Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 797

Archive 790

←

Archive 795

Archive 796

Archive 797

Archive 798

Archive 799

Archive 800

Submitting an article for publication

I finished working on an article- TechNYC June 28 in my sandbox, and wanted to submit for publication. There was no 'submit for publication' button as there was for my Matt Sweeny article I submitted on June 25. So I just moved it into draft, but no message at the bottom that it was waiting for review. Pretty sure I did something wrong this time, but not sure what it was. Thanks for your helpTlvernon (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello there. As per WP:PAID you must disclose that you are paid on your userpage. Thank You. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 19:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tlvernon: I added a template to the top of Draft:TechNYC that should allow you to submit it. Once you do so, the "awaiting review" message should appear. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Honorific titles abbreviations

Hi there, I was wondering whether there are any regulations in abbreviation? Especially when it comes to honorific titles such as The Honourable or His Excellency? Because there is a bit of conflict of interest between me and another editor regarding this and his reasoning is that it should be abbreviated because the association website (in this case Parliament website) says so? - LionCountry25 (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello LionCountry25 and welcome to the Teahouse.

There is a section of the MOS called HONORIFICS that the two of you should be quoting at each other until you reach a consensus. WP's manual of style takes precedence over other style guides, when it comes to how Wikipedia articles are to be written. We can take Parliament's expressed preference into consideration, but it does not govern Wikipedia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Unsure how to proceed with Article

Today, I discovered this article, it seems to be filled with problems. Half the article seems to fall under original research as specified in WP:NOR. It hasn't been edited in over a month. Is this an example of where an article should be proposed for deletion I don't see it meeting and notability guidelines either. This would be my first time putting an article up for deletion so I want to make sure I am understanding the guidelines correctly. Any advice is appreciated! Twinky995 (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Twinky995 and welcome to the Teahouse.

See WP:BEFORE before you put an article up for deletion. Maybe you can find some notability sources. In this case, the original research part should be excised with a polite note to the contributor, who probably didn't know they were doing anything against policy. If what remains does not appear to be notable, you can raise the issue on the talk page or tag the article with your notability concerns. If a discussion ensues, you and the other participants can decide what is the best course of action. If nobody seems interested, you could try a WP:Proposed deletion (usually known as a PROD). This is a low-drama way for a page to be deleted or kept. If the PROD is removed, you have another party to discuss next steps with, possible a nomination at articles for deletion. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Twinky995, jmcgnh I've taken the liberty of adding some references which include minutes from Parliament discussing the closure. That's a place to start anyway. Coryphantha Talk 01:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

How to protect an article

Due to vandalism, war of editions or spam is growing every time, how to protect an article to avoid other new users or anonymous users edit from that article. I want to understand and learn Regards! --🌀ARGOSBETA24🌀 20:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArgosBeta24 (talk • contribs)

Dear @ArgosBeta24: Welcome to Wikipedia! Protection is a technical feature that can only be applied by administrators. To request protection of an article that is currently subject to persistent vandalism and other disruptive editing, or content disputes, please make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Zingarese (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) ArgosBeta24 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Only administrators can protect a page, but only if there is evidence of a problem like vandalism; pages are not protected preemptively or simply to keep IPs from editing them(most IP edits are actually not vandalism). You can request protection if there is a problem with vandalism at WP:RPP. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC):

Other editors reverting changes you made to various hurricane articles is not vandalism. The best places to discuss the disputes are the Talk pages of the articles. David notMD (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

References with embedded content

Assuming no interpretation and I'm simply making straightforward, descriptive statements of facts.

• Say I'm writing about an organisation which have released a video that I've formed a statement from. A reputable media company has written about the video without alluding to my specific statement, but do embed the video in their article. Would citing the media company be permitted? and if so, would it be preferred to directly referencing the original video?

E.g., using https://nesn.com/2017/10/heres-the-complete-roster-for-bostons-new-overwatch-league-team/ as a reference for a statement which can only be verified via the embedded twitter video. Wiki nV (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear @Wiki nV: That’s absolutely fine; if your statement is not in the article at all, it would be preferable to directly reference the original video. Please make sure the information you plan to add accurately reflects the content of the video you are citing (without any statements not made in the video, any sort of original synthesis, or swaying outside the boundaries of a neutral point of view) and use {{Cite tweet}} or {{Cite web}}. Regards, Zingarese (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

How do I get started?

Hi I am new here and I was wondering if there is anything that I need to know before I start here?Alysha-Merkel7 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Alysha-Merkel7

Hello Alysha-Merkel7 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Oh, there's so much to learn! But you've managed to post a message in the Teahouse, so you're off to a great start. Much better than if you had decided to probe the depths of "anyone can edit" to see if you could say just any old thing and get away with it. I can see from your talk page that you are enrolled in a class that likely uses Wikipedia as a component, so I don't want to get in edgewise with your instructor. I can also see that you've made progress in the Wikipedia Adventure tutorial.

I sometimes advocate "learn by doing" and "make lots of mistakes, quickly". You can start on the community portal page and pick some things that need fixing and fix them. If you don't think you know how to fix them, either ask a question (here at the Teahouse is a good place) or try something else that you feel more up-to-speed on. You can also shadow other editors to see what they do. Everyone's entire history of contributions on Wikipedia (with a few exceptions) is visible on their contributions page, so you could pick an editor and see what they do, edit-by-edit, or you could go through the history of an article to see how different editors have contributed to it.

As you go, and as you make mistakes, someone is sure to let you know (hopefully they'll be kind) and you'll learn something. Don't be stubborn about your changes and don't make a large number of changes at once, until you get more of a feel for editing. Have you looked at referencing for beginners yet? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ordering categories

MOS:CATORDER seems to indicate that list of Categorized articles might be in some different order than alphabetical, but fails to offer any info/process for how an editor might control the CATORDER to be non-alphabetical.

Does anyone know where I might find info on how to order articles within a category when alphabetical order doesn't make the most sense? Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello @N2e:, and welcome to the Teahouse. I believe you misunderstood the section (it could be phrased a bit clearer). The section describes the ordering of category tags within an article, not the sorting of articles within a category. A description of how to influence the sorting of articles within a category for a few specific use cases is at WP:SORTKEY. Hope this helps. GermanJoe (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much, GermanJoe! That worked! N2e (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

How to make a user page

Hello, I tried to look up the information and copy what I saw to make my own. I'm not sure I'm allowed to. I've only made a few pages, mostly just translating Japanese Wikipedia pages on volleyball players, and trying to figure out the sources and what I need to keep and what I couldn't use due to having a limited understanding of the Japanese language. I don't understand html very well (actually hoping Wikipedia editing will help me with that), and I'm not sure how to go about it. I really just want to not have a red link on the top of my page. If anyone wouldn't mind helping me understand how to make a user-page and even if I should or am allowed to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erivolley0048 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Erivolley0048 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Making a user page is fairly easy. Click on your username which is currently a red link. That will open a page where you are offered the chance to create your user page. You can type whatever you want to appear in the edit space, preview it, publish it. If you are editing on a device where this doesn't work, you may need to switch to desktop view to get something that works sanely, if in tiny hard-to-read characters.

Looking forward to seeing your new user page. At some point, you need to make sure your user page stays within user page guidelines, but be bold and get started! — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jmcgnh, Thank you, I created one, though I am not sure if it is right. I realize that earlier I was prompted to do a "draft page" and that got deleted so I was very confused. Hopefully I did it right this time. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erivolley0048 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Erivolley0048, please see Wikipedia:User_page_design_center. Configuring your user page will also help you learn more about Wiki markup and formatting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

erivolley0048, it looks just fine. Your sandbox is still there. You mistakenly submitted it to become a regular WP article (I'm pretty sure that's not what you intended) which is why it was declined. You can leave it there or place {{db-user}} at the top to have it removed. In my, admittedly not very long experience at WP, there's not much occasion to learn actual HTML or even much CSS in editing WP. Wikimarkup is fairly different, though there are a few overlaps where HTML tags or CSS tags can be employed to change a few things about the regular markup language. Since you're making a point of your non-monolinguality, you could try a BABEL box, for instance. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Erivolley0048.Another great place to start is the User page design center, it has lots of great ideas. Plus you can customize your signature, there's a tutorial here that can get you started. Always remember to sign your posts on talk pages and at the Tea house with four tildes: ~~~~. Best wishes. Coryphantha Talk 12:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Too many redundant links?

I just happened upon the attaché page and noticed that it has several internal links that point to redirects that point back to the attaché page, i.e. they're links that don't do anything. Are these really helpful? Can I get rid of them? See specifically the last paragraph of the opening section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfocker4 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tfocker4. Yes, those links back to the same article are not necessary and should be removed. Red links should only be created if there is a good case to be made for a separate article in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Creating a page

How do I create a Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pronkedtho72728 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Pronkedtho72728: If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here are 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) 19:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

How to get notified when my wikipedia page gets published publicly?

Hi Tea house, I have created some articles of which for some articles I have got the mail that my page has been reviewed but for some articles I haven't got. So, is there any provision to get notified about the publishment of my page? And another help I need is what are some tools like hot cat so that I can use for editing and make my wikipedia editing easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishi Muni (talk • contribs) 16:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you have created at least 12 articles, many/most nominated for speedy deletion or in the Articles for deletion process. Perhaps it is time to reconsider what makes a person notable for an article. David notMD (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

can't use Italian Wikipedia - notice of copyright issues always "takes over"

What the heck - word chosen carefully - is happening? Whenever I try to work in the Italian Wikipedia (the only pages I'm trying these days, as all my work right now is there) the page I want appears briefly, then a full-page overlay appears (it is about the current problems with EU Parliament voting regarding copyrights, &c.) with no way to get back to the page I want to work on.

The European Parliament copyright vote is ABSOLUTELY an important issue, and informing Wikipedia users about it - and what they might do to influence the vote - is ABSOLUTELY important. Hijacking Wikipedia pages completely with notices about these issues is NOT acceptable.

I assume (?) there's a way to get to the pages I'm trying to access, but believe me, I've looked everywhere I can think of, and I can't find the way.

If this is just someone's error in posting these notices, please fix it soon. If this is actually an intentional method of disseminating information, please end it soon.

Seauton (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Seauton: See Wikipedia:Help_desk#Italian_Wikipedia_not_accessible. For background, see this, this, and this. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Seauton. Here is a news article with more information about the blackout. This was a consensus decision by Italian Wikipedia editors. The English language Wikipedia was blacked out in a similar protest in 2012. See Protests against SOPA and PIPA. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

How do you resubmit a declined page

Hello,

A draft page I created was declined because there were too few external links backing up the content. It is now in my sandbox and I have added more references.

How can I resubmit my page to be checked again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekraan (talk • contribs) 11:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Dekraan: I see you declared a conflict of interest about your editing here. Thank you for being honest, however, if you are paid to edit Wikipedia in the largest sense of the term (e.g. if you are from marketing and your boss asked to edit the page, even if you do not get a bonus specifically for that), you need to do more. If so, see WP:PAID and make the appropriate mandatory disclosure that you are doing paid editing, not just COI-editing.

First of all, you forked the draft in two places, and have been editing both: there is your sandbox at User:Dekraan/sandbox and also Draft:TOPdesk. You should probably stick to Draft:TOPdesk, where the previous review took place, and delete your sandbox (place {{db-author}} at the top of the page and someone will take care of it) or blank it (by removing all its contents).

The draft was declined by KJP1 because of a lack of "notability" which in Wikipedia parlance means roughly "has been described at length by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject" (the "at length" part is also called "significant coverage"). I do not think the sources you added on your sandbox page add up to that, because (from a first glance by someone who does not read Dutch) they are mostly routine announcements in the specialized press and/or press releases; but you are close enough to the line that asking for a second review is acceptable (if the new reviewer complains, tell them to admonish me).

What you should probably do then is to essentially redo this edit on your sandbox page at the proper location (Draft:TOPdesk), then add {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page to resubmit for a review. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I want to create an artists biography, how can I do it

I want to create some artists biography, who are famous, How can I do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertashok61 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Albertashok61: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that "famous" is not necessarily the same thing as "notability", the metric Wikipedia uses to determine if a subject merits an article. Not everyone merits an article here. A subject merits an article if it is shown in independent reliable sources to meet the relevant notability guidelines, in the case of artist that would be WP:NARTIST. It is possible for someone to be "famous" but not "notable" as Wikipedia defines it. It is also important for the sources to be independent, that is not associated with the subject at all. Things like an artist's website, press releases, or routine announcements are not appropriate for establishing notability. Wikipedia is only interested in what uninvolved third parties have chosen to write about a subject.

Also please understand that successfully creating an article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. Users who are most successful at creating an article got started by first editing existing articles, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and for what is being looked for in articles. I would recommend that you do that before attempting to create an article. You may also wish to use this tutorial which will help you learn as well. When you are ready, I would also suggest that you create and submit a draft at Articles for Creation where you can get feedback on it before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

How much do admins get paid?

Hi, I’m new to Wikipedia and I have a lot of experience copyediting for my college newspaper. I’m thinking about turning Wikipedia into a career, and I’m wondering what the top salary is for admins? Thanks, Cora — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corabaker (talk • contribs) 04:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Corabarker and welcome to the Teahouse.

I think the joke is "Admins get paid 100 times as much as ordinary editors, but zero times 100 is still zero." Who knows what the future may bring, but editing Wikipedia is currently not a remunerative endeavor. Essentially everyone is a volunteer, particularly admins. There are paid positions at Wikimedia Foundation. A few editors find clients willing to pay to have the articles about them edited or "looked after", but that activity is scrutinized and, frankly, discouraged by many volunteer editors. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Corabarker I would respectfully suggest that you find different career plans. Being an admin is not a paid position nor is it something you can just apply for and get as a job; there is a process for becoming an administrator (at Requests for Administratorship) and it usually involves spending at least many months, if not years, building an edit history of good contributions and demonstrating to the community that you are aware of and understand Wikipedia guidelines. Admins like me aren't getting paid to do this; we do it because we want to help this project. I don't know about others, but I also didn't start participating here with aims to be an administrator. I just wanted to help, and eventually others thought it might help me help the project to have administrator powers.

Wikipedia isn't meant to be a career for editors. We're here because we want to help. As stated, it is possible to be employed by the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that operates Wikipedia(though not as just an editor) so if you really want to work for Wikipedia as a career, that would be your option. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I heard of one admin receiving 1,000 times the average editor's pay, and they were a newly appointed admin too. I hope I get double my usual pay for this helpful comment. Polyamorph (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Admins get commission on however many copies of the print edition we sell or however many people we can recruit to sell the print edition. And if they recruit people to sell, the profits get passed up to us, too.¹ Jimbo Wales also has plenty of videos for us (at such a low and reasonable cost of $39.95 each, with a special right now of two for just four low payments of $34.95) to show us how to better sell the print edition, dramatically increasing our individual profits such that it'd be insane to not buy them.² And then sell them to the people we recruit. And then buy more copies so they can sell them to the people they recruit. You'll need to rent the specially licensed official Wikimedia VHS to watch the videos, but for only $89.95/hr fee³ Jimbo is practically leaving it in your house.⁴

¹ After 12% commission fee to your recruiter and 87% licensing fee to the Wikimedia Foundation.

² The Federal Trade Commission requires us to place a disclaimer that the videos may not educate you on how to improve sales, but we can guarantee that you should learn something from the ordeal.

³ Installation fee not included, rental of approved viewing centers available upon request.

⁴ Jimmy Wales not to be contacted regarding video equipment or any other merchandising matters per employee handbook code 87b-32. Contact our local⁵ support line for only $5.99 for the first minute and $9.99 for each additional minute.

⁵ Local support line only available in Lenghu between 11 pm to 4 am EST. Calls from all other locations or hours must be routed through to our international call center in Lenghu for an additional service fee of the equivalent of 300 Renminbi per minute.

...

Wait, shit, that's Amway. Nevermind. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I'd swear Jimbo said they were easy payments, not low payments! I feel robbed.

One more thing Corabaker should know before she starts reaping the profits of the best choice of her life: to make sure you will never run out of stock, you have to buy 50 print editions each month from Jimbo. No worries about overstock though, they practically sell themselves. If somehow you do get overstock, you just need to up your game! You best sign up for Jimbo's personal motivational speech* and success is guaranteed!** Sign up now for the measly sum of $2999.95, it will certainly be worth every penny!***

* Speech may not be delivered by Jimbo in person. No refunds

** Statement not to be taken literally. No refunds

*** Pennies are not considered legal tender in Lenghu and are not accepted for payment. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I hear the reviews are bad, one poor old lady from Calabasa tried to cancel the VHS program and she couldn't get through to a human. The computer answering program kept playing Jimbo's speech snippet and she got so flustered she tried to return the four VHS videos she'd received and the post office kept returning her package with a stamped note that said "Address unknown", and the bill for the phone calls was so high she had to sell her parakeets to buy food her her 5 cats! Coryphantha Talk 14:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

DOTTO RANGIMOTO; RELIABLE SOURCES

My draft declined, admin said its not supported by reliable sources, sources that support my article are Official website of Cornell University, The Citizen, Tanzanian local newspaper, BBC SWAHILI WEBSITE, VOA SWAHILI WEBSITE, UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI OFFICIAL WEBSITE, UNIVERSITY OF BAYREUTH.

How I supposed to do so as to make these sources reliable? Am waiting your help

My draft link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dotto_Rangimoto

THANKS Chomachoma (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

References

@Chomachoma: You do not make sources reliable: either they are, or they are not, in the context of the information they are supposed to support.

RoySmith left you a more precise note. I do not think the real problem is reliability of the sources (university websites are usually considered reliable sourcing for what seminars, colloquia, etc.), but that you make grandiose claims (I see some of it was cleaned up, but for instance Dotto is great enthusiast of Kiswahili literature is WP:PEACOCK, loaded language but not very informative) without citing them to sources, or that claims are not supported by the cited sources.

I would say the real hurdle for your draft is going to be "notability", which roughly means "the subject was written about at length by independent reliable sources" (see WP:AUTHOR for a more precise understanding of what that means in the context of your draft). Notice that this is a stronger requirement than simply being reliably sourced - it needs sources that are (1) reliable, (2) independent of the subject, that (3) discuss it at length. University press releases often fail (2) (since they are promoting their own scholars/seminars) and sometimes (3) (per WP:ROUTINE, a university announcing a seminar they will held does not show an editorial interest in the matter; it is just what they do). I tend to think the newspapers you cite are enough to pass the bar (though I cannot read Swahili), but others might disagree. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your reply.

I understand that reliable source must support context in article, to meet that condition I edited my draft and removing those challenged information with no sources. Challenged information left in draft supported by cited sources, for example the statement you quoted from my draft "Dotto is great enthusiast of Kiswahili literature" is also found in Daily Nation newspapers, this is Kenyan English language newspaper.

Also in draft there are views of judges on Dotto Rangimoto and his manuscript, I agree they challenged information but they supported by Daily Nation Newspaper, The Citizen Newspaper, Cornell University Website, Nairobi University website and Mabati-Cornell website. Dotto Rangimoto is not staff or student of those universities, he is just poetry and winner of Mabati-Cornell prize and I think its better his success in poetry industry to be part of Wikipedia.

Cornell University post this information on their website because they sponsor the prize, Nairobi University and Bayreuth universities have this information on their websites about Dotto because they invited him to read his manuscript.

I waiting further instructions and am ready to make changes so as to make my draft better for Wikipedia and people.

Thanks

Chomachoma (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

References

@Chomachoma: I was probably not clear enough. In Wikipedia, when you make any factual statement (for instance Book X by author Y was published by Z on date D), you need a reference (except for extremely obvious information), that supports the claim with the desired level of reliability (the more extraordinary the claim, the more solid the source needs to be). However, Dotto is great enthusiast of Kiswahili literature is not a factual statement; a corresponding factual statement would be Dotto has read X books of Kiswahili literature or Dotto is editor for journal X that publishes reviews of Kiswahili literature or something like this.

The general rule about non-factual statements on Wikipedia is that you do not make them, even if you find them in sources. They are impossible to reliably source (the ref may contain a base of facts that could convince a reader of the non-factual statement, but we are in the business of reporting facts, not their interpretation) and easy to manipulate into casting the subject into a positive or negative light. You might quote other sources, but not in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. use X said that (blah) (ref to X) rather than (blah) (ref to X)), if it is due weight to do so (it rarely is).

Furthermore, there are two requirements for sourcing in an article. That's a bit complicated, but bear with me. I just discussed the first one, which is that factual statements need to be sourced, but not necessarily by independent sources; if we have every reason to believe that the source's reporting is correct, it is enough. But there is a stronger requirement, that only "notable" subjects may have an article, and "notability" is shown by having sources reliable and independent and describing the subject at length. University press releases are (most often) OK to source in the former sense (verifiability), but usually not OK in the latter sense (notability), because they are not independent even if they are reliable.

The fact that Dotto Rangimoto is not staff or student of [universities that awarded him prizes] is irrelevant; universities have a vested interest in promoting their own prize, or even their own topic of research; you yourself make the argument for non-independence when you write Cornell University post this information on their website because they sponsor the prize, Nairobi University and Bayreuth universities have this information on their websites about Dotto because they invited him to read his manuscript.

I will also note that your draft is not written in good English. However that is not a big concern; if you can provide decent sources, other editors can correct the English. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hallow

I've read and understood, thanks for introducing me factual and nonfactual statements and how to use source that mentioned subject without casting he/she into negative or positive light. To meet those terms I removed the said non factual statements. I did not delete Reviews of Judges on subject because they falls under Wikipedia guides as you stated in your last comment "X said that(blah) (ref to X) and not under (blah) (ref to X)"

I'm ready to continue editing my draft in order to meet Wikipedia guides and criteria.

Thanks

Chomachoma (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Article needs: Renaming & Editing, or Deleting, or ...?

I need some input on what to do regarding article Boston Confucians.
Problems:
P.1: Naming:
"Boston Confucianism" seem far more appropriate than its present title of "Boston Confucians" (in reading Refs 1,2,3)
P.2: Content:
It's in a rather crappy state, and has been for years. (Much of the crappy editing looks to have been undertaken by one single person; User "Bohemiotx" = User "Joffre D. Meyer", Ref. this).
P.3: Deleting
P.3.1: Does the topic of the article pass required criteria for notability? - if not, then an AfD is called for.
P.3.2: If required criteria for notability is actually met, then: Should it be deleted anyway (through AfD process)?, in being convinced that nobody holds both the interest and the competency needed to rectify and improve the article.
Note: Not allowing crap and stubs to occupy the main article space for all eternity, seem to be an issue which no policy addresses. But I could be wrong!

Refs:
Ref.1: https://www.quora.com/What-is-Boston-Confucianism
Ref.2: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/43912/summary , the first paragraph:
>>At an international conference in 1991, people began to refer to Robert Neville and his colleagues as "Boston Confucians." At first the phrase was used as affectionate teasing and tongue-in-cheek self-description. However, Neville reports that, by the end of the conference, the phrase "Boston Confucianism" had come to be used as a semi-serious label for a particular view: the position that "Confucianism is not limited to East Asian ethnic application" and that it "has something genuinely interesting and helpful to bring to contemporary philosophical discussions" (p. 1). Neville's book, Boston Confucianism: Portable Tradition in the Late-Modern World, is a defense of these claims.<<
Ref.3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cummings_Neville#Proponent_of_Confucianism
-- DexterPointy (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The current article is indeed in a rather crappy state, perhaps because its various contributors have different views of what it's meant to be about. Some possibilities are

1. A set of people living in or associated with Boston and holding Confucian beliefs or ideals
2. The beliefs or ideals held or promulgated by those people
3. The idea that a form of Confucianism can be made a popular belief system among Westerners.

Before asking whether the topic is notable, someone needs to decide what the topic is. Then if a notable topic is identified, someone needs to create an article which sticks to that topic. Maproom (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I've now taken an AfD approach. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boston_Confucians -- DexterPointy (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggested change

This is the first time I suggest anything so i hope this is the right place to make a suggestion. I don't want to make the change myself

I went to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics where it says "In order to measure time, one can record the number of occurrences (events) of some periodic phenomenon." I think it should say "In order to measure the passing of time..."

One could say that a clock is an event counter. Something goes tick tack and these are events that correspond to something like a second or a day. According to Paul Davies, measuring time, not the passing of time, is very difficult if not impossible. Not an exact quotation. That's what he said in "The Big Questions" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.117.221 (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• The better place to suggest this is the article's talk page, in that case Talk:Time in physics, but your distinction sounds extremely pedantic to me. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

How to perfect my article on SyMetric Systems

I have written an article on the startup called SyMetric Systems, it provides IT solutions to the pharma industry. It has been rejected twice. Please suggest me changes that i should make to the article, so that it gets published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya.anand030 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Aditya.anand030 and welcome to the Teahouse.

I hope this isn't too disappointing for you, but I'm not sure your draft can be published.

1. part of your draft is a copyright violation, copying a section from the company's website.
2. the overall tone of your draft is quite promotional, almost as if it had been written by the company rather than by a neutral editor summarizing independent news coverage
3. the images used in your draft appear to also be copyrighted, so cannot appear on a draft, even if there is a fair-use justification
4. on first glance, it appears that you do not have any notability references of the sort required by WP:NCORP

These issues can be worked on, but if you don't understand why these issues led to your draft being rejected, we have a considerable educational process to go through. Wikipedia will not allow itself to be used for promotion. If you have a connection with the company, it's mandatory that you disclose it. See the requirements at paid editing. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello,Aditya.anand030. The thing to realise is that Wikipedia has almost no interest in anything that a company says about itself, or that its friends, employees, agents, or associates say about it. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the company have published about it in reliable places; and if there is not enough such material to base an article on, then there cannot be an article in Wikipedia about that company. Please see WP:NCORP. --ColinFine (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Best way to find like minded editors

Hello, as an editor here, I am quite interested in topics surrounding technology and net neutrality, fact checking and protecting articles from vandalism. What is the best way to find an interact with like-minded editors? Was wondering if there's a channel where editors get together and discuss the work we do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IlseBecker7 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• @IlseBecker7: - The best place to find like-minded editors is through the use of WikiProjects. For instance, if you are seeking discussion regarding editing technology articles, visit the Technology WikiProject, where you can discuss articles to be edited and the like. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You might also be interested in WikiProject Internet and the Counter-Vandalism Unit. – Joe (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I assume the intended link is Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

weblink update

Dear Wiki Editor,

is there a possibility to expedite the case of updating this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Indian_inventions_and_discoveries#INDIAN_CONTRIBUTIONS_IN_LARGE_SCALE_COLLABORATIONS

with best regards 103.225.177.114 (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Debasish Das.

This person had contacted OTRS. I didn't see that there was anything that we could do at OTRS and suggested that the editor try here. They may be assuming that people here will know the context and are unaware that email sent to OTRS viewed as confidential, and most participants here won't have a clue as to the nature of the request.

If anybody here happens to be an agent they can look at the back story here:ticket:2016121110005127

I also don't think it's betraying a confidentiality to provide [https://www.bnl.gov/rhic/news2/news.asp?a=4972&t=today this relevant link}.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but OP's post doesn't say very much. I'm trying to provide some context without violating confidences. My hope is that OP will clarify their request.S Philbrick(Talk) 20:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

publishing an article

Hello,

I've written a draft of my article and it appears to be in good standing order - plenty of references, formatted correctly, etc. However, I am confused as to how to publish the article.

Once the draft has been created, it will then be reviewed before being published? Is that correct? Do I need to take any further steps or will the drafted page be reviewed as is?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoggoHelper (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@DoggoHelper: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft does not yet have the appropriate template to submit it for review, but even before it is added I can tell you that your draft is not suitable for Wikipedia. It cites almost nothing other than the company website and is one big promotional piece. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not merely a forum to describe a business; Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wants to say about itself, it is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about a subject, indicating how it is notable.

If you are an employee, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to comply with WP:PAID, and you should also read WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I edited a page but after a while, the changes were removed.

I edited a page, it was a disambiguation page, I added a new topic/content though it was in red as no page has been created for it. It is one of the articles I am preparing to write although I wanted to redirect it to an already existing article which was very related to it. I want to know why my changes were removed, and I also want to know if it is wrong to make an edit for a topic whose article is yet to be written. The page was "Item" disambiguation and the edit I added was for a place with the same spelling as Item which happens to be a town in Bende LGA, Abia state Nigeria. Both Bende and Abia have articles about them although am looking forward to expanding that of Bende as the article contains inadequate info. Plus I am editing that page again right away and would redirect it to an existing article (Bende) so it would not be in red, at least until the article is written by that time the URL would be changed and it would have an article of it's own. I also want to know why my username appears in red after this KevinW7 (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• @KevinW7: Welcome to Wikipedia. Like other big writing projects, we have our own manual of style, and what you fell foul of there, I'm afraid, was: "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when a linked article (not just other disambiguation pages) also includes that red link". As a stand-alone redlink, then, it was always likely to be reverted—although of course you couldn't be expected to know that! Actually, I note that there was probably a misuse of rollback in reverting you—hi, User:Bkonrad , accidental, I'm sure!
  Regarding your other question, to turn your username blue, you just have to edit your user page once, for instance, "Hi, I'm X and I'm here because..."  :) or something. Some user pages, you will find, are more colourful than others! Just click one of the edit tabs at the top of the user page, write, and then the click save button at the bottom. Hope this helps! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: Thank you very much, my problem is half solved. I say so because I was able to change the redlink to a blue one, I was also able to connect it to an article. My problem however is I used piping when what I intended was to redirect the topic or link to an already existing article; I learnt from wikipedia's dos and donts (an article on creating wiki links) that piping should not be used when redirecting is meant. So in order not to break the laws I did not save the changes. so pertaining to this, there are two things I want to do.

1. I want to add a content to disambiguation page; Item 2. I want it to redirect to an existing page which is related to the topic. Like I said the content is going to have an article soon and I feel it is a knowledge worth sharing. How do I get the wikilink in the disambiguation to redirect to an article without piping? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinW7 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello KevinW7 and welcome to the Teahouse.

There is perhaps a way to do what you want, but normally entries on a disambiguation page must have their own article to link to. If the related page contains information about the named entry, then it could appear as a blue link in the explanation of the entry rather than as a hidden link or redirect. But the current article at Bende, Abia contains no mention of Item, so could not be used in this way.

If you're intending to create the article on Item, the settled place in Nigeria, please do that first. Articles for settled places just need some minimum referencing to verify that they exist, at least to start with. Once your article is accepted, making the entry on the disambiguation page is straightforward, but you do have to follow the style manual for disambiguation pages, which your earlier efforts did not. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Jmcgnh: Thanks, I think I would have to focus on creating the article first. The problem I have now is that I have not been able to create a page, I keep getting the message that I dont have a user page yet whenever I try to edit the user page or create an article, I don't know if this has to do with me not having up to ten edits. I once complained about my username looking like a redlink if you check the previous comments on this thread, and I was advised to write maybe an introduction about myself on my userpage as it would change the colour of my username whenever I make comments .(I really don't like that redlink, it makes me feel I don't know what am doing) that too I was not able to do because I do not have a userpage, let alone editing one. I don't know if the ten edits criterion is responsible for all this.

@KevinW7: It sounds like you just need to practice a little. The red link for your user page does not mean anything bad. On your user page, there is a welcome message with a bunch of links. They cover most of the basics of editing. Try them out until you feel more comfortable. The 10 edits needed for "autoconfirmed" status can be accumulated quickly, but that status is not needed to ask questions here (obviously) or to create your user page or to edit most existing articles. Do some of that to learn first. Read your first article for some more instructions and try things out in a sandbox or Help:userspace draft. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Re-using a reference

Hello. I'm attempting to contribute to an article (National_Guard_Armory, if it matters) and I'm having an awful time trying to figure out how to cite different pages from the same report at different times within the article. I'd consider using parenthetical (LeTouchre 2018, p. 18) references, except the author in question is a government agency and it would be confusing in context.

I think I've figured out how to cite the same document multiple times (following this help page), but I cannot figure out how to incorporate the different page numbers into those citations. (Perhaps someone with permissions to edit tutorials and template write-up could disambiguate the instructions.)

Thank you for the assistance. LeTouchre (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi LeTouchre. There is a template {{rp}} that lets you add page numbers next to the footnote number. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citing multiple pages of the same source. For more about using references more than once see Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Great. Thank you! LeTouchre (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

whats up with my edit

i really don't want to bother you guys but i made an edit to The Shape of Water (documentary) and for some reason i cant see it anymore can someone tell me why thx MadameButterflyKnife talk 23:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello MadameButterflyKnife and welcome to the Teahouse.

From the history of The Shape of Water (documentary), one can see that it was discovered to be a copyright violation and all of the offending content was removed. That particular operation appears to have swept away your additions as well, but the copyright violation was there before you made those additions and was still serious enough afterwards to need removing. You are free to make properly sourced additions to the stub article that has been left behind, it can certainly benefit from expansion since, at present, the references are insufficient to establish notability for the film. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks dude MadameButterflyKnife talk 00:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

How do I edit?

How do I edit different pages and what is the point of editting them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean r branson (talk • contribs) 00:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey! If you want to edit a page there should be a button on the top right that says "edit this page" or whatever. you should edit pages to improve them-nothing here is perfect MadameButterflyKnife talk 00:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jean r branson and MadameButterflyKnife, welcome to the Teahouse. A great place to start is by taking the Wikipedia adventure. Check out the articles that Zingarese left on your talk page, especially WP:5P, H:Edit and WP:HOW. Please remember to always sign your posts on talk pages and at the Teahouse with four tildes ~~~~. Good luck. Coryphantha Talk 01:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

MadameButterflyKnife, I'm going to leave a welcome package for you on your talk page so you'll have the links as well. Coryphantha Talk 01:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Assistance with adding awards to a musician page

Hello. I am very new to Wikipedia and I am looking for assistant with editing a musical page. Specifically, I am looking to sort how I can add awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddi426 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Maddi426. When I add awards to a person's page, I often create a section titled "Awards" or "Recognition" and put information about the awards in that section. Some editors prefer to include information about awards in other parts of the text. However you do it, please be sure to provide a citation from a reliable source for each award that you add. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Help improving an article

I just saw the article Samu (Homo erectus) while scrolling through Wikipedia. I just moved a couple sentences around to help make it a bit clearer, but when I went to recheck the sources to see if there was anymore information that could be added when I notice that the second doesn't exist anymore? It just redirects to the front page. What should I do here? Do I remove the information attached to that source because it no longer can be verified? I'm trying to look for an alternate source but Google translate only goes so far and I'm not finding any English results. Can anybody help me or fix the article as an example? Thanks in advance?GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi GreenLipstickLesbian, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately I've had to revert your edit on Samu (Homo erectus) because it was less clear: "the believed to be held". Try doing a search with the title of the original source and you may find it that way, it's possible it's been archived at another website. Sometimes that does happen. I've left you a welcome package on your talk page, best wishes. Coryphantha Talk 03:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!Coryphantha Sorry about that, reading it back again it definitely does look less clear. I'll go search for that now, hopefully it is. And thank you for the welcome package. It looks super useful! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)