Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 793

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 790Archive 791Archive 792Archive 793Archive 794Archive 795→Archive 800

A page about myself

Hello, I have added my journalist profile with all the notable public figures that I have interviewed in the past. With proper citations, I'm trying to figure out why my page has not been approved yet? Can someone please help me with this issue!-- Template:Unsigned -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by Landon Buford 2018(talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landon Buford (talk • contribs)

Hi @Landon Buford: and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you share a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia's purpose. It is not a place for people to create personal profiles about themselves - you can read about that here - and all Wikipedia articles have to be about subjects that meet Wikipedia's peculiar definition of notability. Among other things, that means that other people who have no connection to you must have written about you in some depth. User:Landon Buford/sandbox has quite a lot of references but they all seem to be things you have written about other people, and that does not make you notable, as Wikipedia defines notability. There was a community discussion about the article you created about yourself, which came to the same conclusion. If and when you do become notable, somebody with no connection to you might create an article about you, but you should not be doing that yourself. I'm sorry to have to be so discouraging, but you really would be wasting your own time trying to create an autobiography at Wikipedia. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 16:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Guggenheim fellowship

Question: If someone wins the Guggenheim Fellowship, do they qualify for a Wikipedia article on that basis? Katsheron (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Katsheron and welcome to the Teahouse.
The Guggenheim fellowship is considered a notable award and substantially helps qualify the recipient for notability. The requirements for creating an article still mean that something more than the Guggenheim statement about their accomplishments must be available. If you look at the List of Guggenheim Fellowships awarded in 2018, you'll see a number of red links where no article yet exists. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 17:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Contesting speed deletions

how do i contest a speedy deletion? chicago food truck festival — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelegaldude (talk • contribs) 21:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thelegaldude! Your article, Chicago Food Truck Festival is not currently a candidate for a speedy deletion but rather listed as an article for deletion. Since the speedy deletion was contested, its original speedy deletion status was removed here. You can see its page for deletion discussion here, and read more about the deletion process here. --HunterM267 talk 21:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Edited my above comment with additional information on its removal from speedy deletion. --HunterM267 talk 21:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

need some help!

Hello, I'm hoping you can help. We are a new school, Chichester High School following two schools, Chichester High School for Boys and Chichester High School for Girls have merged. We would like to keep both the CHSB and CHSG pages as archive put would like to create a new page. I'm struggling as I'm not really a techy person! — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaffTJWChiHigh (talk • contribs) 10:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, there are several issues here, User:StaffTJWChiHigh - most of which stem from an apparent misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. We run an encyclopedia here, and our job as editors is to take what reliable sources are saying, and use it to write and maintain encyclopedic articles about notable subjects. We don't write "pages". Moreover, each account should be run by one person, not multiple (which your name and pronoun usage implies is the case here). Accounts pertaining to multiple editors are liable to be banned. You should refrain from writing or editing articles about your school, as you have a blatant conflict of interest, and possible paid editing issues. What's more, you seem to misunderstand how article deletion works - the existing articles will either remain or be deleted based on consensus opinion on an articles for deletion nomination, not based on your wishes as the subject of the article - you don't own articles on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, with this litany of issues to be resolved, it appears that you have a lot of work to do to begin editing productively on Wikipedia without violating policy, and this means that the creation of a new article about the school by you or other involved editors is inadvisable. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
What you can do, StaffTJWChiHigh (once you've created an individual account, or several if there are several of you going to be editing) and made the required declarations, is to suggest on the talk pages of the existing articles how they might be updated - preferably with citations to reliable published sources. At least you can suggest a paragraph to be added to each with the details of the new school. You can certainly suggest there that somebody write an article about the new school, but I'm afraid that there is no guarantee that a volunteer will take the suggestion up. (Also, unless there is a substantial amount of published information about it, no article can yet be written about it). --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

How is the following statement correct? Could someone explain.

"{BLANK] was a former {BLANK]". Isn't that statement a double negative? Also, "was" already establishes that someone's status is no longer current so "former" is unnecessary. Also, it is not logical but if you were a former {BLANK} then the opposite of former is that you are? So just on plain logic the statement would be incorrect? What foes with this phrase?2605:E000:9149:A600:E4D9:72C2:BBB8:9D1B (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP user and welcome to the Teahouse.
One thing that Wikipedia is NOT is "perfect". You should just fix things like that, where either someone was not thinking clearly or only changed part of a statement without realizing how the whole sentence would look. Only if someone disagrees with you is there need to get third parties involved. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I am not an IP user, my user id is my IP. To refer to my user name other than a user name ican be viewed as derogatory. In future use I would suggest that in order not to endorse this prevalent action to call attention to someone that does us an IP as their identifier that you refer to them by the IP user name or editor. Especially as this is suppose to be a community effort and WP endorses use of IP's as identifiers.2605:E000:9149:A600:E4D9:72C2:BBB8:9D1B (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, NOW I recognize you. I have in no way impugned the ability of anonymous users, users who don't register an account, IP users, or anyone else who wants to edit Wikipedia. To take offense and complain about people who, in good faith, are trying to answer your questions is not a useful way to participate. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The fact remains that IP identifiers are endorsed by WK and as such they have as much legitimacy as user created ID's and to refer to them as anything other than users of WP or contributors, especially as review of various contentions on WP will show a propensity for identifying IP I users as somehow a different class of people, makes it all the imperative to stop referring to IP users as anything else than someone that uses WP. Now your other issue, is it improper to get a better understanding of what is and what is not acceptable to WP, especially those that take a sense of extreme possession as certain phrases are used and grammar applied. WP is not an environment that should encourage confusion. If WP adheres to rules of grammar and people read that application as an endorsement because it is used in WP hat way and incorrect, or better yet--illogical, then it is to WP's advantage to correct especially that which is incorrect. If there is a fault with that then that is not my concern as all I am attempting to do is correct mistakes even if they are mot malicious or thoughtless. At least we have established that what has been applied using the word "former" is in most likelihood illogical. I have followed your advise. If you wish to be selective as to whom advice is provided that is your perogative.2605:E000:9149:A600:E4D9:72C2:BBB8:9D1B (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, it is probably better grammar to write John Doe is a former airline pilot or John Doe was an airline pilot than John Doe was a former airline pilot. (Providing a specific hypothetical example to help clarify the case at hand.) But the third form will usually be understood to mean the first, and you can usually safely correct it, unless the rest of th article or the sources make it clear that something else is intended.
Also here the term "IP Editor" is shorthand for "An editor identified by an IP address", or "An editor who has edited without logging in". Because IP addresses are long and awkward, especially IPv6 addresses, and because they are not reliably unchanging, such a term is helpful for all conceerned, and is not intended to be in any way insulting or derogatory. Some people will use the last group of an IP to identify an editor in a discussion thread. In your case that would be "9D1B", just as "DES" is a shorthand for my full user name. No negative inference is int4ended or should be understood by any of these forms. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It's also a fact that users who choose not to register a username are restricted from performing certain editing tasks on WP. I don't think that's necessarily fair, but it does place some context for why I might respond to a registered user with a {{u}} template while not attempting that for an IP address.
We also seem to be somewhat at loggerheads about whether replacing X was a former Y with X was a past Y is a useful thing to do, but we'll let that play out elsewhere. Most of your replacements look fine to me and I thank you for your contributions. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Not to belabor this but there is no shorthand reference to "registered" user names and I nor do I see in conflicts mentions made specifically to a user name because it has certain characteristics. As can usually be found after the fact about prejudice, some people are totally unaware of the offense they may inflict. Now my User ID here is "2605:E000:9149:A600:E4D9:72C2:BBB8:9D1B". I would settle for a neutral "2605" or to what digit degree it may be necessary during a discussion to isolate my comments from that of anyone else with a similar sequence of digits.
But as concerns the issue of is/was former/past, WP statements need to stand on their own all the more than having to read an entire article to understand the context. There are many people in the world that get by without having to learn the rules of grammar but they do contend that logic prevail If a statement is illogical then it is bad writing on two issues. WP is not a place for ill-logic. The point of using the word former is that someone was active in that field but we do not use the word active in clarifying to what "former" applies. And the opposite of former is current so how can someone be "was a former" and not be active. It is one thing to say a particular statement and both parties understand what is the context of a conversation but the people involved are not there for written communication. One expression can be thought to be something remains active and the other that something is closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9149:A600:E4D9:72C2:BBB8:9D1B (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Marc Chagall

In the Article about Marc Chagall it is mentioned that he created the stain glass windows in the Fraumunster cathedral in Zurich, Switzerland. However, the Fraumunster in Zurich is not a cathedral. It is a church. Can someone help me with editing that fact? I do not know how to correct it. How do I know? I grew up in Zurich and went to th[1]e Fraumunster church multiple times, before, and after Marc Chagall created the windows. Thank you. JR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jramseych (talk • contribs) 21:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Provide a irrefutable source and you are halfway there. What you contend has to be supported by material fact instead of just what you remember.2605:E000:9149:A600:E4D9:72C2:BBB8:9D1B (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ I grew up in Zurich
Our article Fraumünster describes it as a Church, and nowhere uses the word "Cathedral". --ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
In looking at the Marc Chagall article, I spotted what you were complaining about and fixed it, so that it now uses the word "church" in conformance with the article on Fraumünster. By the way, Jramseych, you are just as empowered as I am to make this sort of change. Small edits like these, where they are obvious policy-based corrections, seldom encounter any comment or opposition. If you're really lucky, someone may click on the "thanks" button, but most of the time your own satisfaction is the only reward. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

About my article

Hello teahouse, Thanks for the invitation! Please i'd like to know: How do i get my article accepted/ published? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larajjames (talk • contribs) 23:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Larajjames: Currently, your draft does not cite any sources. My usual advice if you're going to write an article about anyone or anything:
1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.
4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Larajjames and welcome to the Teahouse.
Can I assume we are talking about the draft at Draft:Adora Law (Artist)? That draft currently has NO REFERENCES AT ALL, so it would fail to be accepted for that reason alone. In addition, we expect new articles to establish the notability of their subjects. I advise you to a) go through the Wikipedia Adventure as an introduction, then b) read through your first article and then c) make sure you understand referencing for beginners. Creating a new article from scratch on Wikipedia is a very difficult task, so you might want to learn the ropes by improving other articles for a while before tackling a new one. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 00:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Harmon Wilfred - Bio of a living person

Harmon is a friend of mine and is asking me to help rewrite his wikipedia page. Harmon has NOT created the content of the page and considers the information to be biased and libelous. Several of the cited links are broken. Is it possible for an experienced editor to determine if the content clearly fails to follow the neutral content guideline? I am new to wikipedia editing and am willing to learn what is required to complete his biography. There are several factual errors and omissions. As an example, Harmon's military career is never mentioned. Also, Harmon's life story as a whistleblower invites a controversy over the content. I need assistance to resolve the larger question about the current content. Can an experienced editor review the content with me?

FreedomtoAssociate — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreedomtoAssociate (talk • contribs) 00:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@FreedomtoAssociate: You have a conflict of interest and should not edit his article. You can make edit requests on the article's talk page, Talk:Harmon Wilfred. Avoid using terms like "libelous," because Wikipedia does not tolerate legal threats. A citation's link being broken is not sufficient to remove it -- there's the possibility that the material was moved to a different address on the same site (this happens with news stories all the time) and then there's the Internet Archive. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Question on article not accepted.

Hello and I apologize in advance if I am asking (or re-asking) a question that may well belong on another page of the editing section of Wikipedia. My question is about an article of mine that was listed as not ready for publication about a poet Algernon Sydney Logan. I was told in the final edit section that it was not have supported by reliable sources. The sources that I utilized for Logan's life were all his son, Robert Restalrig Logan, and they each were from a preface that he wrote in a posthumously-published personal journal of Algernon Sydney Logan. The editor stated that these sources were not sufficient because they were made by the son of the subject of this article. My question is that I do not understand why these sources would a priori be insufficient or not substantial simply because they were written by the son of the article's subject. My larger concern is that when I questioned the editor about this subject she in addition stated that the subject was not notable. My concern is that the editor believed that the subject of this article was not notable and that is why she decided to not accept the article and that the fact that the references were by the subject's son was the reason that she provided to not approve the article. I apologize for making this case on this article but I think that objectivity is required by bot writers and editors of any publication. Thank you very much once again for reading this. Kevin Plunkett — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Plunkett (talk • contribs) 21:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Link: Draft:Algernon Sydney Logan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • @Kevin Plunkett: The only sources you cite in the article are an advertisement and two of Logan's own works. These are not independent and so do not establish notability. Wikipedia does not use original research, which is what your draft consists entirely of. If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here's the steps you should follow:
1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.
4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Mentor available?

Greetings, The last time I ventured into the Help Jungle, I thought I saw a mentoring option for those of us who could use a little assistance finding our way around Wikipedia. Today, I can no longer find it. Would someone point me in the right direction, or tell me what happened to it? Or if I dreamed it .... Thank you. GGSloth (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@GGSloth: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area should be what you need. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed additions - how to have them reviewed

Hi there,

I am a paid contributor (which I have disclosed on my talk page) trying to get changes made to a company's page - these are updates on significant operational changes as the information on the current page is fairly out of date. Having read through many guides here on Wikipedia my understanding is that I should propose each change on the talk page of the relevant article as 'proposed additions' and wait for someone to review and update if approved. My first small request was actioned very quickly, so I submitted the next but that so far has not been looked at. This is the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Toll_Group

I understand it may be that the process of having proposed additions reviewed and actioned is dependent on availability of editors but I just wanted to check in case I have been going about these changes the wrong way and if there is something else I need to do in order to have them moved along.

I will have more substantial changes to propose soon, including redirecting pages, and want to make sure I'm doing this the right way. To be clear, I can't edit the pages directly myself, can I, due to conflict of interest?

Thanks in advance! MeInMelbs (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello MeInMelbs and welcome to the Teahouse.
Thank you for so scrupulously adhering to the guidelines for COI editing.
In that last request, you apparently copied both the COI template and the edit request template from the previous request to your new request. Unfortunately, by copying an edit request template that had already been partially implemented, you turned off all signs that you now wanted something to be done. I think I've fixed that for you and your edit request should now receive some attention. It's good that you came here to ask! — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Jmcgnh: for your response and help! Glad I checked the process! So that I don't make the same mistake again, are you saying when I go to make a new proposed addition, I shouldn't copy over the text code for COI and edit request from a previous entry? In that case, can you tell me where to find original templates I should use each time? Thanks
MeInMelbs (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@MeInMelbs: It's okay to copy as long as you remove the parameter on the edit request that says it has already been dealt with. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
To provide a bit of background information, MeInMelbs, as jmcgnh mentioned, he edited the template on the talk page to remove the |P. That tag indicates that the request has been partially implemented. Simiarly, a tag of |A indicates that a request has been answered/completed. When either of these changes happen, the edit request is removed from the requested edit category (CAT:EDITREQ), reducing its visibility. To prevent this, you can just use the default {{Request edit}} tag (without either of the aforementioned parameters) to make sure an unfulfilled edit request is displayed accordingly. I hope this helps! --HunterM267 talk 05:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Jmcgnh: and @Hunterm267: I get it now! I didn't see that tiny bit of tag text copied over originally. Appreciate your help!

Harlem 4 Obama

Dear Host:

I cofounded a grassroots organization for the purpose of getting senator Barack Obama elected. The organization was called Harlem 4 Obama. Recently someone is trying to take credit for this. I am doing a wikipedia page on H4O and I do have a blog page that I created back in 2009 that I was planning to use as a source. H4O was created in 2007. However, there is no published record before mine where someone tried to take credit for this. In fact, such allegations have come recently.

My question, how might I use this source for my page? I know the policy, but I still think if the source and article are used in a certain way it would meet the guidelines of wikipedia.

What do you think?

Yours truly

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius Tajiddin (talk • contribs) 4:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Julius Tajiddin Greetings to you. Blogs are not considered reliable source. Content created/added need to be verified by multiple reliable sources which are independent from the subject such as from major newspapers, journals. Please visit WP:Your First Article to familiar yourself on creating an article in Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Help on a new article on a school

Hi, I need help in organizing a new bunch of volunteers to write an article on a school in kolkata: Taki_House,_Govt_Sponsored_Multipurpose_School_for_Boys. I've forgotten most of my wikipedia formatting skills I had just started gathering almost 10 years back when I had become one of the first few (probably 4th or fifth) admins of bengali language wikipedia (bn:User:Dr.saptarshi ). I am supposed to lead my schoolmates who are mostly even more naive.. I would like to make some sort of a wiki-sub-project for this page and enroll some friends or students to specific sub-tasks.. Can someone guide please.

  1. Would this be a stub or a start (what is the definition) ?
  2. can you help about improving the templates on the school page and the talk page.
  3. How is importance scores assessed and updated? How is importance of a school article defined ?
    1. I reviewed a few schools eg SPHS & Hindu School, Kolkata. These seem to have quite arbitrary looking importance scores.. I wonder if some general user just altered some of the importance score assessments in the SPHS page?? Where are the criteria for objective assessment of WP:School templates (I speculated some on the talk page of this school, so you may leave the relevant part of your response in the talk page of that article.
    2. Can template displays be protected ie not just the template but the whole box with the values, but not the whole page? So that someone with a biased or conflicted purpose can not simply change the assessment decided eg by the consensus of the assessing team ?

Thanks in advance for your help --Dr.saptarshi (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Dr.saptarshi, and welcome to the teahouse. I will try to address your various questions.
  • A stub is a very short summary of a topic, often little more than a dictionary definition. A start-class article has more content than a stub, but is significantly lacking in some areas. It is often seriouysly deficint in the sources cited, and may have gaps in the coverage of the subject. Above that are C-class and B-class articles. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Assessment#Quality scale for the criteria that reviewers are supposed to use. Much of the scale is the same for all projects.
  • The infobox currently in the article seems a reasonable choice. You could add items for some of the parameters not currently specified, but these should normally summerize article content, so get the facts in the article first.
  • You will find the importance scale a little below the quality scale on the page linked above. In practice, importance assessments are quite subjective and, ironically, not very important.
  • Protection is applied to a whole page, or not at all. In general, protection is only applied in response to significant amounts of demonstrated vandalism or edit-warring, not in anticipation of possible future vandalism. Protection is normally applied at the lowest level and for the shortest time sufficient to deal with ongoing vandalism or warring. See WP:RFPP to request protection of a page. That anyone may edit any article at any time is one of the core values of Wikipedia, and restrictions are as limited as possible.
  • I doubt that a formal wiki-project would be justified for joint work on a single article. I would suggest a collaboration page in your userspace, available to all who work on this, such as User:Dr.saptarshi/Taki House collaboration. Or you could just use the article's talk page.
  • Be sure that each person who is to work on the article uses his or her own separate account. No account should be shared by two or more people. While edits may be made without logging in to an account at all, when multiple people are to work on the same article, things are much cleaner and clearer if each person uses an account.
  • Remember that Wikipedia articles must be neutral, and should not in any way promote (or attack) their subjects.
  • Remember that all article content must be verifiable. Content derived from the persnal knowledge of you or any member of your group, and not check-able in reliable sources should not be included. The best practice is to provide inline citations for all non-obvious facts. See Referencing for Beginners on how to format inline citations.
I hope those points are helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot DESiegel. These are definitely good pointers and I agree with you. :) --Dr.saptarshi (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

stats for project

With reference to SG wiki maintenance board, the original user, who created the subpage and created the list, Vsion seems to have retired from wiki.

I am interested to recreate the list for article cleanup, as the list is generated by a wiki crawler as written on the page, I like to know currently which bot or tool is used to do it. Hopefully a refreshed list and some gentle prodding to the project page might help to clear the list eventually.

It is okay if currently there is no such bot or tool available at the moment!

Thanks --Xaiver0510 (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

LOOKING FOR ASSISTANCE WITH Draft:why_Cue NEED HELP GETTING APPROVED!!

LOOKING FOR ASSISTANCE WITH Draft:why_Cue NEED HELP GETTING APPROVED!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhyCue (talk • contribs) 05:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Maproom (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
WhyCue The draft article is created by Wikiproducer123. WhyCue joined Wikipedia today and performed mainly the said draft page and asked about the approval on AfCHD WP:AFCHD# 02:55:14, 27 June 2018 review of submission by WhyCue which I believe WhyCue might have conflict of interest and inform them on CIO disclosure at AFCHD WP:AFCHD#02:55:14, 27 June 2018 review of submission by WhyCue, user talk page Draft:Why Cue and my talk page User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive 8#Need your help could definitely use your brains!. After my answer to user WhyCue, another editor Gastronautsmp3 registered as a user and perform one edit on the draft page -see [1] and requested the said article for approval on the AFCHD - see WP:AFCHD#05:31:16, 27 June 2018 review of submission by Gastronautsmp3.
Question, have you registered 3 different user names with the motivation to get the draft approve ? Four reviewers have reviewed the article and declined, in addition to Maproom and I, the subject is not notable enough to merit a page at the current standing. Please read WP:MUSICBIO and WP:RS. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
The draft submission has been declined four times (each time by a different editor). It's not going to happen. David notMD (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The Lies of Caroline Danjuma

I have been off Wikipedia for weeks now mainly due to medical reasons. I was going through some of my watchlist yesternight when I discovered this update in an article I created sometime ago. Let me start by saying based on Wikipedia standards, Naijagists is definitely not a reliable source, it is a verifiable source, but should/can not be used for sensitive info or to show significant coverage for anything. In the publication, through an Instagram post, Danjuma falsely accussed the creator of her bio of requesting for money from her. She also ignorantly accussed me of blocking her. All these are less of a concern to me, I am more surprised that an actress I idolize while growing up can stoop so low to defame one of her fans, who have done nothing but tried to increase the visibility of Nigerian cinema on the web. I am bringing this up here incase she does another silly thing inorder to reduce her age to 32. This is very easy, if she is truly 32, let her send an official document that was issued in the 90s to Wikipedia that demonstrate that. Because I really want to stay away from any drama in the Nigerian media that will affect my editing experience, I might agree to removing her age completely from the article, but I will never allow her use Wikipedia platform to lie. All the reliable sources fix her age at 38, and it is not even logical for her to be 32. More background here HandsomeBoy (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Bilby, Ivanvector and Geebee2703

Hello HandsomeBoy. A couple of suggestions...
  1. Bring this up at the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard where you can get specialist advice.
  2. Although it's difficult to be under an apparent attack like this, try to keep your language as neutral and dispassionate as possible when discussing it.
  3. I would recommend removing the full date of birth, which appears to be reasonably referenced, and putting only the year of birth in the article and the infobox. See Wikipedia:DOB for more on this issue.
Voceditenore (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. HandsomeBoy (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Wiki index

Hi Wiki people. Can anyone tell me if there is a full index of what is in Wikipedia anywhere? Often great articles pop up that are not obviously named. An index would help find these. I'm conducting a large research project and Wiki is part of this effort. I know there are millions of entries but often an article sits in a strange place. Thanks, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:464f:31f:0:b5f3:9bf3:5da5:742f (talk)

Hi John, welcome to the Teahouse. Special:AllPages shows all article titles (and redirects) in alphabetical order but you have to click "Next page" more than 10,000 times to see them. At https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/latest/ you can download them in enwiki-latest-all-titles-in-ns0.gz (75 MB). See more at Wikipedia:Database download. Wikipedia:Featured articles shows great articles, Wikipedia:Good articles shows good articles, and Random article at the top left of the interface shows a random article. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

MLB Draft 2017

Hello - I was wondering how we can edit 2017 Major League Baseball draft to show our son, Caden Lemons, who was drafted #46 in round 2 by the Milwaukee Brewers. I tried to edit the page, but it did not save my edit. We would like for him to be included in the article, but wasn't sure how to contact the editor to have him added. Does he need to join Wikipedia? And, do we need to add his information, as the other players have when you click on their names? We are new to this and just not sure how it works. Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemons3512 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This is what it looks like - first round players and some second round players have had articles created about them, and thus are also listed at 2017 Major League Baseball draft with their name in blue to indicate the link to the individual articles. For others named in that 2017 MLB draft article, there are articles about teams' minor league players. Sadly for you, there is no such article for Milwaukee Brewers. For Caden Lemons to be listed in the draft article there would need to be either an article about him or about the Brewers' minor league players. For the first option, you have a conflict of interest (he is your son). Your best hope is that Caden gets into and moves up in the minor league teams, and that Brewers fans create an article about him. David notMD (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Visual Editor not showing

The Visual Editor doesn't seem to be available when I'm logged in but I do need it as I do not know how to edit my article without it. I've had to do all my edits not logged in. Metaphysics Man (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there Metaphysics Man and welcome to the treehouse! My name is Hunterm267, and I'm happy to help! I saw your question over at the Help Desk, and I replied to your section over there. Drop a reply to either place if you're still experiencing any issues! --HunterM267 talk 17:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Newbie editor expecting continuing issues with another editor, can I request he extract himself from my efforts?

I'm new. This has all gotten off on the wrong foot and I feel really attacked by a particular editor who has gone out of his way to be less than helpful and rather detrimental to my efforts. Is it possible to seek another editor review his changes and/or request this person just not even be involved with my edits? It seems like it would be best. I'd rather have help from somebody who's actually willing to be helpful instead of accusatory. We really all have better things to do with our time. TY aedixon 22:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aedixon (talk • contribs)

Sometimes the expressions of WP contributors can be harsh on newbies especially when the humanness is taken out of templates used by them to convey information. can you direct us to the situstion at hand?2605:E000:9149:A600:E4D9:72C2:BBB8:9D1B (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Aedixon. I read the discussion on your talk page. If that is what you are referring to, then I do not think the other editor has done anything wrong. You have admitted that you work for the school in question, so you definitely have a conflict of interest. The first thing that you must do is comply with our mandatory Paid editing disclosure. New editors with a conflict of interest should always listen carefully to experienced editors who have no COI. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I did the disclosure once I realized I needed one. THEN I got the notice for the Jax page deletion which seems completely retaliatory. Why would you delete a page that gets visits every day for two years? And why have I spent almost 12 hours on this site over the past two days just trying to figure out the rules? aedixon 00:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aedixon (talk • contribs)

Hello again, Aedixon. The policies and guidelines for this website are a bit complicated, but if you start with our foundational Five Pillars, and work your way through our core content policies, you will have a solid start. This is the #5 website in the world, and the English language version has over 5.6 million articles, including articles about the most bitterly divisive topics imaginable. We routinely deal with the ugliest and most controversial things that human beings do. You didn't really expect this project to be super simple to understand, did you?
As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Jax, it is unwise for you to accuse a highly experienced editor of "retaliation" without providing evidence. One of our behavioral norms is to assume good faith of your fellow editors unless you have solid evidence to the contrary. Nominating articles for deletion is routine around here and we are constantly deleting non-compliant articles by the dozens, hundreds and thousands. Going into that discussion with a chip on your shoulder, shouting in all caps and making comments that indicate your lack of understanding of our policies and guidelines is not a good way to prevail in that debate. Listen, you are a paid editor here and the vast majority of productive editors here, like me, are volunteers. We expect paid editors to do their job competently, and to be thoroughly and completely familiar with our policies and guidelines and our behavioral norms. So, do your job, study hard, take that chip off your shoulder, and start collaborating with your fellow editors. Begin by learning how to sign your talk page comments, instead of having a bot sign for you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a ridiculously complicated website and you all (volunteer editors) seem to feel like those of us who are doing our "paid jobs" to edit here aren't actually being paid to do entirely big jobs of which this is only a smart part. I am not a paid wiki editor. I am literally a paid copywriter. I suspect my own boss did not expect I'd spend this much time sorting this small part of our page edits nor that it would balloon into a mess on related pages. I have other deadlines to meet. We all have other things to do. So, it is not unreasonable to expect you (those who have claimed the position of being the experts) to approach ANYbody who comes here to assist with your content from a place of guidance and help. I am far from an idiot when it comes to the digital realm but this is overly complicated content management and communication system. Why is it that hard to even figure out what wiki wants from my danged signature? It gives me a small template, but that doesn't seem to be sufficient... never mind the literal encyclopedia of backend resources for editors. It is not user friendly. Editors have not been user friendly to me. I already explained my evidence of what appeared to be retaliation" the fact that my hand was severely slapped for being new and less than knowledgable, the "template" copy that disparaged my efforts enough that I find it a misrepresentation of my character, the correction of my error (which I never complained about doing BTW), and THEN the mysterious request for deletion of a related page by the same editor only AFTER these initial exchanges when the page had existed happily for years. I'll be happy to be proven wrong although I'd rather just go on with my original plan of making edits instead of doing damage control against the editors who are supposed to be helping me.

My suggestion here is, in the future, to approach unclear edits by newbies with some template copy more like, "Hi, I have some questions about your edits. Before the site reverts your changes on ... IDK, chose a deadline of, like 24 hours from now or something ... please respond to these community requirements ... include a link to something reasonable and easy to browse ... and correct any unintentional errors. Here's how you can communicate with me directly if you have questions. -- your friendly volunteer editor". You catch more flies with honey. There's not chip on my shoulder. It's real anger. You guys are literally gas lighting me about your "good faith" approach without ever approaching me from that direction. The bot who kindly helped me sign my comments is the only neutral and helpful party in this discussion. I must not be the only one who's struggled with even that small detail, else it wouldn't exist to help us out. aedixon 17:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aedixon (talk • contribs)

Where is my page?

Hello, I've been reading and getting more confused on how to publish a page; I thought I did it right but am now questioning my process. I created Jeff Moscone about 15 days ago and can't seem to find where it's at? I first tried sandbox and submitted it but couldn't find it, so I created a new page and submitted and still can't find it. Sorry I'm a slow learner, trying to figure this out. Thanks,

Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Moscone (talk • contribs) 18:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff Moscone: You have a conflict of interest and should not be writing or editing any articles or drafts about yourself or anything you're affiliated with. Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself or your career.
If you're plan to write someone or something else, here's the steps you should follow:
1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.
4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Jeff Moscone and User:Jeff Moscone/sandbox/Jeff Moscone have both been deleted, for reasons given in the deletion log. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Archivebot

My talk page is automatically archived on a reasonably regular basis. I like it--but there is one conversation I want to save on the page. How can I do that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: You can indeed prevent bot archiving of a particular thread. Instructions to do so are here in the bot documentation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I went to the link, have inserted the tl... into the section heading and hope that works! Someone else sent me instructions on how to reference something here and I don't want to lose what they said. Thanks again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
That would not have worked (the "tl|" is just there to make the template show up). I fixed it on your talk page. It's an "invisible" template, so done correctly, you shouldn't see it at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I have been on Wiki just over a year now and though I have written a good bit, I am still a novice in every practical way. There is so much to learn it is quite overwhelming at times--there should be a class. I could do a class! So tl just means template? I constantly run into stuff like this--things others take for granted knowing. If someone tells me type in xyz--that's what I do. Because I know nothing! Sigh. Thank you for your help--and the rescue. It was very kind of you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Um, @Jenhawk777 and Seraphimblade:, the instructions say that {{DNAU}} template needs to be substituted. So the correct thing to have added would look like: {{subt:DNAU}} on a line by itself, just under the header. What the substitution does is insert a somewhat longer HTML comment that the archive bot will see and respect, so you'll see that comment instead of what you placed there, if you go to edit that thread again. The template can go other places in the thread as well, but putting it right under the section head makes it clearer to all concerned. I'm going to leave the actual implementation to you, Jenhawk777.
You can also move tidbits that you want to save to your user page or to another user subpage, such as User:Jenhawk777/Tidbits (which is just an example). Many users have these additional subpages where they keep aids to memory or advice that they've read or written and want to be able to refer to again. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Can I copy and save this as well? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Of course, Jenhawk777, everything posted here can be copied with attribution. You are familiar with WP:COPYWITHIN, right? — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Starting out on wiki

Hello everyone,

How can I publish an article that conforms to Wikipedia rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacefinish (talk • contribs) 18:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

  • @Spacefinish: If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here's the steps you should follow:
1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.
4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Spacefinish deleted and blocked. A) User names are for people, not names of businesses. B) As Ian explained, articles can be created when there is sufficient published content not written by the subject or the subject's employees. David notMD (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

PCCOOLE POST HAS BEEN DELETE , WHO SHOULD I CONTACT WITH FOR RE POST ?

Hi，

My post has been delete since it might have some duplicate words or sentences i would like to make a revise and repost i was wondering know who should i contact with and which sentences has duplicate content . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackwongpcc (talk • contribs) 01:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  • @Blackwongpcc: If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here's the steps you should follow:
1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find. If a website sells whatever you are writing about, do not use it.
2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail. In other words, do not use PCCooler's website.
3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. This means that you should try to describe what the source says with your own words.
4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism. This means that you need to re-write it with new words. You should also make sure you write about the subject in a way that even people who hate it can agree with the way the article is written. Do not go on about how well a product has sold
6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


hi,

It is very difficult to find a wiki person to help me with my post i would like to make revise on my article and re post it but who should i talk with — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackwongpcc (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Blackwongpcc: I just explained everything you need to do to write a successful article. The path you are trying to take will only result in the article being deleted again and probably in you being blocked.
The material you had was no good. It was promotional (which we do not allow), it did not cite independent reliable sources, and it contained copyright violations.
You will be better off following the instructions I already gave you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Editing

I just started a new account on Wikipedia so I would like to know how do I make my info visible for everyone to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sello diphoko (talk • contribs) 06:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sello diphoko and welcome to the Teahouse.
On Wikipedia, information about yourself would go on your user page, which so far has not been created. I'll put a welcome message on your user talk page with a number of links to useful information on getting started on Wikipedia. You are advised not to put a lot of personal data on your userpage, or anywhere on Wikipedia, because just about everything here is visible to the world, even if only parts of it are indexed by search engines. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I have family photos I want to use in my article, but Wikipedia thinks they are copyrighted.

I am working on an Wikipedia article entitled "General Juan Francisco Morales Llerena" of Guayaquil, Ecuador, South America.

General Juan Francisco Morales Llerena had a remarkable career in 1895. He was appointed by Supreme Commander General Eloy Alfaro as the General of the Republic. General Morales Llerena was also appointed to be in charged of Ecuador's Department of Import and Export Taxation.

More importantly, General Morales Llerena played a key role in General Alfaro's winning Ecuador's Civil War of 1895.

Yes, General Morales Llerena is most deserving of his own Wikipedia article.

I happen to be a great-grandson of General Morales Llerena because my grandmother was a daughter of the General.

I am having trouble on the Spanish edition of Wikipedia getting my article published because for one, my photos of the General are considered copyrighted by Wikipedia. Therefore my Wikipedia is sitting idle and could be deleted. Second, I had someone who reviewed the article and one of his criticisms was that my links did not allow the reviewer to see the actual pages that had been referenced. I have since then corrected all my links so that refer to the material being referenced.

My article is finished. Could Wikipedia look at it and tell me what I have to do to get published as far as my personal photos and images of a book and a 1901 newspaper article are concerned. My Wikipedia is on the the Spanish edition of Wikipedia. I put it on the Spanish edition because all my material is in Spanish. I translate any communication between Wikipedia and myself with "Google Translate".

My Wikipedia Username is Bodvar Antonio Gregersen.

I would appreciate any guidance and advice in this matter.

Thank you.

Bodvar Antonio Gregersen--Bodvar Antonio Gregersen (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Not an answer to your question, but some comments:
en:Wikipedia and es:Wikipedia have different rules. People here are unlikely to know how things are done at es:Wikipedia, you might do better asking at their equivalent of this Teahouse (or of the Help Desk).
Any photograph taken before 1923 is, I think, out of copyright in all relevant jurisdictiions, so you should be able to upload it to Wikimedia Commons and then use it in any Wikipedia.
If the photographs were taken after 1923, they may still be covered by copyright, and the copyright is likely to belong to the heir of the photographer, rather than to the owner of the photographs. If you can't find the owner, or you can find them but they won't release the copyright, then you won't be able to upload them to Wikimedia Commons – but you may be able to upload a picture of Alfaro to es:Wikipedia, using the Spanish equivalent of "fair use".
Maproom (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_793&oldid=851035685"