelt made threats to the Supreme Court. But once again, no legal analysis vs. historic summarization.

let me take my nightmare one step further. The 1935 legal dispute - this SCOTUS case - was based on one of the largest legal investigations of that era -- done by the FTC between 1928-1935. I even have an extended review of what the act does by the judge who was the FTC's general counsel that was then appointed to the SEC to carry out the newly enacted law. His summary of what the act does, is great, but it is not a legal summary for example he says:

"Under the Public Utility Holding Company Act we supervise various activities of holding companies and their subsidiaries, involving not only the issuance of securities but also various types of financial practices. Our powers here are not restricted to requirements of disclosure but more of a regulatory nature, However, one of the fundamental obJecttves of this Act too is the protection of investors...."

In other words, his (Robert Healy) entire 1941 review of the SEC and its role as set forth in the law that he helped write does not at all summarize the actual legal decision, just what that law and the others that were also part of the agencies formation does... Energynet (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Holy crap! I experienced two major crisis' this afternoon - our office phone went down and had to spend 3 hours on the phone trying to get it back with AT&T - which failed. The other is I'm also a care giver and the older guy I take care of is having a fairly serious medical emergency that required getting a prescription from the doc and getting it picked up.

When I got back and still not dinner yet - sent the above reply - went back and noticed that the draft is now set for "speedy deletion! Thanks to response that even though this does not appear to be a copyright infringement as its a federal court ruling - I still pulled it and linked the judgement to wikisource.

But I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO REMOVE THE SPEEDY DELETION WARNING AS IF THIS MIGHT BE SOME KIND OF AUTOMATED ACTION!

As per my other concern, as a desperate last act, since there appear to be no online legal summaries of the case other than a non-legal summary by one of the authors of the Act, I posted that reference into the piece.

It would be nice if folks here mentioned the fact that this system or someone might actually try and delete an entire weeks worth of work while still trying to figure out how to get it right! Energynet (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Energynet I nominated your draft for speedy deletion because it was an unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.leagle.com/decision/1938722303us419167 and Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Theroadislong (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
At [2]: Our materials are fully copyrighted by Leagle, Inc.. I.e., I think the text of the decision, as published directly by the Supreme Court (or GPO, etc.), is PD, but companies like Leagle can hold copyright over the assembly, combination with other material and analysis, presentation, etc., IIRC. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, understood - am not a copyright lawyer - probably should have never tried to post the court decision - kind of got suckered into thinking that I could get the piece to work - but this all came down so very fast and then just ate my life timewise - legal court cases aside, even if its brought back to life - this isn't fun when the real world and other issues are breathing down your neck feels like I've gotten into a hornet's nest as the actions were so fast. The bottom line for this came way up in this teahouse piece about how to put a link to it and leave the original decision on wikisource. Which was what I did - not well as I was still in shock and busy elsewhere - I don't function well under stress, and boy was I being hit from 4 different directions at the same time - 3 of which are still happening in the real world. Maybe I needed a surrogate or a wiki-lawyer or something Energynet (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to How to retrieve my deleted draft by editor for future reference and improvement

Hi,

Please can somehow advise how do I go about in requesting for a copy of it to be e-mailed to me? It would really help to have a copy of it for reference purpose and improve from thereon since I do not have a backup of it.

Thank you.

Regards, Carsson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsson Tan (talk • contribs) 04:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Carsson Tan. If you were working on a draft which ended up being deleted, there should still be a WP:REDLINK for the draft floating around somewhere on your user talk page. If you click on that link, you should see the reason why the draft was deleted and who the deleting administrator was. You can then ask the deleting administrator on their user talk page to send you a copy of the draft's content via email. Most administrators seem to have no problem doing this unless the draft was deleted for a serious policy violation, such as a copyright violation, etc., or there's really no hope in the content ever being acceptable for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

User Page

What should I put on my User Page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Max263 Also I use the Visual Editor:) Max263 (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Max263 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can read WP:USERPAGE for information about acceptable userpage content, but in short, they are a place to introduce yourself to the Wikipedia community in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use. It's not required to have anything on your userpage if you wish; many long time users have never had a user page. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Your list of "Things I like" does not do much to explain what your intentions are as a Wikipedia editor. David notMD (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps they are articles the user would like to edit or read, a common use for user pages (including mine). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

What is a barnstar? What does it mean? Specifically, "Barnstar of Awesome"? IndusFishIndusFish (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi IndusFish. You can find out more in WP:BARNSTAR, but basically a barnstar is sort of an "unofficial award" that an editor gives to another just to let them know that their edits are appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Many Many thanks. Testing to see how this WP thing works. WP:teahouse, wp:help, wp:new, wp:wikicup WP:anything. wp:badge. IndusFish (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@IndusFish: - if you're interested, the 'WP' in those links refers to a page on the 'Wikipedia' space, which is for wikipedia policies, discussion areas, noticeboards, and so on. A page without the WP is a real article page. So, for example, teahouse links to an article about teahouses, and wp:teahouse links here. As you discovered from your test above, those links will render in one of three ways: blue if it is a link to a page that exists, red if it is a link to a page that doesn't exist, and black/bold if it is the page you are already on. Hope that helps. Hugsyrup 08:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for you help. I am trying to figure things out a little by little. I am learning by reading articles, seeking guidance from experiences users like you, seeing what these users are doing and how, and finally attempting to follow in their footsteps. For example, I also just learned the use the {{ping|}}. @Hugsyrup:, thank you again for your help. IndusFish (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Biographic Articles - citation structure

Good Day,

Barbra Gayle is a user space created to allow Sand Box creation of Biographical Articles. These for later publishing. We charge for our services. We think we understand the inherent conflict of interest issues contained within creating Bio.s and especially those for profit. I, Tim Wilson, am the current single editor in this user space and I'm new to Wikipedia. Two questions?

How do I include direct interview information from the prospective biographee?

How am I able to use media files, eg. photos owned/taken by the biographee?

Thanks in advance.Barbra Gayle (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Barbra Gayle Before you do anything else, you must review and comply with the paid editing policy. This is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement and not negotiable. Also, your username is "Barbra Gayle" but you state that your name is Tim Wilson and seem to suggest that this account is shared, which is not permitted. If you yourself are not Barbra Gayle, you cannot use their name as your username. You will need to visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS as soon as possible to change your username.
Interviews are only acceptable as sources of information in certain circumstances. They are a primary source; Wikipedia is mostly interested in what independent reliable sources state, not in what the subject wants to say about themselves. You can find information on uploading images at WP:UPIMAGE. Make certain you know who owns copyright of the image, typically it is the photographer, not the person in the image. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Also be certain that the person you are writing about meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability, which for biographies is written at WP:BIO. There are also more specific criteria for certain careers(musicians, politicians, etc.) 331dot (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Barbra Gayle:. Hi Tim, can I just clarify exactly what you charge for? Are you charging customers to write biographies about them on Wikipedia?
To answer your questions. 1) you can't, unless that interview is published in a reliable source. 2) to use images they own, they would need to upload the image to a website (flickr works well) with a clear and unambiguous statement that the image is available for use under a CC-BY-SA license. Alternatively they can upload the image to Wikimedia commons under that license. More instructions are available here.
However, from what you are saying, it sounds to me as if you are engaging in paid editing. In that case, it is essential that you read and abide by our paid editing policy before you make any more edits. I will also leave a warning on your userpage to that effect.
Finally, and apologies for piling on with lots of warnings, but your username may be a problem. Firstly, it sounds from what you say as if it is a company name that suggests shared use, contrary to our terms. Secondly, it is very close to the name of a real person with a Wikipedia article, which could also be a problem. I would suggest you rename your account using the instructions here. Hugsyrup 14:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1007&oldid=914099536"