Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 683

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 680Archive 681Archive 682Archive 683Archive 684Archive 685→Archive 690

Content not mentioning the subject

In the article about the Global Buddhist Network, I have recently added a paragraph providing political context (The closing down of DMC was not the last time ... according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.) The paragraph does, however, not mention the subject nor do the sources cited. Is it allowed to add such content to a Wikipedia Article, or is this a form of synthesis? Thanks, --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I would say that you need a source linking the closing down of DMC with the closure of other media outlets to avoid WP:SYNTH. I do not think you need a rock-solid source, and I do not think that it needs to specifically discuss DMC-vs-others, but you need some source that says there is a pattern that included DMC. If you can only find non-independent sources (e.g. a human rights organization), you may still be able to include it with attribution ("according to so-and-so [ref], the closure was problematic especially in the context of..."). TigraanClick here to contact me 11:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Tigraan. In other words, if the content doesn't mention the subject, it cannot be added lest it be a violation of WP:SYNTH, correct? I will have to communicate this with others, so do you have a quote from WP policy to back this up? Thanks again.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm curious as to which "others" you are referring to. Secondly, I believe Tigraan is stating that you need to provide a source stating that DMC was included in a mass closing, as opposed to it being a one-off issue. Once that can be provided, the political context would more easily fit into the article and provide a better frame of context. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 13:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, "mass closing" as in multiple outlets closed at once (within the same day or week), not necessarily; but it would indeed be WP:SYNTH to join events that have not been grouped/analyzed together by a reliable source. It is pretty much the textbook example that you can find at WP:SYNTH with the UN and wars. I am not sure what more link you need. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

That's more than sufficient. I will re-check the sources and rewrite or remove. Thanks, Tigraan and NsTaGaTr. The "other" is a fellow Wikipedian who helped me with working on the paragraph concerned.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding [[ ]] to headings when page does not exist

What happens if I add double square brackets around name headings when no page exists for that name?Jvankeulen (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You would end up with a WP:RedLink, such as this: PageThatDoesNotExist. If this page is ever created, the link would then turn blue, as it would lead to a valid article. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 19:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Also keep in mind that red links should only be created for subjects that merit an article of their own -- if the topic doesn't meet the notability standards of Wikipedia, please don't create a red link for it. (*guidelines are listed in the policy linked above*) - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 19:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jvankeulen Please note that at MOS:HEADINGS, the manual of style says: "Headings should normally not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked." Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Appealing an action by a senior editor

I have been accused of accepting money for writing the article on Zvi Harry Hurwitz, who has been dead for close to a decade. The accusation is ludicrous. He was a former colleague and a personal friend and I wrote the article purely for altruistic reasons. Nonetheless, a banner was placed on the top of the article insinuating that it was a commercial transaction. The editor who inserted that banner dopes not respond to my requests for reconsideration. How do I appeal? Zozoulia (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't ask in multiple places, it is already getting looked at here Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Also I see you have spoken to the user who placed the tag and they said it would be discuss there also. talk page NZFC(talk) 23:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Does nationwide technical standards qualify (alternatives to ISO and such) as reliable sources?

My edits are systematically undone elsewhere. I wonder if this make any sense. D1gggg (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please give us some specific examples, D1gggg. I've looked at the history of some of the pages you've edited, and yours seems to be the latest edit.
I've just noticed the title of your question: in general, they would certainly be reliable, but they may well be primary sources. Again, questions about specifics are much easier to answer than questions about generalities. --ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
They are primary sources, but user neglects them entirely:
1 2
Second might be questionable, but first – not at all.
OST 32 30-94
Definition #5 here: http://meganorm.ru/Index2/1/4293746/4293746498.htm
It clearly says "and/or". D1gggg (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry. D1gggg, but this Teahouse is part of the English Wikipedia. Russian Wikipedia is an entirely separate project, with its own policies and processes. You need to ask your questions there. --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks anyway, I thought that sourcing is the same everywhere. D1gggg (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

How do I get published?

I have been working on this page forever! What is a sandbox? Why can't I edit? How do I get my page in the correct format? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marqione/sandbox Marqione (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to teahouse Marqione, sandbox is a place where you experiment editing wikipedia. If your article is ready, move your draft to article space but I suggest you should submit it for revision from the blue button you see in top of your sandbox. Don'twasteTime (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Don'twasteTime, I am afraid your last bit of advice is mistaken. New editors (not autoconfirmed) cannot move pages, and currently they cannot create new pages in article space, either. I see five edits by the asker, so they are not autoconfirmed yet.
Moreover, even with the technical ability to do so, editors unfamiliar with article creation are strongly discouraged to directly create articles in mainspace. Instead, they should use the Articles for Creation process. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
However, submitting right now is likely to end up in rejection. I would advise to check whether the article's subject meets our "notability" threshold for inclusion, and if so to make it more apparent, with references to sources that are at the same time (1) reliable, (2) independent of the subject, and (3) dealing with the subject in detail. If the subject is not notable (at least yet), you should not try to publish an article about them on Wikipedia. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to add this. This is what the people who review articles at AFC look for.
Reviewing process flow chartneutralBiography of Living PeopleReliable sourcesNotableVandalism/attack pageTest, blank, and nonsenseCopyright violationMergeDeletionTranswikiCorrect and submitTeahouseAFC talkCiting sourcesWikipedia is an encyclopedia
Reviewing process flow chart

You may find it helpful. Cheers! Bobherry Talk Edits 23:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Archiving a Talk Page

I am using my Talk page with my students (via Wiki Ed) and as a result it is getting long and unwieldy. Can you help me understand how it can be archived and what I need to do for that to happen (and it to still be usable)? Thank you!! FULBERT (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello @FULBERT:, archiving is explained at Help:Archiving, especially at Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Automated_archival (in fact this single section should provide you with all necessary information, if you don't want to read up on all the technical background and other usages). The shown examples are already set up correctly, so you can simply copypaste the code for one of them to the top of your talkpage (I use the upper left version of "lowercase sigmabot III", but all of them should work). Hope that helps, if you have any further specific questions, please feel free to ask here anytime. GermanJoe (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks GermanJoe. Do you also include the coding for archive searching as listed on that page? Thanks! FULBERT (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. If you want to get really comfortable :), you can also add {{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot III |age=90 |units=days}} as additional third template. It will add a message box as information for other readers of your talkpage ("This talkpage will be regularly archived etc."). Neither the search box nor the additional info will change the archiving behavior itself. GermanJoe (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

How do I get other users I know to access my page?

Created a page, got some pics and references and went to publish but was told I need more references.

Got that, a lot of people want to contribute but I don't know how to give them access. Page is currently in my sandbox.Art.in.life (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I have moved the page to the draft space. That should help. AfC reviewers should give you advice that is specific enough for you to resolve on your own, but I understand that you may need some assistance, given that it is mainly an issue with referencing (and tone). If I were you, I would go to similar pages and look at the edit history. If names continue to appear, leave them a message asking if they are willing to help. If you already have potential contributors, give them the link: Draft:Le Tas Invisible. If you are having difficulties, you should contact the AfC reviewer who dealt with it, as they will know exactly what needs to be done to bring the article up to the right standard. –Sb2001 02:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you User:Sb2001 That was exactly what I was looking for! Art.in.life (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

My sources

I really feel like the editors who have read the page I've created are being biased against me. My sources are Bloomberg News, LA Times, Insurance Journal, and others. I also changed it entirely to make it neutral and they still say it is like an advertisement (it's not, it's a company, i tell facts on what they sell and where they've appeared). This is really unfair. I mean, please look at my sources! Also Mercury, who owns the company I wrote about (AIS) has a very similar Wikipedia page, so please tell me why mine keeps getting rejected. I'm a professional editor so it's very frustrating when you know you're hitting a wall for no given reason. At least tell me where and how it reads like an ad as opposed to Mercury's accepted page. And then tell me again why my sources are not verifiable?

And the "start over" by the last editor, without any real basis for his rejection... I mean, seriously??? Afarin Majidi (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The existence of one poorly-written page does not provide good reason for creating another. You have been given lots of advice on your talk page. I am not able to read the page that you created, so I don't know whether your references discussed the topic in detail, or were just mentions. Do you have some connection with the company? You claim to be a professional editor. Does this mean that you are being paid to write an article? If so, you must disclose this fact. Please see WP:PAID Dbfirs 19:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@Afarin Majidi: I can't see the page either but I do know that merely telling about a company and its offerings is still promotional as Wikipedia defines it. The article must indicate with independent reliable sources (see WP:RS) that give in depth coverage how the company meets the notability guidelines for companies (WP:ORG). As stated, if you are a paid editor, Wikipedia's Terms of Use require you to disclose that. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@331dot I'm not paid by AIS. I edit people's manuscripts and such. My training is in fiction. Could you please look at the page at least? I have used verifiable sources. Why are they not considered verifiable sources? I will look at the rules on how businesses are written about. All the editors are saying the same thing but I am not understanding why these are not verifiable sources. Why are these not verifiable sources?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Afarin Majidi (talk • contribs)
@Afarin Majidi: just having reliable sources doesn't always mean that a page is good enough to be on Wikipedia. It needs to be WP:NCOMPANY and notable in its own right, not because it is part of another company. Also having reliable sources doesn't mean the page can't still be written like an advertisement and in this case it appears that it was so it was deleted. NZFC(talk) 21:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@331dot it wasn't written as an advertisement. It is about a company, and it gave facts about their services and community service they've been given press for. That's all it was. How that came off as advertising doesn't make sense. Also, you do see they all said the sources were not verifiable...so why are we not talking about that. It didn't read like an ad. And I was not given a chance to contest it before it was deleted, which it says you can doAfarin Majidi (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@331dot The existence of one poorly-written page does not provide good reason for creating another.You're all biased. Seriously. I use Mercury insurance by the way, and that page is not poorly written, as an editor and neither was mine Afarin Majidi (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: or @DESiegel: if you guess have access, can you please read this deleted Draft:Auto Insurance Specialists: AIS Insurance page and provide Afarin Majidi examples of where it read like an advert? They won't listen to feedback on their page or here. NZFC(talk) 21:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Afarin Majidi: Only administrators can see a deleted page; I am not one. As a tip, when you say "professional editor" it sounds like your occupation is editing Wikipedia and not editing outside manuscripts. Just something to be aware of.
If a page is tagged for speedy deletion, as yours was, it can be deleted without delay or discussion as long as an administrator feels that the given criteria has been met. If you see a speedy deletion tag in time, there is a mechanism to contest it; if you feel the page was wrongly deleted or you wish to contest it after it was deleted, you can visit WP:REFUND to request that it be restored. As I stated above, a page that merely lists what a company does and its offerings will be seen as promotional(WP:PROMO) as it seems like a business directory listing; it doesn't have to encourage the purchase of a product or service. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
That said, I would encourage to you listen to the advice you are being given before attempting to recreate the page or request it be restored(which seems unlikely to occur) based on what I've read here). 331dot (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Afarin Majidi, if you click the red link to the page where your draft used to be (there are several on your talk page, you will see the deletion notice. The administrator that deleted it will be named there. It would be more productive to ask him. John from Idegon (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328 @DESiegel @331dot I'm a she not a he and its not that I'm not listening. I just don't see where it's not neutral. And the sources are all verifiable. I'm willing to cut sections that read like advert. I just would like it pointed out. Afarin Majidi (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at the draft. Sorry to be blunt but it's abysmal. My hope was to be encouraging, and offer some tips on how to improve it, but I cannot. If there truly is another article that looks like that, please point it out so we can remove it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick can you tell me why it's abysmal? I mean I don't really see the difference between that and some of the pages you've accepted. Abysmal doesn't give any constructive criticism. Afarin Majidi (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Please give an example of an article you claim is similar to yours. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • A suggestion: since it is very difficult for editors to offer advice about this article without being able to see it, perhaps an administrator could consider the possibility of transferring a copy of the contents to AM's sandbox. Afarin Majidi: to ping an editor, you need to use {{u|username}}, {{replyto|username}} or [[user:username]]; using the @ symbol will not result in a message being delivered. –Sb2001 22:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Temporarily restored at Draft:Auto Insurance Specialists: AIS Insurance with all previous comments (including my original decline). Nthep (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah ... I see the problem. I would edit it, but I am not sure that there is any point—it would take far more work than is worth it (due to the importance of the topic). –Sb2001 22:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Sb2001, ignoring the referencing not being inline, the Bloomberg is just a snap shot of company information, not an article. The Insurance Journey appears to be press releases and the reference to google about the locations isn't useful either (not an article). Overall not worth time to fix. NZFC(talk) 23:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
The editor said it was okay to be blunt so I offered a few of the top of my head comments which are on the blunt side on my user talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, if we find any more articles as bad as this one, I'm confident that they will immediately be deleted (just to show that we are not biased). Dbfirs 23:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Several editors have worked on the draft, for which you should be very grateful. It is now a lot better than it was. I still—however—do not think that the article will be accepted into the main space: there is next to no Google coverage for it (from a search in the UK, at least), and their website does not work (major companies would never let this happen without leaving a maintenance note). Your claim that it is 'one of the largest independent insurance agencies in the United States' cannot be true. You will have to spend so much time on this article for it to stand a chance at AfC—references will be really hard to find. If I were you, I would leave it and work on something else. Try it at AfC as it is. It might just be accepted, but there is a good chance that it will not be. Should the latter be the result, come here and ask for some other work to do, or work on an article for something with better coverage. –Sb2001 01:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Since I was pinged here while working off Wikipedia, I will comment now. The current draft says "AIS sells automobile and personal insurance lines and represents multiple insurance companies, even though it is owned by Mercury. Since it opened its doors in 1968, AIS has been shopping insurance rate quotes from its tens of partners, which include Mercury Insurance Group, Progressive, Travelers Insurance and Safeco, amongst other large insurance carriers." What the heck are "lines"? I suppose that this is obscure insurance industry jargon. The phrase "since it opened its doors" is colloquial and not encyclopedic. And "its tens of partners" is a bizarre formulation, as is "shopping insurance rate quotes". Who uses "shopping" in this context, and who says "tens" like this? Who the heck is "Mercury"? (It is linked later in the draft, in the wrong place.) The references are bare URLs that must be fleshed out to full bibliographic references. I am not sure whether this business venture is notable. But the draft is nowhere near acceptable as an encyclopedia article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

My citation was removed 2 times by USER:Elnon for reasons that seem to be arbitrary

I edited here: [[1]] and was reverted here: [[2]]. The editor commented, "Adventurer and writer Peter Fleming is no historian, only academic sources should be used here. Besides, "invasion" is POV (just as "liberation" is)." The editor did two edits at once- replaced a wikilink unrelated to my edit and removed my citation about the year. About the comment, see Peter Fleming (writer). Fleming was a special correspondent for The Times of London and wrote about 18 books, however my citation was to the classic 1st Edition of "Seven Years in Tibet". I properly quote the source for the year which I had edited. Three months later I "undid" this removal of my source with a good faith explanation about the source here: [[3]], the editor deleted (reverted) my citation again and adding additional changes in text not related to my citation. The editor's comment is an opinion about the source which is commonly used as quality source. Can I replaced my citation again without violating WP:3RR? A ri gi bod (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, A ri gi bod.
So far, this is just a content dispute and there's no reason to suspect either party is behaving badly. What's needed is a discussion on the Talk page about the disputed edits, to try to come to an agreement on what the article should say. If the talk page discussion leaves the two of you at loggerheads, you can try higher levels of dispute resolution to see if it's possible to find a consensus.
It's certainly possible to use reliable sources who are not qualified as academics in most situations, so blanket removal of Peter Fleming on that basis is probably unjustified. POV language can be contentious, so part of the dispute resolution is to propose language that meets the requirements of WP:NPOV. Allowing three months to pass between reverts is not going to trigger 3RR, but edit warring over content without a discussion on the talk page would still be considered disruptive editing. There are already some discussions on Talk:History of Tibet about the neutrality of the article, so your efforts to contribute towards the improvement of the article are appreciated. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Editors deleting a photo I have rights to without asking

Hi, I uploaded a photo to commons that I took and own the rights to and an editor just instantly deleted it with the comment saying "Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work".

Shouldn't they check with me first? Of course I can upload my own work to anywhere I want. Just because it is on the internet doesn't mean its copywrited by someone else.

On the https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/ under "Help" it says I can chose a "Fair Use Doctrine," how would I go about doing that? Ranscapture (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ranscapture.
Since you are claiming the photograph as your own work and uploading to Commons, "fair use" is not applicable. You can release the photo to the public domain or under a suitable Creative Commons license.
OTRS "relgen" is a verification procedure used on Commons to validate your assertion that a photo is your own work. It takes a while for this to be acted on. If the photo appears elsewhere on the web, on a site that claims copyright and "All rights reserved", that is usually taken as a valid reason to be dubious about an uploader's claim of "own work". Misuse of copyrighted works is toxic to Wikipedia, so they will always err on the side of caution. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Create a page in both official languages

Making a page, have it both roughed out in French and English. Do I just create two pages and mirror them?

That simple or is there a wiki way of doing this? Art.in.life (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Art.in.life.
The phrase "both official languages" only applies to certain countries. Wikipedia projects exist in a large number of languages (I've lost track). Since we're dealing with the English Wikipedia, you would only create pages in English here. If you also happen to be able to create a page on a the same subject, but written in French, you would go to the French Wikipedia, fr.wikipedia.org, and create the page there.
While all of the various Wikipedia projects operate under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation, they are largely independent of each other. Their rules are somewhat different and their population of editors and admins has only a small overlap. There is a provision for indicating on the talk page of an article that it is a translation from a different language Wikipedia. I've also seen a few instances where a page has links at the bottom to its counterparts in other languages. To create these links, follow the advice on Help:Interwiki linking. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Art.in.life. Wikipedia simply does not care at all about the "official languages" of any country, except in a specific article about that country and its official languages. This is the English Wikipedia and we are all about writing high quality English language Wikipedia articles. If an editor wants to translate an article into French, then that is fine. It is also fine if an editor wants to translate an article into Urdu or Swahili. No other language is preferred when it comes to translations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Alessandro Safina contacted by fiancee, delete?

I don't know what to do about this! Safina'a fiancée contacted me by email with no less than 6 screenshots of my edits. She saw that I was working on the article,she wanted me to stop editing, but I stopped within the last month, I had nothing else to contribute. She was furious about the English article, she was angry about the personal section, which I did not add, but I did delete because it was poorly sourced. It's not a "relevant" article in the English Wiki. Should I, can I delete the article? GrammerCracker96 (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


Can I at least delete my edits, if not the article? I really don't need the harassment. GrammerCracker96 (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The article in question is Alessandro Safina. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I haven't read the history of the article in sufficient detail to determine whether there is a reason why you would want to revert your edits. However, once you have made your edits, they, along with the article, are irrevocably released. If your edits contained biographies of living persons violations or were unsourced, you or anyone else can revert them. As to deleting the article, the quick answer is no. You certainly cannot delete the article because someone claiming to be related to its subject doesn't like it. However, read the deletion policy. I am sorry to hear that you think that you are being harassed, but if someone else wants the article deleted, my advice would be to direct them to the deletion policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I did take a quick look at the history, and GrammerCracker96's edits all seem to be duly sourced and appropriate – nothing in violation of WP:BLP as far as I can tell. –FlyingAce✈hello 17:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I see that an IP editor has deleted the "Personal life" section. It had Romanian-language references, and I can't read Romanian; but the first one, with its title "EXCLUSIV! O bombă sexy , fostă Fata de la Pagina 5, a dat lovitura!", doesn't look to me like a reliable source. Let's hope that the section's removal is the end of the matter. Maproom (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
... and the second one is based on an interview with the subject, and so also not a good reliable source. Maproom (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
First of all, if the harassment is anything serious, contact the relevant authorities immediately (i.e. the police).
On the Wikipedia side... I can tell you what we will not do. We will certainly not "delete" (WP:SUPPRESS) your edits from the page history, or delete the entire article (when it is about a notable subject), just because someone asks us so. Also, while we do tend to remove extraneous personal information when the subject objects to its inclusion, we do not do so because someone else objects.
If we assume that the person who contacted you by email is indeed the current partner of the article's subject (which is far from obvious), I do think we can remove the information about her. However, we will certainly not remove the information about Alessandro's Safina former wife because his current partner objects!
I personally think information such as partners, kids etc. should not be included in WP:BLP articles without a good reason to do so, so I see nothing wrong with the "personal life" section staying deleted. But it is not a consensual view among Wikipedia editors, so one may expect to see it reinstated at some point. If someone objects strongly to that without Wikipedia-policy-based reasons to do so, they should contact or sue the Wikimedia Foundation to make them remove it - but I would advise to read our article about the Streisand effect first. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Did you receive the email but Wikipedia email or directly, GrammerCracker96? If it was directly, you'd better review your web presence, as somehow she connected your username here with your email address. If she continues to bother you (assuming you've asked her to stop), you may wish to contact WP:911. As far as the content that was removed goes, an editor that can read Italian is going to need to review the sources, but I see nothing overtly defamatory there (assuming it verifies) and should probably be replaced. Past marriages and children are definitely legitimate content for a bio. John from Idegon (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
The whole thing is a strange circumstance. I mentioned on social media, that I was working on the article but was focusing only on his career and I was against adding a personal section, I wouldn’t want people writing about my kids. The very next day, an IP added the entire section and reference. It was, in my opinion, poorly written and poorly sourced. Because it was a Romanian article, I suspected it was his fiancée who added the section, I STILL think it was. Like I said, strange. I did try to edit the initial addition by adding a different source (which was the interview, also a weak source). I realized that neither sources adequately supported the section and I noticed some informational errors (son Christian’s birth year, some sources say 2014). I decided it best to delete the section altogether. I couldn’t remember my password, so I deleted the section with an IP edit. I suspect that his fiancée got my email address from a different social media account and contacted me directly. She contested the date of Safina’a divorce, but if the gossip magazine “verified” anything, it was the year of the divorce. I do sense a “conflict of interest” from her, but what I don’t understand is how could she could see all of the edits without noticing the entire section had been deleted? And yes, it was definitely her, her email is public. I did contact her myself directly and inform her that it was not me that added it, but I did edit it and then deleted it; then she contacted me again, and accused me again, what a nut! I just don’t like being hunted down and accused of something I didn’t do. Exactly why I didn’t want to add a personal section. Hopefully, she’ll go away. At this point, it’s a conflict of interest for me to even continue working on the article. Thanks all. GrammerCracker96 (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
And yes, it was definitely her, her email is public (and presumably it matched what the "from" field said). No, that is not how email works. The bottom line of email spoofing is that the "from" field of emails is about as reliable (to know where the letter came from) as the return address that the sender of a paper letter wrote at the back of an envelope, i.e. not at all - I can send you an email "from" donald.trump@fakenews.com if I control any mail server. (There are countermeasures, but that is already an offtopic discussion.) Still, the most probable it was indeed who she claims to be. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Help with new page

Hi and many thanks to all for previous responses. I've edited out anything I can't reference to on this draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marc_Brierley . I'd be very glad of comments on the current draft - I hope I'm getting there now! Fenderstratuk1 (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello, Fenderstratuk1. There are quite a few problems with the draft as it stands now, but I believe those can be fixed. The biggest hurdle to have an article about an artist is to show they satisfy the "notability" requirements, usually the criteria given at WP:NARTIST. If the subject of an article does not satisfy those requirements, working on an article is a waste of everyone's time, because at the end of the day the article will be deleted regardless of how well-written it is. (I think this guy is "notable" based on the sources you cite, though probably not by much; I cannot guarantee the article will be kept, but I think it has a more than decent chance.)
There is a bit of WP:PROMO-like language, the most egregious example being In the intervening period, Marc Brierley’s reputation has never stopped growing - I know that is probably what you found in the ref, but writing an encyclopedia entry takes a different style than a newspaper article, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. There are also a few formatting problems - refs 10 and 15 are the same and should be merged, see Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Same_reference_used_more_than_once; I also fixed the headers (you put them in bold text, what was actually needed was to create sections) (I regret doing that because it could have been a learning opportunity, but I will not be as sadistic as remove them now).
I tend to think the article is a bit on the long side (for instance, is any of the "intervening years" content needed when it basically is present in the discography?) but that is the kind of issue that is easy to fix and easier to discuss once the article goes live. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Tigraan - many thanks for this. Fantastically helpful. I've made some changes following this and I'd be grateful if you have time to take another look. There's one bit I'm worried about - a quotation from a book which might be a bit fulsome. What do you think. I'm so grateful to you for the formatting help (well, for formatting the page, to be honest, a bit more than "help"). I fixed the references. I also checked the notability guidelines and I'm happy that he hits criterion 4. Thanks once again. Fenderstratuk1 (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding performance art pictures outside in winter not allowed?

I created a page, it is in my sandbox. Wanted to put some pictures of an amazing performance art display that was done in Quebec City during a snow storm and I keep getting a message saying the photo is too generic. It's snowy in Canada in the winter, stuff does still happen here though. All the other pictures without snow upload fine...Must be away around this

Art.in.life (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Art.in.life. Where did you get this message? What did it say? I can't find it on your user talk page either here in Wikipedia or on Commons, or on the histories of pictures you've uploaded to Commons (though I haven't looked at them all). --ColinFine (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

ColinFine (talk)

How to add a wikipedia page in other language

Hello. I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this question. I would like to create English pages for musician in Japan (whom already have Japanese pages). I tried to do it once but it did not work out well. Is there any place I can learn step by step? Afinedrizzle (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Afinedrizzle, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume that your previous attempt was Draft:NOISEMAKER? Note that each language variant of Wikipedia operates with slightly different rules, and the requirements for things like referencing tend to be stricter on the English Wikipedia than on other variants. I'm not sure how things are on the Japanese site and I can't read Japanese, but I took a look at the article on the Japanese Wikipedia, ja:NOISEMAKER, and I see that some issues are highlighted at the top of the article. I wonder if any of those notices state that the article needs more references to independent sources, because that is what your draft requires to establish the notability of the topic. See WP:GOLDENRULE for a simple explanation of this. Also, if you have translated the article from the Japanese version, then you need to acknowledge the source of the translation by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Afinedrizzle. Creating a new page in the English Wikipedia is difficult, and the only difference it makes whether it is a translation is that 1) you must credit the source, and 2) the original might have references that you can use. Please see Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Minerva theme has disappeared

I have just visited Wikipedia to read an article and my theme has changed to default (the common css is still applied). I go to my appearance settings and the Minerva theme has disappeared! Please tell me it hasn't been removed? It's the only one I like and have just spent hours adjusting the CSS for it yesterday. Colinstewart (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion to you, Colinstewart, is to refocus on improving the encyclopedia, and stop worrying about themes and CSS. You have done nothing that I can see to improve encyclopedia articles but have spent months trying to create a user page. Your priorities seem out of line with the purposes of this project. Am I wrong? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328 Thank you for your suggestion, but yes, you are wrong. Your response doesn't answer my question, which is what this page is for. Why does my focus need to be to improve the encylopedia? I don't use it for that. I use it to read and to learn. I appreciate everyone that does contribute to the articles, but that isn't for me (and not everyone that reads them has to contribute). The reason for my high interest on the look and feel of the articles, is that I am graphic designer with OCD (literally). I need things a certain way or don't feel comfortable. Also, the default theme is terrible in terms of UX. In particular (but among many things), the line length is far too long (being full screen width) and makes it very difficult and unpleasant to read articles. Hence why the Minerva theme doesn't just look better, but is much more user friendly. Based on this, I would just appreciate an answer to my question so that I can fix my issue. Colinstewart (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Colinstewart. You are welcome, of course, to read Wikipedia without contributing, though we hope that you will eventually become an editor. The Minerva theme seems to have been a beta feature that is currently unavailable (see there). Perhaps someone there (or here) knows whether the skin is going to be reinstated? Dbfirs 08:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Dbfirs Thank you for your helpful response. I would love to, I enjoy writing. I just don't have the time at the moment. Hopefully in the near future. I really hope it will be reinstated, as (I'm sorry) but I hate the other themes, for reasons stated before. The Minerva theme really made Wiki much more pleasant to use (at least for me anyway). Is there anyone I can contact about this? Or does anyone else here have any info? Thanks. Colinstewart (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Colinstewart: It was also reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Skin disappeared with no explanation so far. It was similar to the mobile version of Wikipedia. In the desktop version of the site you can click "Mobile view" at the bottom of a page. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Question

At teahouse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RCNesland (talk • contribs) 12:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey RCNesland. Yup, this is the teahouse. If you have any specific questions about editing Wikipedia, feel free to ask here and there's usually plenty of folks around who can help answer. GMGtalk 13:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Glossary of policy debate terms

I'd like to merge several under-sourced and excessively-detailed pages about policy debate (such as Offense (policy debate) and Case (policy debate)) to Glossary of policy debate terms, which doesn't exist yet.

  1. Do people here think that's a good idea? Other alternatives would be to leave the pages as-is, or to file AfDs for them.
  2. Where would I find a consensus for that? (I assume here, as I can't find anywhere else to ask)
  3. Would a history merge be needed, or is the {{R with history}} tag suffficent?

power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  1. I agree on the content issue, but that is probably not a question for the Teahouse. You do not need to AfD the articles, you can boldly redirect-merge them.
  2. No, certainly not on the Teahouse. But Wikipedia:WikiProject Debating is probably a good place to ask. I don't think you need consensus to do it - you need it only if somebody objects or if it is very likely to happen - but it does not hurt to leave a note stating your intentions while doing the thing.
  3. A {{R with history}} from page A to B will keep the page history of page A. But readers who found page B without coming from A cannot guess they should check page A's history to know the authors, so you need page B to point out that parts of it were taken from page A. To do so, the simplest is to use {{copied}} on the talk page of B. See also WP:COPYWITHIN. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The WikiProject looked dead, but I'll ask there. There's enough clean-up work I'd rather get consensus before doing the work. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

How to publish?

I already made an article, after Juan Carlos Iragorri, a colombian journalist currently working from US, but it's still a Draft. How do I pass from there to a public article?

(Dmontoyaars (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Dmontoyaars. I have moved your draft back to Draft:Juan Carlos Iragorri and added a banner for our Articles for Creation project. If you think you are ready, you can click the submit button and it will be added to the queue of drafts to be reviewed by a volunteer, who can offer feedback prior to publishing. GMGtalk 13:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, something is amiss here, because now there exists both Draft:Juan Carlos Iragorri and Juan Carlos Iragorri, similar pages (but neither redirects to the other). The latter also has botched references. It is not reasonable to keep both of those (since improvements of one will not automatically carry over to the other). I would suggest to delete the mainspace article to work on the draft (see below).
@Dmontoyaars: the draft right now has quite a few problems, but those can be fixed. A lot of language is promotional (for instance : In 2017, Juan Carlos Iragorri was once again avowed, this time receiving... should simply be replaced by In 2017, Juan Carlos Iragorri received); there are incorrect external links in the article text, and other minor formatting issues. I think the best way forward at that point is to delete the version located in mainspace at Juan Carlos Iragorri, and fix the problems at Draft:Juan Carlos Iragorri before publishing it. If you agree, please say so, or better yet put {{db-g7}} yourself on top of Juan Carlos Iragorri.
On a side note, if you translated material from the Spanish-language Wikipedia, we need to acknowledge that fact to comply with the license. (Just say yes or no, and we can take care of that for you.) TigraanClick here to contact me 13:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... that is a problem, especially since there is a draft in the way of moving out of mainspace, and it seems doubtful anyone would take it on as a G6. In lieu of a G7, I'm open to suggestions. GMGtalk 13:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
That's why I asked the OP to agree to a G7, because G6 would be sleight-of-hand to deceive them at this stage. Leaving it in place will likely lead to a new page patroller sending the thing to AfD where everyone's time will be wasted (consensus to "keep, but improve, and to do so delete to make way for the corrected draft"). BTW I don't see how the existence of something (especially the same thing) at the draft page changes anything; if we can move an article from mainspace to draft without detailed discussion, we can certainly move it to a userspace sandbox, but I very much doubt we can. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Well... it's still a little out of process, but since the user has expressed a clear intent to submit for review at AfC, has already submitted the draft, and has been working on the draft (also given the mistaken move into cat space), I've taken the liberty of moving the article to their sandbox as a mistaken mainspace creation, assuming no one objects. After all, assuming the draft gets additional improvement and is eventually accepted, the best we've done by not moving it is making a mess for some AfC reviewer to try to figure out at some point in the future. GMGtalk 15:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I edit-conflicted below, but the 14:54 post is a clearer agreement to G7, so it is pointless to keep the worse and unsubmitted version of the two drafts. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Tigraan Thank you for your quick response! I already edited the promotional language that you talked about in the Draft and submitted it. I already put the code on top of Juan Carlos Iragorri. Again, thank you or everything. I'll be aware of anything else that may be needed. About the translation, yes, it was mostly taken from the Spanish-language Wikipedia.

Again, thank you for the help.

(Dmontoyaars (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeeah... it's a bit of a mess. GMGtalk 15:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The reviewing phase

Is the reviewing phase for drafts/articles mandatory for all? I mean, are there any type of members who don't have to submit drafts, and can directly create articles? Keewii (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  • The short answer is no to the first.
The long answer: you can create articles directly without going through the page review (right now, you need to be autoconfirmed though, because of WP:ACTRIAL) that occurs at Articles for Creation, but that is highly discouraged. Your article will still get on the new page patrol list and eventually get reviewed by a new page patroller. The two reviews are pretty much the same, but (the following is my feeling/opinion, not an officially decided trend) the former offers more user-friendly feedback.
Some people, usually people with a long track record of producing many articles satisfying our policies, are allowed to self-patrol (automatically). But those are relatively rare. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I'm kind of new, so I don't know certain things, yet. But, thank you very much; you were very helpful. Keewii (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Creating an info box under my image

Hi,

I'm having trouble creating an information box to accompany the image attached to my article. The info box is for a book - so I would like to add the author, publisher information, text type, etc. but cannot figure out how to do so. Can anyone help me? Stillber (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If you use the Book Infobox template (*Template:Infobox_book*), you should be able to fill in the fields that you need and have it work out as desired. Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 18:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

What happens to a rejected articles that will probably have notable articles in the future. Does it get deleted?

A warm hello to everyone. My question is in the short summary. Question is directed at my project called WonderCMS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:WonderCMS). It currently does not have enough notable articles, but since the project is used on services like Microsoft, this will probably happen in the future.

Until a reputable journalist covers this project, what happens to the rejected Draft article? Does it have some sort of grace-delete period?

Robertisoski (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Robertisoski. Drafts that have not been edited for six months or more are eligible to be deleted. I suggest that you save a copy of your draft on your own computer. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
This answers all my questions perfectly, backed up and saved!

Cullen, thank you very much for the kind welcome and swift response. Robertisoski (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Messed up AfD process

Intended to nominate Presidential Village, Maynard, Massachusetts for deletion, but it does not show up correctly in the AfD list of nominated articles. David notMD (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@David notMD: Fixed for you. Remember to follow the instructions step by step and purge cache when new changes are not showing. Cheers, Alex ShihTalk 03:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Question about adding warning templates to my own personal sandbox page

I wanted to ask, is it okay for me to test templates on my personal sandbox page, such as one that is a final warning before being banned? Or should I just play with those on the official Wikipedia public test template sandbox page? Here's an example of what I'm talking about. I just cut and pasted the subst:uw-unblock-famous template on my sandbox, and then noticed a "hidden category" designation at the bottom of the page, which suggested that I might end up auto-archiving my sandbox page into the list of banned Wikipedia users. Thank you. (Beauty School Dropout (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC))

@Beauty School Dropout: Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. Of course it's okay to test templates in your sandbox. As you can always reverse your edits, it's never going to inflict any damage. I am not sure why you are testing Uw-block templates though, as these templates are used by administrators. Cheers, Alex ShihTalk 03:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! As for why those templates interest me - I was a sysop way back in the dial-up BBS days, when we used locally owned networks to communicate with each other. So I'm kind of geared mentally towards that sort of geeky experience. (Beauty School Dropout (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC))

Any chance I can get my name on the Wikipedia page for NGHFB Who Built the Moon?

Hi Joshua,

I hope you are well,

I happened to come across the Wikipedia page for Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds new album: Who Built the Moon?

I designed the cover and was wondering if it would be possible to add my name 'Gareth Halliday' to the page? I would really appreciate it.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Many thanks

Gareth2A02:C7D:7424:C100:19FC:A570:60B:E8DB (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gareth, and welcome to the Teahouse. We would need an independent WP:Reliable source to add your name as cover designer to Who Built the Moon?. If you find a good source, then it would be best to post the request on the talk page of the article rather than add it yourself because you have a WP:Conflict of interest (and are probably WP:PAID). Dbfirs 12:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

RFD-Not sure if I did this right!

I listed the redirect page City life in Australia as an rfd and I think I didn't do it right. Could someone check it out and let me know?? ThanksGoveganplease (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Goveganplease, welcome to the Teahouse. You changed the redirect to point to the page itself which doesn't make sense so I restored the original target.[4] You also have to create an entry at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 18 saying what you want done with the redirect (e.g. delete or change target) and why. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


I am not sure what code/template to use when I add it to the discussion log. Could you help me PrimeHunter. Goveganplease (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC), 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 20#City life in Australia. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_683&oldid=1074850650"