Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 413

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 410

Archive 411

Archive 412

→

Looking for more specific reasons for the rejection of my article

Here is the draft about a band from Seattle called THE FAME RIOT that appears to be noteworthy. The feedback I am getting seemed to be helpful at first, but it's vague enough to confuse me. Here is the draft link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:The_Fame_Riot&action=submit Michael Sullivant (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Michael Sullivant. Please review our Notability guideline for bands, and let that guide your selection of sources.

When I read your draft, two problems come immediately to my mind. First of all, the draft article has a heavily promotional tone. It should be rewritten from the neutral point of view. Secondly, most of the references are interviews with the band, and I see at least one press release. These sources are worthless for establishing notability. For that, we need significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Far better to have five strong references that twenty weak references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Rights

What kinds o rights are there are Wikipedia? Is there a page about how to become one of those users to gain new privileges?Art234789 (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Art234789. Please read User access levels. You are already autoconfirmed, which is the first step up from a brand new account. More advanced user rights are based on an established consistent record of making constructive edits. At this time, you have only 51 edits. My suggestion is to concentrate on improving the encyclopedia for a few months. Then take another look at advanced user rights. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

How to get the lock protection for existing page?

https://ta.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=கவுண்டர் this page irritate my caste.i changed the content but one user blocked me i need to delete that page or i want to get ownership of that page?

Ranjith KonGu (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ranjith KonGu, welcome to the Teahouse. The page you linked to is on the Tamil-language Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the English-language Wikipedia community is only equipped to deal with issues on the English Wikipedia. The Tamil Wikipedia may have different rules than we do, so you may receive more help if you ask your question there. If you have been blocked from editing, that means that the administrators on the Tamil Wikipedia believed some aspect of your contributions were disruptive to the goal of making an encyclopedia. My advice would be to wait until the block expires, and in the meantime, attempt to understand why you were blocked, so that way it never happens again.

To answer your question in the context of the English Wikipedia, this is a collaborative project, meaning users must work with each other to build articles. To support this principle, English Wikipedia has a policy against ownership of articles. No editor "owns" an article on Wikipedia, and content you submit may be edited, used, and redistributed by anyone (see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content). If you believe there is a good reason that a page should be deleted or changed, the most effective thing to do is almost always to discuss it with your fellow Wikipedians. If you need further help with editing on the English Wikipedia, feel free to leave a follow-up here at the Teahouse. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Ranjith KonGu (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to correct false birth information about me on my wiki page. Please help!

Someone posted an incorrect birthdate on my wikipedia page and I would like it removed immediately. Please advise. Tfrancis 1 (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

press esit go to it and remove it yourself its fine if someone really did Kaiwen0115 (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tfrancis 1. Can I ask what the name of the article in question is? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Jon Mack, Cordless Larry. Another editor has removed the birthdate for being unsourced.

Tfrancis 1, feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 22:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The article was Jon Mack. Since there was no reliable independent source for the date of birth, I've removed it. Please do not add it back again unless you can find it published elsewhere in a reliable independent document. In particular, the year 1977 should not be added. Dbfirs 22:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tfrancis: you may also find the information at Wikipedia:Autobiography#Problems_in_an_article_about_you helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

creating page about clup society

Please help me to create page about our community. Before i created but was deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulwant Ladhar (talk • contribs) 12:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kulwant Ladhar and welcome to the Teahouse.

Christian Yuva Morcha was deleted because the article did not show the subject's notability. You can draft an article at Draft:Christian Yuva Morcha, or at User:Kulwant Ladhar/Christian Yuva Morcha and change the title using the "Move" option when it is ready to be an article: you can also ask for the dleted article back so you can work on it at Wikipedia:Refund, but please do not attempt to write the article on other pages. Notability is the general influence something has had on the world. A good way to establish notability would be to have sources seen as reliable-those with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, such as many newspapers. The sources would also need to be third-party, meaning they are not directly related to the orgnaization: for example, a newspaper reporting on the organization because it is newsworthy, and not because of an affiliation they have with them.

If you are a member of this society, as your use of "our" suggests, it is recommended that you do not edit the article, as you are classed as having a conflict of interest, or a connection to the subject which may affect your editing. You are not forbidden from editing the article, however, although if you choose to you will need to include your membership or connection to the organization on the article's talk page. Please note that per One person, one account, if several people are using this account you should stop doing so and create separate accounts, although you are free to work together.

Please also note that Wikipedia articles are required to be written from a neutral point of view, meaning viewpoints must be presented without taking a side, a rule which is often broken unintentionally. This is particularly difficult if you have a conflict of interest, so it is recommended that you work with other editors to help keep the article neutral.

Feel free to ask if you have any more questions, and happy editing. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

How to delete the wikipedia page?

Someone created this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gounder it irritate my community or caste how to delete this page?

Ranjith KonGu (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ranjith KonGu. We do not delete articles because they "irritate" any group of people. We have many articles that irritate many people, because that is the very nature of an encyclopedia that strives to present all of human knowledge, and which now has over 5,000,000 articles.

So, you need a much better reason to try to delete the article. If you truly believe that the topic is not notable, or that is so filled with falsehoods that it is not worth saving, then take it to Articles for Deletion. Be prepared to base your argument on policies and guiidelines, not on your own personal preference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

it would probably be best to be WP:MERGEd into the main article about the group to which it is applied, otherwise it seems just to be a WP:DICDEF. Or if it is applied to disparate groups, conversion to a WP:DAB page. pinging @Sitush: who has a lot of insight into these topics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Cite Error

In the article "Lotti Golden" I noticed a Cite Error was listed on reference #42, " Cite error: The named reference Toop was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." I looked at the help page but I am still not sure how to remedy the Cite Error. Can someone be so kind as to assist me with this? Thank you! Magdalamar (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Magdalamar, welcome to the Teahouse. You almost had it in [1]. Before that there was another error message about two different definitions of "Toop-2000". A correct solution would be to change one of the definitions to say <ref name=Toop-2000/> in order to invoke the other definiton. I have done this.[2] If you want to rename one of the definitions to only be called "Toop" then you must keep the definiton text. You cannot say <ref name=Toop/> when "Toop" is never defined. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Magdalamar. Based on my experience, this is the most likely cause of the error message, though there are other possibilities: At some time in the past, someone created a named reference, with a "ref name=Toop" parameter. The reference naming in the master citation allows the same reference to be easily reused in other parts of the article. But if a subsequent edit deletes the main citation, then any secondary usages will be orphaned, as it were. Use the article history to check previous versions of the article, until you find a version with the named reference intact. Check subsequent versions until you find the one that deleted the reference. Unless there was a good reason to delete that reference, for example that it was unreliable, you can copy the reference from that earlier version and paste it back into the article in the proper place, thereby eliminating the error message. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, Thank you so much for responding. It's confusing as to why the error was posted in the first place. Due to the tedium involved in locating the source of the Cite Error, your suggestion to review the history until I find a version with the named reference intact is much appreciated. I will keep you posted! Magdalamar (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, I looked at the the most recent version of the article "Lotti Golden" and the Cite Error message seems to have been magically removed. I use the term "magically" because I don't know how this happened. There is another article I've contributed to, "Warp 9" that used the same Cite Error message for the same reference. I went back to the earliest page, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warp_9&oldid=506844626, and the Cite Error message appears even though the reference is used only once, so multiple times is not even a reason for the Cite Error to be posted. Checking on a more recent version of the "Warp 9" article, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warp_9&oldid=555137720, the Cite Error is repeated several times on the same reference, see: Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Toop-2000" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Toop-2000" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Toop-2000" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Toop-2000" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Could this be some sort of vandalism? Thank you so much Cullen. I'm concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magdalamar (talk • contribs) 15:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: Please remember to place <ref> tags in <nowiki></nowiki> tags to avoid parser errors, e.g., <nowiki><ref></nowiki>. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 15:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Magdalamar. Citations can take a while to get familiar with, but it looks like you're getting the hang of them. The reason the error "magically" went away from Lotti Golden was because PrimeHunter edited it. If you look at the History of that article and use the option to compare the revisions before and after PrimeHunter's change, you can see how this "magic" was achieved. Then the same technique (i.e. changing the name on each distinct reference) on other articles. Looking at Warp 9, I see that you have managed to get rid of the errors already - well done. I took the opportunity to clean up your other references a bit, especially Fitxpatrick.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Magdalamar, I have another suggestion, if I may be so bold. When you edit a page, it is very helpful to provide a brief description of what you changed in the "Edit summary" (near the bottom of the edit screen). This way, when you look at the History it is much easier to navigate around who did what. --Gronk Oz (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Magdalamar, I have taken the liberty of moving your recent comments and the responses to them to the section of this page in which you posted your original question. It is best practice to reply to comments in the existing section, rather than starting a new one, in order to keep the discussion together. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Although I am a newbie on Wikipedia, I can clearly find User:Delta13C is overtagging a page Nigma Talib knowingly, even there are no such issues, Can someone check his contributions. He seems to be linked with Michael Uzick, check his contribution at Draft:Michael Uzick and attacking the page with a biasness.(refer to the talk page) Please help me to understand if I need to know under Wikipedia editing policies. Perogrimadi (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Perogrimadi your concerns are valid; I skimmed the article and the tags are not applicable to what's there. They can probably be removed and the editor who added them questioned on their motives. If it gets worse, an admin may need to have a word with them. Add: I went ahead and removed those tags. I may send this user a message later explaining that tagging is not indiscriminate and shouldn't be used except for real issues. Their edits on Michael Uzick page are almost to the point of libel. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 20:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I also reviewed the article and found the tags to be no longer necessary in the article's current state. I fixed some reference issues, too. (@White Arabian mare: Friendly reminder to be very careful how you use the word "libel" on Wikipedia, because anything that can be construed as a legal threat can get you blocked.) I'm glad we were able to help you, Perogrimadi; feel free to return to the Teahouse with any future questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 20:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the clarification, can you suggest (GrammarFascist or White Arabian mare), how can I find other articles which I can improve? Perogrimadi (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Perogrimadi. You could try Wikipedia:Article development, Wikipedia:Pages needing attention or Wikipedia:Cleanup, which are all good ways to find articles that need help, or you could just use the "Random article" link in the sidebar on the left-hand side of every Wikipedia page. Wikipedia:AFD is also a good place to find articles in need of improvement (and sometimes articles under attack from editors with POV agendas). —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 21:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, GrammarFascist. I tend to stay away from BLPs--biographies of living animals are much safer! White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Perogrimadi, another place you can find ideas to work on is to join a WikiProject on a topic that interests you. Most of these projects maintain work lists in their field.--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not think this is the right place to post this, but can you direct me to the right place?

I do not know if this topic warrants a page or not. It is my understanding that mathematical formulas cannot be the subject of copyright or proprietary information. I really do not know if this is true or not, but I know that Weight Watcher's could not keep the mathematical formula they use to determine how many points a particular food has a secret and the formula was here on Wikipedia. Anyway, Airbnb.com has this sliding scale for their commission that they charge guests. It is between 6% and 12% of whatever the host charges the guests. The guests often ask me how much the commission will be but I cannot answer this question because Airbnb.com will not tell me the formula. Is this legal? I asked if this was proprietary information and they said yes. Basically, how it works is, if the guest is paying a small amount the commission is higher, and if they are paying a lot it is lower, but they will not reveal the points at which it goes up or down. This stupid company prides itself on honesty and transparency, but that is only for the users, not for them. Is this a topic that would warrant a page or investigation. Would it even be possible to find out? (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2015

I posted this somewhere else on Wikipedia and a notice came up that said this topic warranted something(????) and other people had discussed it, but when I looked at the other stuff around it, it looked out of place. I am new to this and I am really not even sure if this is really an issue that has any merit. I just have a gut feeling it might or maybe Airbnb just annoys me and I have no point, but this place is like a maze to me, and I do not know where to post my potential input. Can you point me in the right direction? I know this is the wrong place, but I do not understand the terms here. Yes, I understand editing, but um... the other stuff mostly not. Annforbes86 (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Annforbes86. Wikipedia doesn't publish "investigations", because it has a policy of no original research. It might, however, be appropriate to cover this issue in the Airbnb article, but any such coverage would have to be based on reliable, published sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I was just thinking about it and I was thinking it may not be the same thing as the mathematical formula as the Weight Watcher's thing because they are just keeping the point at which the percentage they charge a secret, they are not keeping the percentages a secret. Still really against what they preach... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annforbes86 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, I would be particularly careful to avoid making any accusations on illegal or improper conduct. If somebody else says that in a reliable source, or if there is a court decision, then that could be quoted, but Wikipedia editors' personal opinions are not relevant.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Annforbes86, many businesses do keep standards that they use for pricing decisions confidential. AS far as I know, there is nothing illegal about doing so, but I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. As others have said above, such a formula might be included in the relevant article, but only if it can be sourced to a reliable published source. I don't know of such a source myself. DES ^(talk) 23:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Lleyson Hopkin Davy

Hello, I have just created my first Draft article for "Lleyson Hopkin Davy"

Would any experienced Wikipedians be interested in please taking a look and helping me get the article up to speed? I have no experience in formally adding the citations etc.

Thanks in advance

note. Williams reference is a published book with many citations. London. Womens printing society. 66 Whitcomb st. Davy ref. on page 154 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymi (talk • contribs) 20:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

davymi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymi (talk • contribs) 10:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Davymi. Draft:Lleyson Hopkin Davy is a good start, and you've included some references, which new people often don't. But it needs some work in how you're presenting the references: as well as using footnotes to tag individual sentences and paragraphs with the particular source (which you have done), you need to give full bibliographic information to let the reader locate the references, and to give page numbers (or at least chapters and sections) so that the reader can find specifically where in the source the statement is supported.

The good news, is that Wikipedia can do some of this for you. There is a tool called ProveIt, (which I believe is automatically enabled when you are editing) which will help you cite the reference properly, and create and number the footnote for you automatically. Please see referencing for beginners. (Full disclosure: I don't use ProveIt, because I was already familiar with how Wikipedia does references before it was invented. So it's possible to do it manually as well).

There are also some guidelines about how to lay out an article, most obviously that you use paired equals signs for headers, so eg

==Early life==

on a line by itself (without the leading space I've put in), and with two = before and after, will display a level-two header. Please see Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Davymi: You can find information about formatting footnotes at WP:REFB. I would also note that family histories are not considered reliably published sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and editorial oversight and would not be usable to demonstrate that the subject of the article meets the requirements for a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD: I took "Williams C (1873) A Welsh family history from the beginning of the 18th century" to be a reference to a regularly published book, rather than an (unpublished or privately published) family history. Davymi: this shows the importance of giving proper bibliographic information with your references! --ColinFine (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it might actually have been published - see this. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank your for the comment, I have made some edits to the article and will hope to continually improve the information. As mentioned above, C Williams "A Welsh family history" is a published book with many citations, I have updated the reference. If this is insufficient I can add further references. Thanks for the help, I would be appreciative of further constructive edits/advice to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymi (talk • contribs) 00:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not put the words "New page under construction" in a draft page. I have removed them. The fact that it is a new page under construction is implied by it being in draft space and not yet submitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Abusive Behavior

how can Abusive Behavior like [3] be dealt with --Aryan^fromहि है (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Aryan, welcome back to the Teahouse. Is this about something other than their mistakenly tagging Gomti Chakra for speedy deletion? —teb728 t c 11:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The reviewing admin declined the speedy, and I left the other user a message on their talk page thanking them for trying to help but explaining that neither of the speedy categories they used was appropriate to the article. —teb728 t c 11:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The abusive behavior in question was some sort of insult or threat by an editor since banned for making similar comments elsewhere on Wikipedia. I can't tell exactly what, because I don't understand whatever language it's in (possibly Urdu). In general that kind of behavior is best dealt with by recourse to AN/I, where you will also find instructions for what to do in the case of imminent threats. But note that AN/I is not for reporting behavior that is merely annoying; for that, you'll want to read the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy, and start by talking to the annoying person and asking them nicely to be less annoying (though you shouldn't say it that way). —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 15:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @GrammarFascist: ,@TEB728: its not about that .--Aryan^fromहि है (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

help with references for beginner

Hi I am trying to draft and create a page for my daughter who is Hattie Gotobed - an up and coming actress. I have drafted and submitted but came back saying needs referencing. I have looked at the videos and read through but am still a little lost and would appreciate some help - ideally if someone can show me how to do the first one - what I need to do/ add etc... I could then hopefully do the rest.

Thanks very much in advance Tracy Romeha3 (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Tracy, and welcome to the Teahouse. The question you need to address before anything else is whether she is "notable" enough (in Wikipedia's sense of the word) to warrant having her own article at this stage of her career. Most "up and coming" actors do not yet have enough of a public profile to have an article. The over-riding consideration for notability is that the subject significant coverage in a good number of reliable sources that are independent of the topic. So your first job is to assemble a collection of all the newspaper articles and magazine features and details of television coverage etc that are specifically about her (i.e. not just listing that she was in a performance, but talking about her in detail). If you can't find that, then it is probably too early in her career. If you can, and you just need assistance with how to lay them out in an article, I suggest reading "Referencing for beginners.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tracy. In addition to the advice given to you by Gronk OZ, I also suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, in particular the subsections titled "Writing about yourself, family, friends" and "Law of unintended consequences". Editors who have a conflict of interest regarding a particular topic sometimes find it hard to maintain a neutral point of view; They are not prohibited from editing, but they are often encourage to refrain from doing so (except under certain conditions) because it can be a little tricky to do. Many articles created by COI editors often end up being deleted not too long after they are added to Wikipedia because they tend to be overly promotional and have other problems that are too hard to fix. It's OK for you to continue working on and improving your draft, but at least at first glance none of the sources you've cited so far are considered sufficient for establishing her Wikipedia notability. Her personal website and her agency's website are considered to be primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability, while IMDb and wiki pages are considered to be user-generated content and thus typically not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, this may simply be a case of WP:TOOSOON#Actors and actresses for an article to be written about your daughter. If, however, you believe your daughter is truly notable enough for a Wikipedia article (i.e., has received the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources referred to in the General notability guideline or in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers) and you can find those sources, than add them to your draft. Another option you might want to consider is requesting that an article be written about her at Wikipedia:Requested articles. One of the editors who works off that page may decide that there are sufficient sources for an article to be written, and go ahead and write one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, shooting down the draft on grounds of bad references is correct as far as it goes, but inadequate. It points to deeper problems less likely to be fixed. Besides the problems already mentioned, there is Wikipedia:Up and coming next big thing, which can be roughly summarized as, we don't cover the up and coming. We wait until they have arrived. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tracy a good article to read for new beginners is Your first article. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for a digital copy of a 2015 ACM paper

Would it be possible to get a digital copy of this 2015 Acm.org paper?: "Intuitive and efficient camera control with the toric space" by Christophe Lino and Marc Christie. Little bit hard to say anything useful with only the abstract at hand. It would be helpful in developing the article on virtual cinematography based on what the abstract says about it. The dl.acm.org site says it would cost me $15 but I'm not made of money. --Redress perhaps (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome Redress perhaps. I urge you to try Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request which was specifically set up for issues like yours.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Put request on resource exchange. Thanks User:Sphilbrick. --Redress perhaps (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

semi-protection

New editor here. I've been making minor edits when I can. Today, I was reading the page on Korea and have noticed multiple problems and after viewing the edit history can see it is a pretty contentious page. Many other country pages have at least semi-protection to prevent this. What is the process for getting this for a page like Korea? I think it could really benefit from it. Rgallagher8 (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Rgallagher8 - You would start by placing a request on this page, a sysop will review it and it the page warrants protection, it will have it. Bear in mind there are multiple ways in which a page can be protected, like pending changes for example. KoshVorlon 17:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Why would another contributor Undo every single edit that I made?

Since I am now semi-retired, I have more time to do edits of topics of great interest to me. By and large, this is going well. Occasionally another contributor revises something that I had added; no problem.

But now I have a more significant situation. Over the weekend, I did a major edit of Rideau Hall adding quite a bit of new information, every bit with at least one citation. The individual who seems to have written most of the Rideau Hall item simply did an Undo of everything I had edited (03:40, 9 November 2015). My Talk page discusses this in detail. User talk:Peter K Burian#Rideau Hall is not the monarch's residence

I don't know if Teahouse is the correct place to raise this question, but perhaps you could lead me to the area where I could ask someone to mediate this issue. Thanks, Peter K Burian 13:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Peter. Good citations are the keys to the Wikipedia kingdom. A good citation provides basic attribution information about the source being cited, making verifiability accessible. For example, when citing a book, common things to include are the URL to the page you're citing, if it's online, the name of the author, the work's title, its year of publication, the page number(s), the publisher, its location, and the ISBN number. For a newspaper article, the newspaper name, title, author, date, page number etc. for a journal/magazine, the URL, the issue no., volume no., page nos., month and year of publication, author(s) name(s), title of article, title of the journal, ISSN number or doi and so forth.

We have templates that make this easier, such as {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}} and {{cite web}}. We also have some resources like Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books to easily get the citation to place. Naked external links, as all your citations were, is far from ideal. Also, if you click "cite" in the toolbar above the editing window you will be provided a guided form for entry of a citation. See generally Help:Referencing for beginners.

I can't read User:Miesianiacal's mind, and the edit summary accompanying his or her revert was opaque where it should not have been, but I believe this was at least a major factor in the revert. Fixing the citations would require quite a bit of work on another user's part. If that was the sole basis, it may be that leaving the edit, but asking you to fix the citations would have been a better route, only reverting if you did not after some sufficient time had passed. Anyway, all your edits are in the page history. You can click on the date of the version in the page history before the revert, click edit, fix your citations and save. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC) P.s. If you need any help with understanding how to format the citations, I am happy to provide some concrete examples for you from your draft to get you started. Just drop me a line on my talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is this being asked here, behind my back (so to speak)? (I wouldn't have known about it had Fuhghettaboutit not pinged me.) Peter K's "major edit" (which it was indeed) was rife with problems; too many to cover in one edit summary. He can ask for my reasoning at my own talk page or at the article talk page, which is standard practice, per WP:BRD. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, please remember that the Teahouse is the friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia, and that Peter K Burian is a relatively new editor who should not yet be expected to know all the intricacies of Wikipedia social norms. Please also remember to assume good faith. Now that you're here, you can discuss your reasoning civilly. Or are you refusing to use the Teahouse venue for some reason? —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 18:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Miesianiacal asks why this question was asked here: Miesianiacal, that's one of the main reasons this page exists – for perplexed new users to ask why their (usually!) good-faith efforts to edit have been unsuccessful. So, yes, Peter K Burian, this was a good place to bring your question! At this point you could either continue discussion of it here, or take it to the talk page of the article as Miesianiacal suggests.

It's particularly difficult to conform with the referencing system in that article because it's a sort of muddled hybrid between two very different systems. My personal suggestion would be to use the {{Rp}} template to deal with all the page numbers so as to simplify things, but that (like any other solution there) would need (a) consensus and (b) a good deal of editing experience and/or technical knowledge (I'm willing to offer what help I can if there's a consensus that change is needed).

The really important thing, though, is to not let yourself be deterred by one setback. If you don't feel like engaging in extended discussions of that particular page, you could just move on to another that interests you. As you gain experience you will find it easier to judge which edits are likely to succeed and which are not. Good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Are the Wikia pages hosted by Wikipedia?

This just came to my mind a few days ago. There are wikia pages dedicated to certain topics and are formatted similar to Wikipedia. For example, memory alpha is dedicated to the canon Star Trek.

Are these wikia pages by Wikipedia? Winterysteppe (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Winterysteppe. Wikia is a commercial website that has no direct connection with Wikipedia or the non-profit parent Wikimedia Foundation. However, there are indirect connections. Wikia is a private business venture of Jimmy Wales, one of the co-founders of Wikipedia, and it uses the same type of software. Because Wikipedia content is freely licensed, it can be re-used elsewhere, but the licence terms require attribution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Mike "Greeny" Green

I declined this draft at Articles for Creation. I noted in particular that the submitter had been advised by previous reviewer User:LaMona to trim the irrelevant material out of the "Awards" section, and asked why the draft had been resubmitted with no changes. User:Aagreeny4 has asked for my advice on my talk page, and I am bringing the question here for the input of other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, initial reaction: the article is a compact mess. I don't think I can ever recall seeing the name of the subject of an article mentioned so many times. My advice to Aagreeny4 is to start with looking at other articles about similar persons and see how they are written. Right now the article is so dense, it is hard to see what is ok and what is not. But looking at just the references, as far as I can see, Mike "Greeny" Green is just not notable enough for an article here. The references are all to college websites except for the hearings and such does not automatically make you notable, one of the links to newspaper articles that are provided does not mention him at all and the other is just the results of a marathon. Hope this can help you explain things. w.carter-Talk 21:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I will observe that when an AFC article is declined, there is a Resubmit button, with a notation: "Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be rejected again." In this case, the issues were not fixed. If I see that a draft has been resubmitted without the issues being addressed, I wonder whether an editor is trying to game the system by hoping to get a different reviewer who has different standards. I will comment that trying to "slip one by" in that way isn't useful, because if one gets a reviewer who is quick with the Accept button, one's article is, for the time, in article space, but a New Page Patroller who thinks that the article doesn't belong in article space can always nominate it for Articles for Deletion, which can be more of a defeat than a decline. If you don't even try to address the comments of the reviewers, don't bother to resubmit the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I still have sources from academic journals that state his notability. And why is something for congress not necessarily notable?

And I have been told that I can use some of th sources from colleges as long as I have established notability in other source such as the journals, newspapers, and congress. Is that not allowed?

I will also state that I was not trying to slip on by anybody or trying to game the system. The last reviewer was very confusing and contradicted what others have said and wouldn't remember other statements they have said. I was just trying to get some clarity. I'm not the kind of person to play the system. Aagreeny4 (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Aagreeny4: You don't become notable simply for appearing in a hearing in congress. And yes, as you said you can use info from college website if notability is established in some other way, but I can not see that here. Why don't you take my first advise and start cleaning up the article to make it more legible. Take a look at the articles listed on this page Category:American motivational speakers and take some notes from those on how an article should look. That would be a first step in the right direction. w.carter-Talk 22:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Aagreeny4, I was that last reviewer, and as I pointed out to you, you were given excellent advice by Bearcat (comments), although you appear to have misunderstood his distinction between primary and secondary sources, and what that means for your article. On your post on my talk page you said " I was told by username Bearcat last week the difference between primary and secondary sources, and that I can use both as long as I have enough of the notable primary sources, then I can use the secondary sources for additional information. This is completely different from what you are telling me." In fact, what Bearcat told you was the opposite -- you can use primary sources for additional information as long as you have fully established notability with secondary sources. That does not mean that you can rely on sources from college newspapers and sites, however. These are not generally considered reliable sources, neither primary nor secondary. At this point I also must note that there is a coincidence between the name of the subject of the article and the user name of the creator of the article: Mike Greeny Green and Aagreeny4. The name may merely reflect fandom, but it would be good to clarify if there is a relationship between creator and subject, before we go any further. LaMona (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

If you didn't understand the comments of User:Bearcat or of User:LaMona, you could have asked them on their talk pages, or here. (I take all discussions of AFC declines here, because I welcome the input of other experienced editors.) I understand that you were confused about primary and secondary sources and how they are used, which is subtle. I thought that LaMona's advice to you to clean up the "Awards" section was clear. If you didn't understand that, you should have asked her or asked here. I can understand that the uses of primary and secondary sources is subtle. However, the advice to clean up the "Awards" section was clear. I can see that you say you were not trying to game the system, but you should see that it appears to me and to other reviewers that ignoring her advice was trying to game the system. By the way, the submitter states that the draft is not an autobiography and he is not the subject. If he is related to the subject, he should still read the conflict of interest policy. In the future, if drafts are resubmitted, ignoring the advice of the reviewers, they may be nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I am still working on revising the draft. This was helpful. Yeah i talked to each on their talk pages. I do admit that I said the wrong thing and switched primary and secondary, and I know the difference. But each time I talked with LaMona she wouldn't remember what she had said earlier when I asked her a question about it even if I copied an pasted, what exactly she said to remind her. Bearcat was very helpful, and explained things in a good way and I used a lot of his advice.

Thanks for all the feedback and help Aagreeny4 (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hasso Plattner

Hello, can anyone please help me in adding the missing citations from the Hasso Plattner article? I'm an SAP employee and cannot directly make these edits. Though the citations would certainly strengthen the article, and have been called for at the top of the page. I've posted the citations on the talk page, and have reached out to a few editors directly, but with no success. Any help or advice is most appreciated!! Harper70 (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Harper70

Welcome to the Teahouse, Harper70. Your first source does not look reliable to me. Your second source is just a very brief "name check" in Forbes. I am not sure that this is enough to mention the matter in an encyclopedia. Another source is to a website controlled by his company. Such websites are good sources for only completely noncontroversial information, like a company's founding date, headquarters city, or CEO name. My advice is to limit your recommendations only to the highest quality, indisputably independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Unable to edit an article in Wiki

I know the question is trivial, but after I logged in to Wiki account, I dont see the option to edit the article which is placed here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India

Please guide me how to edit this article. Thanks in advance!

Willsparkles (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The simple answer, Willsparkles, is to simply edit a bit more and wait a few days. The article in question is semiprotected to reduce vandalism. You must be "autoconfirmed" to edit it. That happens, as the name implies, automatically after 4 days and 10 edits on your part. John from Idegon (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Willsparkles. Anyone is free to edit the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. However, a small percentage of articles which have been subject to ongoing vandalism have various levels of protection, which is indicated by a lock icon in the upper right hand corner of the article. India is semi-protected, which means only autoconfirmed editors can edit it. That requires at least ten edits, and an account at least four days old. You have six edits. If you make four more productive edits, then you will have permission to edit the article about India. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Willsparkles, and welcome to the TeaHouse. The India article has been the target of a lot of vandalism, so Wikipedia Administrators have made it "semi-protected". Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Your account was created on 1 October, but you have only made four edits to articles. So you will need to make more edits to other, less controversial, pages first.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot John from Idegon, Cullen and Gronk Oz for your detailed replies.

If i may guided how to choose articles which need editing, mean to say is there any specific page in Wikipedia which has a list of articles which need editing to meet Wikipedia's standard??

Thanks again for patience and response. Willsparkles (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Willsparkles. There is always plenty that needs doing. You could try Wikipedia:Article development, Wikipedia:Pages needing attention or Wikipedia:Cleanup, which are all good ways to find articles that need help, or you could just use the "Random article" link in the sidebar on the left-hand side of every Wikipedia page. Another place you can find ideas to work on is to look at a WikiProject on a topic that interests you. Most of these projects maintain work lists in their field.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

New article - help!

Hello,

I have submitted a new article about a regeneration project in Camden and I'd appreciate some feedback on whether the content contains enough detail to be notable.

Draft:Camden Collective

Nw1cmdn (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Nw1cmdn, and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry for the delay in answering your question. (Note: I did not watch the ITV video, because I'm somewhat hard of hearing and have difficulty parsing voiceovers without captioning or a transcript. It may be an excellent, okay, or useless source as regards establighing the notability of Camden Collective.)

One of your sources, this article in the Independent, is pretty much perfect: It's a reliable source not connected with the Collective, and it discusses the Collective at length and in depth. That's the good news.

The bad news is that you need at least two more sources similar to the article I linked to. To give you the best chance of passing AfC review, the new sources should ideally be at least half as long as the Independent piece (though 2-3 substantial paragraphs might suffice). They should be in well-known newspapers or magazines (or TV programmes) with reputations for reliable reporting — that leaves out most websites that don't have a print or broadcast version. And the sources need to not be connected with the Collective, so definitely no websites of organizations that collaborate with them, and no press releases either.

I'll also warn you against adding any more sources to the draft that don't meet the conditions I laid out until after that article passes. AfC reviewers often find it frustrating to a review a draft that has two dozen sources they need to check in order to find the four that actually establish the subject's notability. Good luck finding the kinds of sources you need, and feel free to return to the Teahouse with any more questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 19:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

That is really helpful. It would seem by adding more references I may have actually hindered the process!

I have included links below from local and national press that I think satisfy the criteria and are included in the article:

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/camden_collective_labour_cut_business_rates_rachel_reeves_mp_1_3976134

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/camden_collective_c_159_retail_space_cheap_rent_creative_start_up_businesses_1_3488248

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2a843076-4a6f-11e5-b558-8a9722977189.html

http://www.allinlondon.co.uk/news/article-17568.php

Grateful for your help.

Nw1cmdn (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Nw1cmdn. Could you help me understand what kind of website hamhigh.co.uk is? The name Ham & High does not come across as very professional. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 23:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"Ham and High" is short for "Hampstead and Highgate", two of the wealthier suburbs of Northern London. It's a local newspaper. Maproom (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as Maproom says, it's a local paper owned by Archant Media.

Archant is a privately owned media company serving geographical and specialist interest communities across a wide range of media and employing around 1,600 staff.

It is the fifth largest regional newspaper publisher in the UK with titles in East Anglia, London, Kent and the South West, publishing 1.6 million copies a week in print and reaching six million readers [a month] online.

http://www.archant.co.uk/articles/about-us-who-we-are/

Nw1cmdn (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, Maproom and Nw1cmdn. Ordinarily I would say in that case that the two Ham & High articles (I can't view the Financial Times one) would, combined with the Independent article, suffice to show Camden Collective's notability. However, there are two factors which may mean the Ham & High articles are not sufficient:

Some AfC reviewers hold drafts' notability sourcing to a higher standard in hopes of preventing the draft being promoted to an article only to be almost immediately nominated for deletion on the basis of not showing notability.
Some editors apparently don't consider regional coverage to demonstrate notability; this can mean not only local papers not counting in the view of such editors, but sometimes coverage limited to a local topic even when the source itself is national-level and clearly reliable is also excluded.

There's no way to predict which editor will review the draft next. All you can do is do your best to show notability before the next review. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 14:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Anon" Users?

I'm curious - why would a user intentionally edit anonymously, i.e. while not logged in? Thanks. Kekki1978 (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

various reasons - if they're an established editor, they may not want to link it to their account. they may be up to no good! or may just want to work on an article which they don't want to leave an audit trail on linking themselves to it. Rayman60 (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

many dont realize that it is more anonymous than editing by account, however some people editing on sensitive topics in regimes that heavily track internet use edit anonymously from public access computers. some dont realize they have been logged out after the 30 day period. some dont realize that they have not logged in on a computer that is not their primary access point. some are ideologically opposed to identifiable accounts. and many more reasons.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Also of note, we judge people by the editing they do on Wikipedia, not on unrelated actions. If someone is editing Wikipedia without an account, and doing a good job of it, leave them alone. --Jayron 32 15:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)