Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 725

Archive 720

←

Archive 723

Archive 724

Archive 725

Archive 726

Archive 727

→

Archive 730

Sock Puppetry Accusation

Extended misunderstanding, should now be considered resolved

What can be done about an accusation that I am a sock puppet. Someone is accusing me of being a sock puppet because my IP address changes when I go onto the site yet they are all with the same beingging sets of numbers. I thought the issue of sock puppetry had been resolved long before and yet here goes another accusation of sock puppetry. The purson that is accusing me is insistent that an IP address would not show up if I logged into WP with a user name. I have no registered user name therefore do not have an registered account. Yet this person after explanation after explanation goes back to saying that I am not addressing his statement because I have noit logged onto a registered username account. What can be done.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC) The accuser is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anmccaff#Amistade2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC) You can solve the problem by creating an account, though there is no obligation to do so. IP addresses change for some users, so there is no way to track which edits are yours if you don't use an account. Dbfirs 19:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Yes I know that but it seems every time there is a conflict sock puppetry comes up. I will continue to use my IP address whatever it is that is issued by the system.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC) The problem was the conflict. It is obvious to me which IP addresses are assigned to you by Time Warner in Los Angeles, and you have not tried to hide your change of IP address, so I cannot see any justification for accusations of sock puppetry unless you also edit under an account name. Where there is disagreement over edits, the best policy is to discuss the changes on the talk page of the article. Dbfirs 20:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC) I have noted my concerns about facts and omission on the Amistade talk page and have directed the accuser to the Tea House to better understand what is going on. I do not have a registered username therefore I cannot avoid using one. I just do not understand how someone can accuse someone and continues to believe their incorrect perception despite repeated explanations.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC) The talk page is Talk:Amistad (film). We also have an article La Amistad though the content there may legitimately be different. I've no knowledge of either, so I'll leave it to others to comment. Dbfirs 20:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict)Hello IP user: I can understand why you are irritated. But might I politely add that, whilst you are indeed quite at liberty to edit from an IP address, many editors get suspicious when they see content subtly being changed without any citations, irrespective of whether that person has registered for a free account or not. Your actions in changing and then re-inserting those small changes without any evidence to support them was, I'm afraid, typical of what I personally often interpret as subtle vandalism. That's not to say that you were in this case. But just because you "happen to know something for a fact" doesn't entitle you to change article content without evidence to support your beliefs. I've only spent a few moments looking, but believe you were quite wrong to change "53 African people" to "54 African people" without proof. Just read this Times article to see why other editors are suspicious of unsubstantiated changes. Maybe you have other sources to prove "54" is correct. if so, you need to cite them. I've no idea I've not seen the film or know the story in detail. The fact that you are an anonymous IPv6 editor is unfortunate, and I hope you understand why, if you go around making changes like these, other people may jump to conclusions about you that are not necessarily correct. If this makes you uncomfortable, then there is one option and one requirement for you: Create an account for free and sign in with it; don't make changes without supporting them with sources. You decide which is which. I hope this explains how others might see those edits. You did right to raise those concerns afterwarss on the article Talk page. If the film got the numbers wrong, then that could be a legitimate issue to raise in the article, using sources, of course. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC) You should acquaint yourself with the record that clearly indicates where in the film such references come.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC) I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that remark. If any statement is contested, just insert a citation to support it, or leave it well alone. That includes the Plot as far as I'm concerned. Note: The evidence (using Intersect) does not lead me to support the suggestion expressed below. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC) It looks as if the IPv4 address 104.35.236.49 might also be you, and this increases the unease felt by registered editors. I endorse Nick Moyes' recommendation to create a free account on Wikipedia. You don't need to use your real name. I prefer not to have my name anywhere on the internet, so if you feel the same, just make up a pseudonym. If you have references, then you need to cite them. Dbfirs 21:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC) It is not my responsibility to make certain that WP's system functions properly and I will not establish a registered account in order to edit. I just noticed that other number because I was wondering where some of my edits went. Evidently it changed while I was editing under the usual 26.... went to 104 then reestablished back to 26..... Again, it is not my responsibility for the functioning if WP's system.2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC) This has nothing to do with Wikipedia's function. Your IP address is assigned to you by Time Warner in Los Angeles. Dbfirs 10:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC) As for adding a citation, when has it ever been except by viewing a film what is the plot?2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Where did the number 53 come from? There is no citation?2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Where there is disagreement over content, a citation is the best way to resolve the issue. An on-line review of the film with a plot summary would be easiest to check, but any reliable newspaper or magazine review would be OK to cite. Dbfirs 10:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC) A citation has never and continues not to be a requirement of WP and therefore anyone that requires it for e to edit is creating on behalf of WP new additional leaps and bounds in order for me to edit.2605:E000:9143:7000:C955:6FC3:2615:703 (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC) On the contrary, citations are normally required in Wikipedia. It is true that for unchallenged facts that are common knowledge, citations are often omitted to avoid over-cluttering the text, but whenever a fact is challenged, a citation is the best way to resolve the issue, and the matter should be discussed on the talk page, as you have now done. The independent reviews that I find say 53, not 54. Perhaps a compromise can be reached over the other issues? Dbfirs 08:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC) I am afraid that you are WRONG. Citations are not need for film plots! PERIOD. It will be found with a short review of film plots that are found in WP do not have citations. That those haing citations usually are of silent films that have become lost. I can hardly see that being applied to films made say since the 1930s when so many are available. So to say that film plots do require citations is an outright misleading and almost false statement on your part. That is the truth and you cannot change it. To all of a sudden say to me that in order to edit film plots I have to provide citations for popular films of recent date is just outrageous. I am told that for the film Amistad that it is based on a secondary document (3 reviews) that the number of Africans that were imprisoned is set at 53 although the number 53 appears no where in the film. Therefore where these reviewers got the number 53 certainly is not from the film, is not from the primary document that we normally get film plots therefore the source for these reviewers has to be a secondary document which is not where plot information comes from. A reviewer can include all types of information that does not come from a film in their review. The mere presence of information is not justifiable as true because it appears in a review. So where these reviewers got the number 53 is at best pulled out of the air as far as it concerns authenticity because it is not in the film--the chief document from where we get film plots. It is pleasant to know that now WP endorses the includion of undocumented informstion in film plots which will certainly open up for speculative inclusion all types of information that can be found in reviews that again may not be found in the film. If the film is not the primary documentation from where we get film plots then what kind of control do we have as to what is and what is not included in a film. This leads to a very interesting possibility when a film is based on some other work such as a book or a song or a play or a short story. We can now go to the secondary sources to indicate what should be happening in a film ployt because it is not answered in the film yet may be found in the original form. For those who say that what is to be found in a review is suitable for inclusion in a film plot will then have to rdecide if something really is true or not although it cannot be found in the film. It does not matter where a rviewers has retirved information in their review even if it is from the director or the writer or the editor or the set designer because if it is not in the film then it doesn't belong in the film plot. That is speculation and WP does not endorse speculation. But for those that have cornered the market on what for at least film plots include I guess you can manage to make up the rules as you go along to suit your own purposes instead of the intent of WP. Nothing is going to change the fact that in the film 53 imprisoned Africans is not mentioned. So now the question is how long can you hold out imposing an inaccuracy on WP? All you have to do is see the film. You cannot claim that the non-English portions of the film include that fact because you do not know those languages otherwise you would know that along with the Mende prisoners were also Temne. But in your reposnes to my question you state that there could be any Temne because i was spelling it Tenme. Then of course we move on to the question about the "slaves" eating "crumbs" off each others faces while they were onboard ship when anyone understanding food terms knows that crumbs come from breads and cakes products and not the mush that they were feed. This can clearly be shown by watching the film. You do not get crumbs from mush. You may hope so but that is not reality, well established by Oxford/Cambridge, etc. I guess there are a few people here that enjoy wishful thinking. Other may after understanding the facts call it delusional. So, since amongst those that have championed the idea that citations for film plots is now required is also a person that attempt to shut down discussion on the matter to the point of attempting to erase it from the record and then ended up being reprimanded for their action. As mush as you would like, you cannot change the facts. This must be a tremendous disappointment because this issue is not going to go away. Why? Because forever and a day the film does not mention 53 Africans being imprisoned when they were charged for their "crimes". You cannot refer to the non-English language portions of the film because you do not know the language otherwise you would know that there were in addition to the Mende imprisoned also Temne. And there is no confusing what is the definition of crumbs and there is no way that you can get crumbs from mush. What, are you going to go around the world removing the scene from the film showing the "slaves" being feed mush. Are you going to go around the world and remove from all the copies of the film the non-English portions of the film? Those scenes and dialogue will be around longer than you and even if we were born just yesterday. I believe that not even Steven Spielberg would confuse the facts with wishful thinking.2605:E000:9143:7000:2CF0:1BBB:E1E3:52EE (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

About legitdirect

Can someone create a page about legitdirect.com thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegitDirect (talk • contribs) 10:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@LegitDirect: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The proper forum to request an article be created is Requested Articles. In order for someone to create an article about it, they will need independent reliable sources that indicate how this business meets the notability guidelines for businesses. You will also need to change your username, as usernames cannot be that of a website or business. Please visit WP:CHU for instructions on how to do this. You will also need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Can there be a crackdown on articles which have paragraphs from satire websites?

I woke up today with Limb Bizkit "My Generation" in my head. After listening I checked to see what wikipedia says about the song. This was part of the article since 11 December 2016: "In the second verse, he implores the youth of America to "take [his] advice" and to avoid "step[ping] into a big pile of shit". [5] Durst has affirmed that this line is in reference to a childhood anecdote wherein his father tracked a great deal of the family dog's excrement on the freshly-vacuumed carpet, and lamented his fate in doing so. This greatly affected Durst, who has since opened a dog grooming business so that he and his clients may avoid inadvertently striding into canine refuse/waste."

This story comes, according to the editor (which only did this edit and disappeared, can be another criteria for "crackdown") from here http://www.metalsucks.net/2014/11/07/fred-durst-opened-dog-grooming-business/ Which is obviously some kind of satire site? IDK. Point is, I assume this is not the only place with "funny" misinformation. Beyond deleting that nonsense, I think it's better if I notify the community of this "discovery". If there is a portal for these kind of occurrences please tell me... Benderbr (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The entire paragraph has now been removed. Thank you for drawing it to our attention. Maproom (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Why do my accounts keep getting deleted?

I've had 2 accounts before, #1: CBNMKJUH, and #2: Connall Stevenson. When the first one was deleted, I made #2. When that got deleted, I made this current account. Anybody know how this is happening?

ConnallES (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd really really like to know. Please and thank you!

ConnallES (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@ConnallES: Accounts cannot be deleted. There does not seem to be any blocks or other issue on CBNMKJUH, and "Connall Stevenson" is not a user but a draft that you created and then blanked, located at Draft:Connall Stevenson. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Connall Stevenson is a user with one edit at Special:Contributions/Connall Stevenson. User:CBNMKJUH has a blank user page and Connall Stevenson has no user page but it's optional to have a user page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I failed to check the contributions. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted the draft as the first draft had a malformed db-self tag in there (among other reasons). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The only issue that I see is that Cordless Larry warned you against giving incorrect answers on this page, but no other action was taken. If you are just doing more of the same, please refrain from doing so. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@331dot:Thanks, once again!

ConnallES (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Tom Balthrop

I joined Wikipedia to suggest an entry for Tom Balthrop, American artist. There is some random information about Balthrop on Google. I believe Wikipedia is the best place to start an archive on Balhrop and his work. He did not appear to have any sort of home page or Facebook page or promotion of himself. It appears he past away. I can submit links to the few google hits on Balthrop but I am hoping others like myself will contribute if we start a profile for him. Many of his works and prints appear on Google as images but without dialogue or explanation. He was not a self promoter but his work is unique and known. Thank you for letting me start this discussion. Shari Hunter, novice Wikipedia contributor Sharikayhunter (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Now I want to edit my own first submission. I see a typo. I had best watch the tutorials. Thank you! Shari Hunter Sharikayhunter (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sharikayhunter: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that Wikipedia is not free webspace to just document someone or their work, as a Facebook page or personal website might. This is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown in independent reliable sources with in depth coverage to be notable. If you can do that, I would suggest using Articles for Creation to draft an article and submit it for review, so you get feedback on it before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards.

I would add that there are no other contributions under your username(other than to this page). Make sure you are logged in when making an edit, so it is properly attributed to you. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

hyperlinks

How many hyperlinks to wiktionary can a single page have? Is more than one allowed? 88.104.42.46 (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey anon. Usually, for links to sister projects like Wiktionary, Wikiquote, or Wikimedia Commons, a single link for the main topic in the external links section will suffice to help guide readers to related pages outside of Wikipedia. GMG^talk 15:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

How to create/ Ask to create page about Business Conglomerate

Hi, I want to know how to create a page about a Business Conglomerate or at least how to request in a suitable forum to create a page about a Business Conglomerate. I tried a sample draft in a similar lines of an existing article. But it is published in my User Name. No one has reviewed till now. Some one please help me out.Madhava cs (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia must not be used for advertising any business conglomerate, and your user page may not be used for a draft article. Please move the draft to your sandbox so that you can work on it there. You need to find independent WP:Reliable sources where the subject has been written about in detail. Your current references don't seem to be sufficient to establish WP:Notability. Dbfirs 08:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Please understand, Madhava cs, that Wikipedia has little interest in what a company (or any other subject) says about itself, or what its associates or employees say about it; and absolutely no interest in how it wishes to be portrayed. Wikipedia has no role whatever in a subject's online presence. An article about any subject should be almost entirely based on what people who have no connection at all with the subject have chosen to publish in reliable places. --ColinFine (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Citations for Film Plots

Enough! Teahouse is not WP:dispute resolution.

Since when has it become WP policy or guideline to require citations to show material inaccuracies in film plots. Is not the mere review of the film sufficient for the purpose of a film plot?2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC) It seems you are in disagreement over something in sn article. Pleasse discuss the matter on the article's talk page to work on getting consensus. If that doesnt work, follow the guidance at WP:DR, or just give it a break and work on something else for awhile RudolfRed (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC) The question is when if ever did WP require citations for plot because that is the solution that has been told me as to how it is that I can edit film plots. So to say that the question is that there is a disagreement about the plot content of an article is beside the the point. Again, when if ever was it bnecessaruy to provide for film plots citations expecially in those instance when plot information is in error? If you do not want to address that question then you need to move onto another question because that is not the point of this question. I understand that there are people who do not appreciate the work of others. One of them even attempted to thwart the editing and quiry process and was chastised. If additional criteria is being place on me for what others do without having that new criteria then let us know so that it is out in the open. That is not being uncooperative. That is being upfront.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC):Well, there has been plenty of time to have some response from someone if having citations for film plots is and has been part pf WP. So does this mean there never has been and continues to not be the need of citations for the plots of films?2605:E000:9143:7000:C955:6FC3:2615:703 (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Please see my comment on citations at the end of this section. Dbfirs 08:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Whether it appears here in this discussion or any other place in WP, YOUR STATEMENT IS MISLEADING. Plain and simple. A review of film plots in WP will show that virtually citations are not required except as I have found for those films that are no longer available for review such as silent and lost films. Amistad is not a silent and lost field. If citations are not required then we in effect are using original research by using the film as the primary source of the information and as it would the primary document. If something does not appear in the film then it should not appear in the plot otherwise we would most likely continue adding speculative information that has in the past been removed. So to claim that film plots required citations is an outright misleading statement. You cannot change what is true. The film is the film. If what is published as the plot of the film in WP then if it does not appear in the film then it should not regardless to what degree you attribute a secondary source as being reliable if it does not appear in the film then it should not appear in the film plot--that is speculation. If 53 imprisoned Africans at the start of the capture is not in the film then the first question is wfrom where did the film reviewers get the number and if it is not in the film then how can you verify their statement. You cannot because--Iit is not in the film. And reven if the reviewer bases their statement on what a director, a writer, an editor or even the actor making a statement, if it does not appear in the film then it should not be in the film plot because that is speculation. That is only the start of repudiating your statement about citations need for film plots. You cannot avoid the facts. And WP is not a place for speculation.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC) I'm afraid Dbfirs is not quite right. Per MOS:PLOT, The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. Secondary sources are encouraged if available, but the work itself is sufficient as a primary source for the content of the work, and contrary to what the anonymous user seems to be saying, using a primary source is not original research, so long as it is done within the limits of WP:PRIMARY. GMGtalk 15:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC) I stand by my assertion that if the film is the source that the film plot is based and an exception is made to the rule then the plot is still original research permitted under a rule of exception. If it were not original research then there would not be a need to establish an exception. Just because there is an exception made does not change the fundamental aspect of the action. It is as if you say I ran up the hill versus I ran up the hill and got sweaty. Fundamentally, you ran up the hill; you cannot change that except to expand upon and the exception to original research is very much in line with that--the exception is that you are sweaty.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Part of the restriction on the use of primary sources in WP:PRIMARY is that you plainly represent what is in the source without commentary, interpretation, or extrapolation. If you say within those boundaries when using the film as a primary source, then it is not an exception to original research, because it isn't original research. GMGtalk 16:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC) The film project has always had this problem....OR that is for plots. That said the community has accepted that this is one part of Wikipedia that will not pass the fact check process.--Moxy (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC) The problem occurs when different people remember the plot differently. I was recommending secondary sources to resolve the disagreement over content. I quote from MOS:PLOT: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Perhaps someone has a copy of the actual film to check, but the film script that I read makes no mention of number, so I suggest that we remove the controversial 53. The book says that only 38 remained at the time of the trial, but the film probably didn't follow the book. Dbfirs 17:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Actually, the film has direct dialog that i brought up before on the talk page for the film but was discounted as not reliable although it is in the film. The president while on the train attempting to enjoy his brandy makes reference to why out of all the negroes in the US he should be concerned about these "44".2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC) That's correct, he does say 44, though he has been told earlier "about 40". I think the best policy is to omit the exact number. Dbfirs 17:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Now, how can you get crumbs from mush when if you understand the definition of crumbs? The slaves were fed mush, not bread or cake from what crumbs are the potential residue? The only indication in the film as to what are the slaves feed is the scene that shows the slaves being feed is mush. I was told that in order to change that error I needed to provide a citation although a review of the film would clearly indicate, as i had pointed out on the appropriate talk page, that the slaves were fed mush. I do not mind justifying my edits and that is reflected in the edit notes. But when someone unilaterally rejects my edits based on not providing citation, instead of a simple review of the film, that is not my responsibility to reply on just their judgement as to the validity of my edit. I do not mind discussing an issue but i do mind when someone bases their action on what can only be said is ignorance. If you are unwilling to look at the documentation then how can you justify refuting an action? That is plain and simple logic unless there is another motive. But I digress.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC) The article doesn't mention crumbs or mush and this discussion really belongs on the article's talk page not here. Theroadislong (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Well, then it has just recently been changed although the fact remains it is mush that they were fed.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Extended misunderstanding; should now be considered resolved

Today I got onto the site and found a notice about declaring a conflict of interest. I thought how odd since my activity certainly has absolutely no possibility of a conflict of interest when all it has been recently is correcting errors in a film plot.2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Hello, @2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9:, and welcome to the TeaHouse. The editor who put that message on your User Talk page was Theroadislong. He/she did not indicate which article had prompted the message, and the wording of the message is very generic. I see that you have replied on your User Talk page, but did not ping the other editor so he/she may not be aware of your reply - hopefully you will get a response now. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Ah, I just noticed that you also left a message on Theroadislong's User Talk page - watch for a response (when might depend on time zones).--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC) The problem with a decentralized system is that you have people acting on their own for what turn out to be the most incredibly inaccurate basis. How correcting plots in films could be a potential conflict of interest mystifies me as much as having to justify edits in pots by providing citations when currently and in the past all that was needed was viewing of the film. There are many edit examples where citations have been provided in plots and removed as being unnecessary. So this new application smacks of some thing very unusual.2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC) I posted the conflict of interest notice because your IP addresses are assigned to you by Time Warner in Los Angeles. Theroadislong (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC) No wonder WP creates it own enemies? I have absolutely no control over the issuance of IP addresses and because they change I am accusesd of somehow undermining WP. And then if I do not take the "suggestion" of establishing a registered user name I am somehow betraying WP and being uncooperative and hostile and whatever people seem to come up with when all along I am using what is endorsed by WP--the use of my IP address as an identifier. Instead I am subjected to repeated accusations of being sock puppet. Are all these actions the result of learning grammar and composition? Or some other explanation? I just find it so bizarre for people that supposedly are of a developed mind.2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Is that a denial of any association with Time Warner? David notMD (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Why should I have to deny an association with Time warner when all they are to me is an internet provider? For people wsupposedly with developed minds you certainly seem to have conspiracy on your minds. What indication of not having any control over the assignment of IP's makes it so that I have to declare no association with my provider? Somehow with all the technology in the world I am suppose to be this great electronic system manipulator? Just what is it in your fantasy is it that you want to get?. I have no more association with Time Warner than does any one else with their service provider. What, somehow Time Warner gives special systems that others do not? I really do not understand you people when time and time again you come up wiuth these accusations that something is wrong when in all fact there is nothing wrong because what is happening is what the system does on its won. O am not responsible for seeing that it run according to how it is that you want it to. As far as I understand and as long as WP endorses the use if IP's as identifiers in WP then I have no violated anything. Thr fact that the system gives me different IP's is not my fault. Never has and never will. If you want to blame me for that happening then you are addressing the wrong person or institution. Just because you do not have it the way you want it to be does not make it wrong. And these continued accusations clearly show how paranoid WP can be. That is not being hostile that is not being uncooperative that is plainly following what gets done. This is getting just as ridiculous as the last person who cast aspersion about sock puppetry based on that person's inability to get beyond blaming me for not logging into WP and using a registered username. Again, WP endorses the use of IP's as identifiers in the use of WP. I am not responsible or havr any influnce in the issuing of IP and anyone who think I is clearly delusional and share the traits as anyone else that can be called the king of wishfull thinking. So, again, what indication is there in my functioning with WP that would give the impression that I was somehow in cahuts with Time Warner. Are you somehow upset that TimeWarner is not a corporate sponser therefore not getting your cut? This experience has been a typical up and down and all around and getting no where. It seems that when you explain what is going to anyone outside of WP it is clearly understood and if there is any need to cast aspirtions it would be so easy to do so toward those in champion that somehow I have such tremendous influence or control over Time Warner. If that were the case i guess they would not me continuing to send in my payemnts so late? LOL. Or is yhat an indication that i am in cahuts with TimeWarner? I am certain you all will let me know.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC) My humble apologies, I didn't realise that Time Warner was an IP provider, I am an arse. Theroadislong (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC) You do not want to know what is it that I am thinking right now after being subjected to such ridiculous treatment by not only you but some other 2 people that seems to relish in ignorance before making claims that seem to have such high impact within WP circles. In order to close somewhat the gap of ignorance Time Warner is now Spectrum.2605:E000:9143:7000:C955:6FC3:2615:703 (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC) I still remain dumbfounded as to just exactly was it in my editing history that would come close to signifying a potential conflict of interest. Maybe you could come to some understanding that can be explained.2605:E000:9143:7000:C955:6FC3:2615:703 (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Let me reiterate that I have absolutely no control how as to IP addresses are developed and how that is somehow my responsibility and in some unknown form a conflict of interest is utterly ridiculous. It has to be recognized that in this instance it is not the number of IP addresses that are issued but that it occurs in conflict with what appears to be some ingrain perception that this only smacks of fraud. Again, that is not a conflict if interest but merely at odds with the WP policy endorsement of using IP addresses as identifiers. Until that time that this endorsed policy changes I hope that I will no longer be harassed about it. And that should there be a question in future that WP contributors will be able to find this string of activity in the archives.2605:E000:9143:7000:2CF0:1BBB:E1E3:52EE (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC) IP user, please assume good faith(which is a central tenet of Wikipedia). Theroadislong has admitted their mistake, apologized, and even insulted themselves. Time Warner is far more well known as a company that produces films than as an ISP(especially since they spun it off into Spectrum, which is probably not yet reflected in IP addresses). You were editing a lot of articles about films, which is what led to Theroadislong's conclusion. I'm not sure I would have thought anything differently. What matters now is that the issue has been cleared up. You are permitted to edit as an IP if you wish, but registering a username would avoid problems like this, as it hides your IP address. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC) I wish that you would avoid "suggesting" that I change my way of working on WP and instead advise those that are suspicious to do their due diligence especially those that seem to not understand a perfectly sound justification, if that is at all needed, why i am not a sock puppet. You talk about good faith yet time and time again what happens? I get accused, and here we go again. Those who function on WP need to understand that not everyone is as invested in WP as they may be. My choice is to function under whatever IP addressed is issued to me. I am not interested in anything more than editing. I am not interested in advancing in the WP hierarchy. Why is that not understood? Do I have to continue explaining the situation to those that unilaterally "suggest" that using a registered user name is the solution when clearly considering my choices it is not. I seriously doubt that this will change until that time WP no longer endorses the use of an IP address as an identifier. This is not being difficult. This is not being uncooperative. This is being plain and simple being let be about using an IP address as my identifier according to WP endorsement. Nothing more and nothing less.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this being reviewed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Calderonista_Inavsion_Of_Costa_Rica_(1955) This article does not have the submission pending tag so I am wondering if it is going to be assessed or not. AlexRover (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey AlexRover. The article is not currently awaiting review, but I have added the banner for our Articles for Creation project, and if you thin it is ready, you can click the submit button and it will be reviewed by an experienced volunteer. GMG^talk 19:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. AlexRover (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Citing other articles

Is it possible to use another Wikipedia article as a citation?Minecraftr (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Minecraftr: No. As Wikipedia is ultimately user-generated, it should not be used as a source for citations as it fails the criteria for a reliable source. However, you should include links to other articles where relevant by using double square brackets as shown here. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Stormy clouds is correct, but I have something to add, Minecraftr. If the other article cites a reference you want to use for the article you are working on, you can copy the citation to the new article. This kind of thing, articles using the same sources, is actually fairly common on related topics. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Minecraftr. The short answer is "no". We need to cite reliable sources with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy. Because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and is subject to vandalism, it is not considered a reliable source. You can read the reliable sources cited in the other article and use those sources in an associated article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

How can I create a wiki page?

Help I need my advice I don't know to create a Wikipedia page how can I edit pleseeeeeeeeeeeeeee help Kind regards Enuis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enuis (talk • contribs) 19:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Enuis. Begin by reading and studying Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! From Enuis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enuis (talk • contribs) 19:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't create hoax articles as you did here Draft:Guild Ford it will not endear you to anyone. Theroadislong (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

My edits to an existing page do not show up. How can I fix this?

I made my first edits on Wikipedia. After doing extensive work I logged on to the page to find that none of my edits are visible. What did I do wrong? How do I fix it? Thanks. KGadgilG (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi KGadgilG. I don't see any edits listed for you except for your question here. Did you edit as an IP, and which page did you edit? The edits may have been reverted, but they should still show up on the page history. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

How do you create things about youreslf on user profile?

Sorry to bother again I just wanted to know how to write things about you're self

Thanks Enuis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.83.166 (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Enuis: Welcome to the teahouse. In order to make a userpage you need an account. (Which you already have) See WP:UP for do's and dont's. Thegooduser talk 20:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: This user has an account, see subsequent posts below. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: Ah okay. Sorry. It had an Ip address in the signature. Thegooduser talk 20:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I create an article about Pierre vangelis

Can I create article about Pierre vangelis Kind regards Enuis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enuis (talk • contribs) 20:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I really don't think you should try. From what little I could find online he seems to clearly fail to meet our essential criteria for notability for musicians and bands. I would advice you to go and read what that entails by following the blue link just given. My sense from your recent posts is that you probably don't appeciate the intricacies of what to do here (which is fair enough for any newcomer, I should point out!). But I would suggest you slow down a bit. Forget creatng new articles - that's the very very hardest task to achieve here, and being turned down does tend to put people off editing, which can be a shame. Instead, just find a few articles on topics that interest you, and make minor edits to them, like correcting spelling, typos etc. Don't even think of adding any new facts until you understand that every new statement of fact that someone adds needs to be supported with a citation. To learn how to do that, visit and read Help:Referencing for beginners. Even more advice: Don't even think about trying to create a new article until you really understand what Wikipedia is about. To get a start on that, I'd suggest you go and do the rather fun, interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure. Come back here if you have any more problems, and please don't post the same question to two help desks - this wastes people's time and gets them a little irritated, and remember you may not get a reply for many hours. This is normal as we are all volunteers here. Hoping this advice makes sense, regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

How do you edit?

Thanks from Enuis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.83.166 (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This might be of some use as an introduction to a key topic: Help:Editing Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

How can I review an Administrators notice board action that has been erased from the only link I know of?

I would like to review an administrators notice board that the only knowledge that i have is that it has been erased from the talk page of the person involved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheOldJacobite2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. You can go to that noticeboard located at WP:AN, and read all of those discussions. By the way, editors are allowed to remove such notices from their talk pages, and the act of removing the notice indicates that it has been read. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Armageddon. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems to have already been archived as there is no mention on the menu of cases of it? How do i search the archives or attempt on that app to find it? Thank you.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I found it after some navigation by luck. Thank you for your attention to find: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive1202605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

How do i address what seems to be a senior contributor taking a personal affront to contributions and comments?

Enough. The Teahouse is not ANI!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheOldJacobite seems to takr personal offense at every contribution and question i make. How do I address this at a higher level of WP?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC) It appears that of all the irrelevant stuff that appears on the talk pages and articles of WP that what i contribute seems to have all the more importance to be erased from the record? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hanna_(film)&action=history2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Hello anon. From the looks of things, your comments do appear to be ostensibly on topic, and per our guidance on editing others' comments, should generally not be edited or removed by others. I have restored them, and User:TheOldJacobite would be well advised to not remove comments that are not obvious vandalism, and if necessary, that it's usually better to hat off topic discussion, but most of the time better to leave well enough alone. GMGtalk 01:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Not to prolong the issue, but this contributor also found it necessary on two other articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Talented_Mr._Ripley_(film) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saving_Private_Ryan .2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC) I have reverted in Talk:Saving Private Ryan and notified User:TheOldJacobite not to repeat that kind of behavior. Sam Sailor 02:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Let us hope that regardless how long this behavior may have been going on that there is a change. A spirit of cooperation is not encouraged by attempting to shut down another contributor and certainly not being erased from the record. Let me suggest that it also be emphasized that reverts, even by senior contributors of WP, are not of and unto themselves justification for those edits. That unless a proper justification is provided there is absolutely nothing to assist in understanding just what is needed to edit. And that edit justifications reflect the truths instead of aspirations. I am not here to power play otherwise i could have shined on all concerned long ago. If I do not have at least the talk page to air concerns then just where is it suppose to be the proper place for such fundamental activity? Like I said, I hope there is a change. Thank you all for your attention to this matter.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Please indicate how those comments were relevant to improving the article, which is the purpose of the talk page, not idle chatter about the plot. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC) @TheOldJacobite: On the face of it, the comment is a direct suggestion for a change to the plot section. How you seem to think it is "idle chatter" is at best confusing. GMGtalk 03:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC) You seem to be confused and i can understand the inability. When someone wants to "win" a situation the attempt to discredit by characterizing something as irrelevant sparks of the point of the contrary participant having nothing better to explain. In time there will be changes. Why? Because some things becomes less relevant and the emotionalism that may be involved in plot content may change. As said in my explanations, the articles are not just for those that have seen the films and to serve only those that have is not in the best interest of WP. There is much to be explained by one's weltanschauung. The talk page is for discussion. If others feel so compelled to post something contrary then all the best for the discussion. Your views are well documented by the actions that have taken place and the resulting reprimand. If the plot is incorrect or misleads then there is something amiss. WP is not written in stone, especially for those articles rated "star".2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Before this goes on much further, I attempted to clarify the points at hand by editing. They were repeated reverted sometimes without justification. The only recourse I had was to open up the discussion on the talk page, where such deliberations are, according to WP editing policy, suitable. Instead of letting the issue progress if it had any tractions, it was the intent to shut down the discussion by altering the record and erasing the action. That is not the purpose of the talk page; we all know that. Yet, that is what was the course at hand. A reprimand has been issued because of that action. So regardless as to the merits of the questions about the plot statements in question, the point of the talk page is for it to play its part in the process of consensus. You were denying that the process play itself through and going against the fundamental principle of WP--cooperation. Anyways, when was a clarification an expansion? If something is misleading then just how does that serve the purpose of WP. But I digress.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Unfortunately,---The Old JacobiteThe '45 has began his actions with my edit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amistad_(film) that include material fact corrections. This time he says that I clearly do not understand WP Guidelines. A review of his edits are filled with reverts. Should he have such a right to unilaterally determine that what anyone suggests for the plot be reverted continually on such blanket statements that something does not improve a current plot? Like I said, some of these edits I proposed correct facts.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Another editor reverted the contribution without justification and I asked on their talk page why. The editor eventually said that I did not site anything. I was not aware that a plot needed citations if the documentation is the film? At question is: the number of Africans imprisoned: The president said 54; they are feed mush not food that would produce crumbs; There were also Tenme in the group which is found by understanding the African languages used in the film; and the name of the ship should be translated just as we translate foriegn language films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC) This issue has now moved on to the requirement that I am required to provide citations in order to change erroneous statements in at least Amistad although a review of film plots in WP will show that they virtually are not required and used when silent films are thought to not exist any longer. The Amistad is not a silent and lost film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9143:7000:2CF0:1BBB:E1E3:52EE (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC) I see that there seems to be a pattern of controversal reverting by the person in this matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive1202605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive1202605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB62605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Correction: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive120&action=edit&section=23 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I want to redirect someone that searches for Electric Vehicle Association to the existing page Electric Auto Association.

Do I create a new page and redirect them or is there a proper way to redirect a search to the existing page? BrightGuyinAmerica (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Since there exist pages for World Electric Vehicle Association and Electric Vehicle Association of Asia Pacific, I don't think it would be correct to use a redirect. It looks like this might have to be a disambiguation page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Fiat Tipo (2015)

What happened with section heading Engines? I cannot solve this problem. Maybe somebody else can correct this. Thanks.--Fabian USA (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Fabian USA and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm guessing that you are asking about layout problems for the Engines section, since there are a number of photos, the rather extended infobox, and the table under Engines all colliding with each other. These elements are not as flexible as text, so this page will have an odd presentation on most browsers. I added a {{clear}} template before the section to prevent the large blank space after the section header, but the only thing I can think of that would make the page layout work better is to add enough prose to the Overview section so that the following sections would start below the infobox. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"clear" solves the problem. HTML and CSS. Thanks.--Fabian USA (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)