Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 862

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 855←Archive 860Archive 861Archive 862Archive 863Archive 864Archive 865

Supporting references for Individuals of Note

Does a biography qualify as a non-related reference for an individual of note?

The following article Draft:Adédokun_Abiọdun_James_Haastrup has been declined twice: the first time because the person was not deemed to be of sufficient note despite reference to the biography by Familusi which is available in the British Library. The second time because the additional references from magazines and other books were deemed to be passing references.

Your advice is much appreciated.'DesoHaa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Google finds only unreliable sources for me, but perhaps you can find more WP:Reliable sources in addition to the Nigerian biography by M. M. Familusi. Dbfirs 20:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

HELP

I am trying to help my wife make her wiki page for her. I have no idea where to start I was trying to do a template but no success. Can anyone help me make the page !!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCfitness (talk • contribs) 23:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@CCfitness: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your account has no edits recorded in its history(aside from your post above) so if you have written about your wife somewhere please link to it. That said, any article would be an article about your wife, not for your wife. You and your wife would have no special rights over it to control what appears there. In fact, there are many good reasons why an article might not be desirable for your wife; please read this page for more information on that point.
Your wife will need to meet the appropriate notability criteria(in general, at WP:BIO, though there are fields with more specific criteria) in order to merit an article. Not every person merits an article here, even within the same field. You will need independent reliable sources, sources not associated with your wife, to support its content. You will also need to review conflict of interest; it is strongly advised that you not directly edit in the area of your conflict of interest, instead making edit requests and submitting drafts of new articles to Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I am going to have to pay someone to do this. I do not have enough help or knowledge in the matter MEH — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCfitness (talk • contribs) 18:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, CCfitness. I urge you not to do this. It is permitted, but nearly always a bad idea. The person you pay will be required to make a declaration that they are doing paid editing, and can expect their work to be particularly carefully reviewed. Neither they nor you will have any control over the content of the article: if they tell you that they can make the article how you want it, they are either unfamiliar with Wikipedia, or lying to you. I'm not sure why you think Wikipedia has to have an article about your wife, but I can tell you that Wikipedia's purpose (to have an encyclopaedia of neutrally-written articles about notable subjects, based entirely on reliably published material) trumps your purposes, whatever they are. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

uploading an image that I found on Wikimedia Commons

Hi! I have a question! I found an image on wikimedia commons but when I try to upload it to my page it is too big! I want to upload that image but I actually don't know how to change the dimension of this picture. Can you help me? Thank you so much in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colussisi (talk • contribs) 22:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Colussisi. Assuming you mean using a picture in an article (which is not what I understand by 'uploading'), you should find everything you need in Help:Pictures. --ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
You want the "thumb" parameter, like so: [[File:Posey County Courthouse composite.jpg|thumb|Description of image]] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I created the autobiography of myself it was deleted; I am well known already

Hello

I hope you are well.

I am aged about 31 years now.. I am an IT professional with Master of science from University of Greenwich London United Kingdom. . Worked in both London United Kingdom and India. . Even in London Olympics & Paralysis 2012.. I have lot of achievements and I am well known already... sources: google sources , I have personal website.. and I have recently published book.. For which Link is available from the international publisher.. Then what's else do you need for me to make my autobiography up and running ? Someone from admin deleted it already.. why ?

Kind Regards - Dileep Keshava Narayana

See WP:AUTO. On Wikipedia you are not allowed to create autobiographies of yourself, or someone you know. That is a conflict of interest. If someone else does create a page about you or someone you know, it must be notable and with reliable sources. If not, even if it is not an autobiography, it will also be deleted. Regards, --164.52.225.2 (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
That's not exactly true. It is strongly discouraged, though not totally forbidden, for someone to write an autobiography. It is in theory possible for someone to be able to do so, but the vast majority of people cannot, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. In this case, though, it seems that the person just wants to post their resume or a list of accomplishments, which is definitely not allowed. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Personal achievements, although worthy, do not reach Wikipedia's definition of notability. To even begin to be considered, more than one person has to have written about you. Those would be valid citations. What you write about yourself has no weight. David notMD (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

hello

can you answer me so I can ask you some questions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E5CE:5B00:BD00:46BA:31B1:F9A0 (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You'd get more answers if you actually asked your questions. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

How do I move an article out of draft:.... to being reviewed for publication?

I have two articles in Draft: I assume that they will sit there forever until someone approves them for publication review, am I correct?

One of them I submitted for publishing, but it winds up in Draft and I was not notified.

What do I have to do to get the following articles into being reviewed for publication?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Farrar's_Island

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:C Alvanhholmes (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alvanhholmes - First, you created the Beggars Bush article, so it should appear on your watchlist, if you have that option selection in your preferences. If not, click the star on that page and it will be added to your watchlist, and will appear there anytime anyone makes changes to it. You've already left a message on Ariconte regarding the changes they made to the article, so I'll let them address that. The draft on Farrar's Island is queued up in the Articles for Creation project, and is awaiting review. Just took a look at it, and while it still needs a little bit of work, I've moved it to the mainspace. And as corrections are made, take a look at what was done, so you can understand where mistakes were made. Keep on editing. Onel5969 TT me 11:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Nick Moyes. You have no idea how much I appreciate all of the help I have been given.

The reason that I spelled Cecily and not Cicely is because Cecily is the proper current spelling of the name. I have never seen the version Cicely before and would like to change her article to Cecily Bailey Jordan Farrar her maiden name is unknown, her 1st husband was a Mr Bayley (apparently moderns spell it Bailey) her second husband was Jordan and her third and last was William Farrar.

Williams mother was Cecily Kelke, but it was spelled Sissley in the Allegations of Marriage by the Bishop of London, 1574. And I've seen another variation of Sicily. I've never seen Cicely though, for anyone historical or current.

As a side note. In the era in which spellings of even common words were not standardized, the spelling of a name or a word was left to the discretion of the scribe, and he would spell it phonetically as a consequence the Name Farrar (has current varations of Farrer or Farrow) can be found in wills, marriage bans, deeds, baptisms, Visitations by the King's Herald as Ferrar, Farror, Farrer, Farrow, Fairer,Fareher, Farher, Fawrher but the origin of the name is Ferror, and a ferror was a man who forged iron or steel, as opposed to a smith who reworked iron or steel.

It would be terribly confusing to spell the names as they were spelled then, for convenience and linkage sake they are all spelled using, best we can, modern spelling. Although in some current situations persons surnamed Farrer. Farra, Pharo, Farrow share the same ancestry as persons surnamed Farrar, but not all Farrars and Farrows share that ancestry as some belong to different haplogroups as expected since the name is occupational and the occupation (thus surname) appears where ironore deposits are found in England.

I was considering writing an article on John Farrar the Elder, Essquire gent of London as he was the father of William Farrar (the settler), and was a shareholder in the Virginia Company, an officer of the company, and a member of the first Charter of the Virginia Company, a Join Stock Company. But after the current exercise I am exhausted

It seems not to be known or mentioned but the 1607 adventure was a commercial Venture, operating under the Charter of the King, it wasn't until the Third Charter that Virginia became a colony. The enterprise almost came to a halt because Virginia was not producing any gold or silver or any product of value, so the King repealed the charter, but the officers of the company, Nicholas and John Farrar prevailed upon him and he issued a 2nd Charter, this about the timethat John Rolfe, who married Pochontas, was able to use his seeds of Turkish tobacco to make a commercially value crop. Which incidentally King James, considered abhorable and sought to ban, save that the officers of the company used it's commercial viability as a reason to save the venture.

I don't have enough time left in my life to fully research and reference all of this information. But it is worthwhile, as it sets the record straight about some of the mythologized history of the U.S.A. and don't even get me started on the real causes of the revolution, or the real reason a bunch of rigid, superstitious, fundamentalistic Calvinistic puritans migrated to America and landed at a place they called Plymouth Rock.

All of that to explain why Cicely should be spelled Cecily and why her name should be Cecily Bailey Jordan Farrar Alvanhholmes (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alvanhholmes: Firstly, may I just pay tribute to your efforts, and say that I think the story of your contributions (and the support you have garnered from users like Pretended_leer, Ariconte, Shashi Sushila Murray, amongst others here) is a moving and wonderful demonstration of the very best that Wikipedia's ability to bring people together to produce lasting encyclopaedic content has to offer?
Taking you other points in turn:
  • I see your Draft:Farrar's_Island has now been moved into the main part of Wikipedia (i.e. 'mainspace') - and that's great
  • I've added a few improvements of my own, but it still needs more inline citations, and a few elements have been repeated, so excising these could be helpful
  • Regarding Draft:Beggars Bush (Colony of Virginia), I am rather sceptical for it. I say that because, having read it, I can't see much distinction from the existing article on Jordan Point, Virginia. Why don't you simply improve the historical section within that article, and create one of those WP:REDIRECTs to it that we mentioned earlier? I think that would be more sensible. What do you think?
  • I understand about the vagaries of early names. I'd be happy to move the article on Cicely Jordan Farrar to Cecily Bailey Jordan Farrar for you. But does including 'Bailey' in the name help, or hinder users from finding her page when searching for her? I would welcome your thoughts.
  • I'm sure many of us think our work here will never be done, but then most of us don't live under the shadow off illness as you have done. Once you're rested, let us know if we can help you further, especially if you feel up to working on John Farrar the Elder. I'm sure all of us here at the Teahouse would like to wish you well. With kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much Nick. I might give John Farrar the elder a go after I finish up this task. It's nice to keep the mind busy. I spent hours trying to figure out how to fold Beggars Bush into Jordan Point, VA and am having a deuce of a time, although letting the reader of Jordan Point know that it had previously been called Beggars Bush would be nice, but that could be done by inserting a link to Beggars Bush (if it is published) in Jordan Point, Virginia.

Have you looked at Beggars Bush since I've done some work on it? There is information in there that is inappropriate for Jordan Point. Jordan Point is an article about a specific place, and much of it is current date.

Beggars Bush has relevant information, for the curious and inquiring mind, as to the origin of the very phrase Beggars Bush. Information that doesn't belong in and will detract from Jordan Point, Virginia.

As I mentioned elsewheres when I first started working on Family History and saw the word Beggars Bush, my mind translated it as Burning Bush and I would have sworn on a stack of pound notes, that it was Burning Bush. It took another 40+ uears for me to learn different.

There isn't much to say about Beggars Bush, but I did include information as to why it is notable and should be published. It's existence was only a microcosm in time, from the time that the Jamestown settlers finally moved out of the stockade and the Massacre of 1622, but it did serve a purpose and prevented even more people from getting killed (especially my ancestor, William Farrar (settler) without whom this story and maybe even America as we know it) would not have been written. Alvanhholmes (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)



Draft:AI_Peer_Review - requires revision, chat, probably more revision

Greetings and Salutations Wikonians, Ok fine, in that case, consider a revision of the entire Section AI-complete problem: AI peer review. --Gravitoelectrotensor (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Gravitoelectrotensor. I find this post a little confusing; is this a question?
P.S. The demonym for users of Wikipedia is "Wikipedians" :).
Thank you,
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 01:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Rebestalic[dubious—discuss]. The title link Draft:AI_Peer_Review is to the article I'm asking for the Wikipedians and perhaps a few Wikonians to comment on whether the comments by the reveiwer have been met to justify resubmitting the article.

,

Gravitoelectrotensor —Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Gravitoelectrotensor, and welcome to Wikipedia! I think this draft has an understandability problem. How about starting it like this:

Artificial intelligence (AI) peer-review is a machine intelligence replication of the human intelligence peer review evaluation: an evaluation of a work by people of similar competence to its authors.

or even like this

A peer review is an evaluation of a work by people of similar competence to its authors. Artificial intelligence (AI) peer-review is a machine intelligence replication of the human intelligence peer review evaluation.

Normally, articles should start with their titles or at least have it in their first sentences. But you could probably prioritise readability over consistency with other articles here. Later sentences in the article could use even more editing, but I don't understand the text well enough to do that myself.
Other issues I've noticed include:
  • A multi-line quotation formatted as multiple one-line quotations. That, and its use of weird characters might be considered accessibility problems. I might look at this at some time, but there are other things I'd rather do first.
  • What does "logical objective refinement" mean? What's logical? The objectives or the refinement? Or is the refinement logical and objective? Considering the topic of this draft, you might find "Time flies like an arrow" interesting to read.
  • Just because something is a name, it doesn't mean it has to be in bold. :: And something that gets mentioned multiple times should probably not be bolded multiple times. I'm not saying bold shouldn't be used, but don't overuse it in paragraphs. Using it to show that the word that is a pronoun might be okay. What you do in the first sentence is probably also okay, but I'm not sure about the latter. – Pretended leer {talk} 22:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Pretended leer {talk}, Thanks for the welcome, I've watched Wikipedia explode with info since the mid-2000's, hope to contribute something myself here. Regarding understandability, here is the first sentence of the existing Wiki Peer review article:

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of the work (peers). It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility.

which (without showing the references here) I modified slightly to

Artificial intelligence (AI) peer-review is a machine intelligence replication of the human intelligence peer review evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work. Research and development towards an AI peer review capability seeks a further refinement of the methods of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility in determining an academic paper's suitability for publication.

Note that I did start the article with the title in the first sentence. Generally, as much of the article as possible is copied from the existing Wikipedia articles it connects together.
Regarding the other issues you noticed:
  • What are the sadly weird characters you are referring to here: "A multi-line quotation formatted as multiple one-line quotations. That, and its use of weird characters might be considered accessibility problems. I might look at this at some time, but there are other things I'd rather do first."
  • OK so I revised this phrase out of the article's second sentence shown above: "What does "logical objective refinement" mean? What's logical? The objectives or the refinement? Or is the refinement logical and objective? Considering the topic of this draft, you might find "Time flies like an arrow" interesting to read." The context of this article is formalized, i.e., machine readable, logic. Peer review is supposed to be objective, i.e., based on logic. An AI peer review machine learning cognitive system would represent a "logical objective refinement," however yeah if that's sounds like an essay then ok fine.
  • OK just one bold.
So I think I'm ready to resubmit the article, after taking out the essay parts without direct references.
If I were to really write an essay ... about the oncoming trainwreck called AI we're told we are completely unprepared for, I would start with the fact most engineers and scientists, including the self-defined Aspen CERN LHC 10,000 physicists, are completely unfamiliar with the formalized mathematical logic underpining all of AI. To the extent, in spite of the widely held belief, the universe operates according to some mathematical group operation ... even the 10,000 particle-multiverse physicists cannot state their "theories" in the mathematical language of a logical conjecture — which formalized conjecture if verified could then join the list of proven theorems. Gravitoelectrotensor (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gravitoelectrotensor: I've fixed it now. You were using <blockquote>text</blocquote> multiple times in a row. And then you were using the character • as a bullet for the bulletted list. What we normally do is having lines starting with asterisks. Unfortunately, I made a mistake when fixing it and now I can't get a diff for the fix. But I can show the code before and after.

Before: 

<blockquote>• No evidence for supersymmetry so far at LHC </blockquote>
<blockquote>• Without supersymmetry, we don't understand how the Higgs boson can exist without violating basic mechanisms of quantum physics</blockquote><blockquote>→ Either the new run of the LHC should discover superpartners, or radical new ideas are needed </blockquote>
<blockquote>[[Maria Spiropulu]] ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB6xIH24P7Q see ''The Future of the Higgs Boson'' - YouTube APS video at 20:32])<ref>{{Citation|last=APS Physics|title=The Future of the Higgs Boson|date=2014-04-14|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB6xIH24P7Q|access-date=2018-09-14}}</ref> </blockquote>

After: 

<blockquote>
* No evidence for supersymmetry so far at LHC
* Without supersymmetry, we don't understand how the Higgs boson can exist without violating basic mechanisms of quantum physics
{{arrow|alt=Therefore}} Either the new run of the LHC should discover superpartners, or radical new ideas are needed
</blockquote>
{{Block indent|1=[[Maria Spiropulu]] ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB6xIH24P7Q see ''The Future of the Higgs Boson'' - YouTube APS video at 20:32])<ref>{{Citation|last=APS Physics|title=The Future of the Higgs Boson|date=2014-04-14|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB6xIH24P7Q|access-date=2018-09-14}}</ref>}}

As you can see, the before code looks like several one-line quotations rather than a single multi-line one. Not very readable. And I used template:block indent for the author of the quote after not finding anything in the Manual of Style saying how that should be written.

Sequences of lines starting with asterisks become bulletted lists. But having <blockquote> at the start of a line stopped it from working, so I added a line break before it. Then I didn't need the other "bullet" characters.

I also used {{arrow|alt=Therefore}} to make an arrow that screen readers could read as a "therefore". The template had had an error which had to be fixed before I could use it here. Because of that, I waited before putting it in the draft. – Pretended leer {talk} 22:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gravitoelectrotensor: Some sentences still look rather long, but I guess I'm not in the intended audience. But at least now I can feel I understand the lead section.
And one thing you can try to do when writing is to read the text aloud after writing it. It helps notice hard to read passages. – Pretended leer {talk} 22:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Pretended leer: I just copied the bullet format of the YouTube Video - but the resubmitted article just got rejected again because of "Copyrighted material" which I took to be the YouTube quote and link. So those direct quotes are not so direct anymore and the YouTube link is gone in the once again resubmitted article. Yes, some sentences are long. Reason for that is the article connects together some rather complex fields of research regarding the interconnected problems involved in an AI peer review cognitive system solution.--Gravitoelectrotensor (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the difference between vandalism and disruptive edits?

Hey, I have been reverting vandalism by monitoring recent changes but while leaving talk page warnings I am not sure whether it is vandalism or disruptive? So please tell me.Denim11 (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Denim11: Vandalism is a subtype of disruptive editing–all vandalism is disruptive, not all disruptive editing is vandalism. Vandalism is not only disruptive, but malicious, intentional disruption. Merely-disruptive editing can be accidental, or the result of disagreements between editors without intent to sabotage Wikipedia itself (for instance, edit-warring is disruptive, but if both editors truly believe that they are improving wikipedia, it is not vandalism). As such, vandalism is a much more serious accusation than disruptive editing. As far as warnings are concerned, WP:WARNVAND describes several levels of default warning messages you can put on someone's talk page; the first two give the target the benefit of the doubt, while level-3 and beyond explicitly accuse them of vandalism and should be used only for repeat-offenders that have ignored previous warnings. For more information, see WP:VANDALISM and WP:DE. signed, Rosguill talk 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Denim11: It's quite possible for an editor to be so keen to deal with what they see as vandalism that their own actions in reverting or warning other editors can, itself, become disruptive. I think you know what I'm alluding to. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes:Thanks for the clafification. I completely agree. Regards, Kmw2700 (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Help us urgently

Hello. It is interesting for me, why the "Justlettersandnumbersyou" deleted the page "Eldaniz Elman oglu Mammadov"? He is one of the young and famous Library and information science specialist and scientist in Azerbaijan, and well known in Iran, Turkey and Russian with his scientific articles. Whith this page we are going to show scientific articles of Eldaniz Mammadov's, of course with the consent of doctor E.Mammadov's. We have listed a list of his scientific works. This page is also available in Azerbaijani. https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eld%C9%99niz_M%C9%99mm%C9%99dov_(Elman_o%C4%9Flu) Now we are preparing this page in English. So please help me recover this page and do not delete this page. Eldaniz Mammadov's students need this page. How can help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulnar Ibrahimova-Mammadova (talk • contribs) 00:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Who is "us", please? Guy (Help!) 00:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Please read the note on your talk page. Apparently the article was deleted due to copyright infringement. I suggest you start at WP:YFA to learn how to create an article here on the English Wikipedia. There is a wizard there you can use to create a draft article for review. RudolfRed (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
We are group of students who want to founded this wiki page.
We know what copyrights are. But apparently in foreign countries this right means something else. What kind of rights speech if the teacher himself gave us permission to create her page?

And all that we wrote was taken from the site of our university, which we ourselves created. We - are group of students who want to founded this wiki page. And we did it in the Azerbaijani language. No one has not deleted our page! https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eld%C9%99niz_M%C9%99mm%C9%99dov_(Elman_o%C4%9Flu) And why in the English version is it blocked? And you are talking about some kind of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulnar Ibrahimova-Mammadova (talk • contribs) 01:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gulnar Ibrahimova-Mammadova: Because you are one of his students, you have a conflict of interest.
Paraphrase sources, do not copy directly from them.
Wikipedia is not a website for hosting resumes/CVs.
Ian.thomson (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Gulnar Ibrahimova-Mammadova. I just want to add a couple to things to what has been posted above.
  1. Wikipedia articles are only intended to be written about subjects deemed to be Wikipedia notable. There are various Wikipedia notability guidelines, but the was relevant ones in this particular case are probably Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (academics); so, in order for an article to be written about your professor and not be deleted, it's going to have to be demonstrated that he satisfies either one of those two guidelines.
  2. Wikipedia article are written about a subject, not for a subject. Article content is only intended to relfect coverage the subject has received in reliable sources (preferably sources which are secondary and independent of the subject). In other words, Wikipedia is not really interested in your professor might have to say about herself or what you as his students have to say about her, but rather is only interested in what reliable sources unconnected to your professor have to say about her.
  3. Wikipedia doesn't need your professor's permission for someone to write about her and any article about her will not be accepted just because she or someone connected to her wants one to be written. If she's someone deemed to be Wikipedia notable for an article to be written, then someone somewhere in the world may someday decide to write an article about her; however, the article will only be accepted as long as it's in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Moreover, the subjects of articles have no final editorial over any article which is written about them as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content, and an article cannot be used to either promote the subject or their activities, etc. Article content both positive and negative can be included if it complies with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and any disagreements over content are to be resolved per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution by establishing a consensus on the article's talk page.
If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing for some of the reasons why creating a Wikipedia article about someone you know can turn out to be a bad idea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
One further thing: Wikipeda usernames are for the sole use of a single individual. Everyone in your group may work on the article, but each one of you must have your own username. John from Idegon (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Content Requirement & Less

Could I please be informed of the content requirement for a new article on a Youtuber? --QuantumPen (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Atbreuer11: It's the same as for any person: That the person in question has been covered in a significant way by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals have more information about criteria that can indicate whether a person in a specific field is notable enough for inclusion. Regards SoWhy 11:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks --QuantumPen (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
You also need to learn proper formatting for references. David notMD (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I will fix the reference formatting. --QuantumPen (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: Are the references now in compliance? --QuantumPen (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Please inform me if my page still does not contain enough independent sources. I have observed so far a level of hostility in some of Wikipedia's members that concerns me. What is my conflict of interest with your organization? I know there are many other pages to be reviewed, but I have a feeling mine has a set of eyes on it. --QuantumPen (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

By the decisions of other consciousnesses, and no more no less, I sit here in a state I never could think imaginable. Yet still, I retype my username already knowing of my ban, so that if it is lifted some will not have to spend energy to identify me. I need to say hello. --QuantumPen (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey QuantumPen. It's not clear exactly how the nature of consciousness is terribly relevant to your question. But as to your question, a fan made Wiki, his own LinkedIn profile, Ancestry.com, Famous Birthdays... none of these are reliable for the purposes of writing biographies of living persons. Those sources that do seem fairly good, such as the Forbes source and the European Journal of Cultural Studies source, are fairly brief in their coverage, and it's not clear that they provide sufficient in-depth information for us to write a well balanced encyclopedia article.
It's also not clear to what you are referring to as your ban, but if you have had a previous account on Wikipedia, you should disclose that account, usually with a declaration on your user page. GMGtalk 14:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Please let me talk to SalimJah (talk · contribs). The Kite Runner. "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" --QuantumPen (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Referencing format improved, but still not ideal. More to the point, what you are using as references are not suitable to establish notability as Wikipedia defines it. There is no intended hostility. Asking a question at TeaHouse does bring eyes to your now FIVE TIME REJECTED draft. The volunteer editors here may not be maximally tactful, but their replies have been intended to be useful - your references are not good enough. Please be aware that "conflict of interest" has a specific meaning for Wikipedia - in means that an editor has a personal relationship with the topic, often a family member or friend. You are not being reprimanded for having an undeclared COI. None of the editors here have a grudge against Draft:Lewis Hilsenteger or you. You are not banned or blocked. But please stop resubmitting the draft. Because it is getting really, really annoying. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I am annoying. And smart and other things. I will do better. --QuantumPen (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well I'm not seeing where anyone has been calling you these types of names, either here, on the draft, or on your talk page. But given that an article on this topic has apparently been deleted four times now, the best advice here may be that you should consider writing about a different topic for the time being, and allow some time for better sources to become available for Hilsenteger. GMGtalk 16:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I did not write that QuantumPen annoying, I wrote that repeatedly submitting the draft (with only cosmetic changes, none of which addressed the fatal weaknesses of the citations), was annoying. Draft:Lewis Hilsenteger now shows that it was submitted SIX times on 13 November, submission declined each time. David notMD (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft deleted, title salted in mainspace. Only thing left to do is figure out what's in the top dresser drawer. John from Idegon (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The labeling of "fake news" seems inappropriate and biased how can we change that?

Collapsing this for WP:NOTFORUM violations. I am convinced the OP is in good faith and might still have legitimate questions about reliable sources, how to identify them and use them etc.; but the present state of discussion (whose responsibility does not entirely lie on the OP) ensures a near-zero chance that future enquiries in that thread will be usefully asked and answered. If needed, open a new thread without being an apologist for any news source, politician, etc., asking precise questions such as "is source X reliable for fact Y", etc. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

CNN has been called "fake news" by THE PRESIDENT OF THE US, and many more sources. If that is not a valid source I don't know what is. Yet if I were to put that in their description on their wiki it would most certainly be reversed. Yet with news stories like this "Sessions firing planned like a murder" [1] which is implicitly biased and clearly over the top I would hardly disagree. Yet, I would still find it inappropriate to do so.

Yet, on the other hand, InfoWars [2] is called fake news in their description. If I were to remove that it would most certainly be added back. But this is a dangerous accusation and unfair in my opinion. I am already aware, that most of you reading this will have a difference of opinion, but I ask you as reasonable people to hear me out, and help me correct this issue.


Wikipedia should not be used to discredit or censor those most people disagree with, it is our obligation to maintain a fair and objective look at each group. When it comes to news organizations, we need to be particularly cautious as to not let our bias get in the way. As much as I dislike CNN's unfair reporting, I would never call it fake news. And as someone who actually listens to InfoWars, I can attest that they are not fake news, though they are biased. The sources linking to them being fake news don't even make sense to be honest, non of them make InfoWars "fake news" yet the claim sticks. The strongest "reference" is the one about his claim about Sandy Hook. Though he mulled the idea around that it might be fake, he never implicitly said it was and reported it that way. Even then that is his opinion and not fake news.

I believe this is an unfair accusation with misused sources and I would like to remove it, but I know I will face a team of opposition, and I just realized I don't have enough edits anyway.

Can anyone help get the right thing done, and remove that label?

Best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healinglaw (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSQcTpF5AtY
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoWars

To keep the references close to the text that uses them, I moved the list here. Pretended leer {talk} 18:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Healinglaw: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't need a certain number of edits to post on article talk pages, which is the proper forum to give this sort of comment. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Infowars is labeled as fake news because multiple independent reliable sources have called them that, and demonstrated multiple instances where they have invented stories out of whole cloth. Statements by Donald Trump are not treated as a reliable source, because Donald Trump is not a reliable source. In fact, he lies often enough that it is possible to begin to analyze the issue statistically, and estimate that he makes on average, somewhere around 5.01 public false statements per day. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for epistemological relativism or assertions of moral equivalency. We do not seek to provide balance where none exists. If you regularly consume information from unreliable sources such as Infowars, then the fact that Wikipedia's content does not align with your worldview is not a bug, it is a feature. GMGtalk 18:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@331dot:Thanks for letting me know, I was having difficulty finding the right location. I will do tht from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healinglaw (talk • contribs) 05:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Please cite your sources, or carry on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healinglaw (talk • contribs) 05:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Almost all of that is horribly inaccurate. President Trump is not a reliable source because he's the "President of the United States", and not a "reliable source" according to Wikipedia Policies. He's a political figure, and not a news organization. This would be true of any President, and any political figure. So you can't say "The sky is blue." because President Trump said it was, but you CAN say "ABC News reported that Donald Trump said the sky is blue." The difference may be hard to understand to a newcomer, but it's critical for an encyclopedia. The comments above by GreenMeansGo about Trump's character are inappropriate for several reasons, the most important of which is that it leads by a bad example. It's not just wrong, but it allows New Editors to think and believe wrongly, which creates more problems for other people to have to deal with. What happens when this New Editor shows up to an Article and starts advocating the inclusion of some politician's statements as a "reliable source" because this goofy "truth index" thing says they "always tell the truth", and you told him it's okay as long as the magic, truth-detecting gonkulator approves said politician's speech? The New Editor asked a question that goes directly (and only) to the definition of what a "reliable source" is, and did not solicit your opinions on the "truthfulness" of politicians or the "reliability" of one news outlet or another. The "feature" aspect of Wikipedia you mention exists precisely because your faulty understanding of "how it works" is the exact opposite of what actually takes place here. It's about the policies and guidelines, and not the personal opinions of the Editors being elevated to the encyclopedic level.Tym Whittier (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Healinglaw said as someone who actually listens to InfoWars, I can attest that they are not fake news, -- IMO, this is almost sufficient for a WP:CIR block. InfoWars has pushed conspiracy theories that:
It is the McDonald's of Tinfoil Haberdashery. If I see any further defense of InfoWars, I'm just going to block under WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson:

Hi Ian, Thanks for the Info! In response to your sources: Info Wars hosts a variety of guests, and they are not scripted. They are allowed to freely talk about what they want, for the most part. In specific your "Children on Mars" link, I listened to that show myself when it came out, he did not say anything like that, his guest did, furthermore he dismissed the claims the following day. Note that the article states his guest Robert David Steele said that and did not quote Alex Jones.

As for Pizzagate he apologized, though I am not sure he pushed it much to begin with. :*[[1]]

For the school shooting, he briefly said he thought it might be staged, he did not say it was, just that he thought it was possible. He later walked that back, and last I checked an opinion that is wrong, is not fake news. False flag events do happen. :*[[2]]

Hilary Clinton... is probably a witch. Can't argue with that :P

And its atrazine, an herbicide in the water causing frog to not reproduce, not chemtrail. He did say it was turning them guy, which is not entirely true, as they were actually changing genders :*https://people.howstuffworks.com/alex-jones-and-infowars-fact-or-tinfoil-fiction.htm]]

It's not fake news, it is news with a bias, just like CNN, just like Fox, the Hill, the WSJ etc. If CNN can say Sessions firing planned like a murder Alex Jones can say They are turning the freaking frogs gay

It's his slant. News has always had a slant, that's how you make headlines. He doesn't hide his like others. That doesn't make it fake, just different. No one should believe everything they hear no matter the source, not because of fake news, but bias and slant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Healinglaw (talk • contribs)

Like I said, if I saw any further defense of InfoWars, I was going to block. Filling out the relevant stuff now. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I've just re-read this whole thread for about the 5th time in as many days, and now have a question using "Infowars" as an example. First I accept the idea that Infowars (and similar) "news outlets" are not, can not, and should not be used as a reliable source, but a stopped clock is right twice a day. Here's the hypothetical:
reliable source A says "the sky was blue on Tuesday, according to Donald Trump"
reliable source B says "Hillary Clinton said the sky was blue on Tuesday, despite the fact that it was raining"
Infowars says "Despite the fact that it was raining, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump said the sky was blue on Tuesday"
Point of this exercise is to illustrate how an "unreliable" source might take two facts that are corroborated by two other, and reliable sources, and "fuse" them together in a single sentence, thereby allowing the Editor to convey the same information by using one sentence from an "unreliable" source, thereby making the Article more readable. (shorter, more concise, etc...)
What do other people think?
Tym Whittier (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course not. Unreliable sources should not be used, and scare quotes will not make Infowars acceptable under any circumstances. --bonadea contributions talk 19:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read WP:RS several times. That would likely be more productive. Reliability for a source has no connection to being correct in a given instance. Instead, it has to do with the procedures the source has to ensure correctness, and its reputation for providing accuracy. John from Idegon (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

How to add a picture to the top of an existing article

I would like to add a picture of the Capital Plaza which is in Abu Dhabi in its corresponding information box at the top of the article. How do I go about doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorMayhem (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @MajorMayhem: - a few questions first - do you have a specific photo you are looking to add or are you asking where to find such a photo (and then add it)? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey @Nosebagbear: I found a photo on Google that I think should work so I have a specific photo that I am looking to add. MajorMayhem (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi @MajorMayhem: - so your biggest initial issue here is copyright. It's not your picture, so that means that unless the creator has declare it in the public domain (or given a wiki-friendly license) you would need to demonstrate it was Fair Use. This could be difficult as it is a picture of a still-existing location, which means that because it is possible to get a freer picture in the future (you can still take photos of it etc) it usually isn't covered.
If you let me know the photo I can give it a look or ask a better qualified soul to consider it Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

posting English wiki page as new German wiki page

I've been asked to revise an existing English-language wiki page, and then have it posted as a new German page. I am unable to log into de.wiki with my account, and wondering what is the best way to accomplish this?Tlvernon (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tlvernon: You may need to create a unified account. See WP:SUL and [3]. Once this is done, your account will be usable at all the Wikipedias. RudolfRed (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tlvernon: All accounts are already unified today. Special:CentralAuth/Tlvernon shows yours. What happens when you try to log in to the German Wikipedia at de:Special:UserLogin? Either you should already be logged in when you click the link, or your username and password should work. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Second part of the question, can I take the existing english wiki page I'm revising, translate it into German and post it, or does it need to be reviewed and approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlvernon (talk • contribs) 19:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Tlvernon: You will need to ask de-wp about it, since I am not sure about the procedures for new articles there. An existing article on en-wp is no guarantee that its translation would fly on de-wp (nor the other way around) because the notability policies are different.
When translating, please make sure not to use unchecked machine translations, and to attribute the original page to satisfy the copyright. On en-wp, there are templates such as {{translated page}}; there is probably something similar in de-wp. (Again, ask at the German help desk equivalent). TigraanClick here to contact me 10:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up to DJ Slick stuart and DJ Roja

Hello,

Been working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DJ_Slick_Stuart_and_DJ_Roja since June 2018, since then, I have made all necessary changes but still get the same feedback "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia......" I sent to this forum by invite to work with an experienced editor to add more to the article. I really need you help, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techcherio (talk • contribs) 08:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit more. Good luck with the Submission. David notMD (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

New User Here!

Hi! I would like to move an article rom my sandbox... I am already over 10 edits in, but I think I am just about 4 days in... Or maybe 3... But I wanna publish my article! Lol! Scarlet Quinn (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Scarlet Quinn: welcome to Wikipedia, and to the Teahouse! To write a new article in Wikipedia is the hardest thing to do for a new editor, and unfortunately, User:Scarlet Quinn/sandbox does not actually meet the requirements that Wikipedia has on notability for actors. The person you write about must meet these requirements and/or these requirements in order for a Wikipedia article to exist, and if you were to move your sandbox into the main encyclopedia, I'm afraid it would almost certainly be deleted. Another editor has already left a message on your sandbox draft; please read that, and see if you can find several reliable and independent sources that talk about this person in some depth. Without such sources, there can't (yet) be an article. Another thing: if you have a personal or professional connection with the people you are writing about, you will need to read and comply with this and (for a professional relationship) this. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Against advice, you moved your draft to mainspace, and when an editor moved it back to draft so attempts could be made to improve it, you returned it to mainspace. As it exists, the article has fatal flaws and is likely headed for deletion. You have also ignored the request to identify whether you have a personal or professional (paid) relationship to the actor. David notMD (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

New page approval

Hello, I've just submitted my first article and wondered how and when I will hear if it requires editing or if it is approved? Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicola Forshaw (talk • contribs) 11:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Nicola Forshaw and welcome to the Teahouse.
I made a couple of small corrections, but did not have time to seriously consider the case for notability. You displayed some inventive notions, but seem to have misunderstood infoboxes, external links, and categories. IMDB cannot be used as a reference. So, for my part, I say "good effort", but it still needs a proper review and some additional editing to make the case for notability clearer. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 13:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Changing the title of an article

I have created an article named William Farrar (settler), the name needs to be Councillor William Farrar. Primarily as it will be used as an external link, and William Farrar (settler) is not handy for an external link. At present the Article Cicely Jordan Farrar mentions him as her third husband, it would sound strange to say that she married William Farrar (settler) ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvanhholmes (talk • contribs) 10:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alvanhholmes. William Farrar (settler) seems to follow Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation and we don't make titles for linking purposes. A link from another Wikipedia page is called a wikilink or internal link. You can write [[William Farrar (settler)|William Farrar]] to produce William Farrar which links to the right article but only displays "William Farrar". This is called a piped link. See more at Help:Link#Wikilinks (internal links). PrimeHunter (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Alvanhholmes and welcome back to the Teahouse. PrimeHunter has just said what I was going to say, but his reply was far more succinct than my verbose one. So I've just scrubbed most of it, but will leave in just two points. Firstly, that it is possible to create a redirect which would take someone from a search starting 'Councillor.....', but I'd only ever do that if I perceived a genuine need for that search, eg Dr ruth, Senator John F. Kennedy etc. I think people's common sense tells them to search by name first, not honorific. Secondly, why have you called Cicely, Cecily in a section heading on Farrar's page? This looks like a typo, and I'd just point out that we don't use wikilinks in section headings. If I remember your name correctly from previous postings, I believe you may be one of our newer and more mature 'silver surfers' here? If so, you do seem to be managing very well with what can be quite a daunting suite of detailed guidelines. So, keep up the really great work, and don't let us pedantic types grind you down! We do intend all our feedback to be helpful - honest. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I have taken everyone's advice and took the historical info from Draft: Beggars Bush (Colony of Virginia) and placed it in Jordan Point,Virginia

What is left is something that I think is needed for disambiguation and that is the Origin of the Name.

I would like to Rename the article from Beggars Bush (Colony of Virginia) to Beggars Bush (origin of the name), but I do not have the editing rights, and then since it is so simple, move it to review for publishing. Can anyone help? Alvanhholmes (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

How to find Twinkle in mobile view?

I use twinkle regularly to revert vandalism but I cannot find twinkle in mobile view so I have to go to desktop to find it but as I edit by a mobile phone it would be easier in mobile view so can you tell me how can I find it?Denim11 (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The "mobile view" is also called the "reader view". It lacks JavaScript, which is what drives Twinkle. In short, you did exactly what you needed to do. If you're using an an Android device, you can go to a frequently used page such as your watchlist, switch to desktop view, and then set a link to it on your desk top. Use that to access Wikipeda, and any page you jump to from there will open in desktop view. John from Idegon (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

How do I redirect an existing link to a new article that is more accurate for the search?

For a long series of articles about geology of countries, states and provinces, I'm wondering how to redirect to a more accurate link? For instance, the Geology of California entry in the Geology of the United States table and the Geology of Mexico within the Geology of North America table both redirect to "Geography of..." articles. I have geology articles for both written that I would like to create, but I'm not sure of the process. Any advice is greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zircon 2 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

After being redirected, go to the top of the page and under "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" it will say "(Redirected from NAME OF REDIRECT)". Click the link and that will take you to the actual redirect page which you can then edit to change where it points to. EniaNey 17:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EniaNey (talk • contribs)

How to request IP exempt?

I usually edit at school with this account. However because i edit under a hard blocked school IP, i can't do stuff such as create accounts at school. How do i request IP exempt to have full access to stuff as i would when i'm not editing at school? PorkchopGMX (Sign your posts with four tildes!) 16:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm editing under the range 152.26.0.0/16, which includes the IP address i usually edit under (152.26.201.24). PorkchopGMX (Sign your posts with four tildes!) 16:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The procedure is outlined at Wikipedia:IP block exemption which states; "Request IP address block exemption through the Unblock Ticket Request System." EniaNey 17:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_862&oldid=1138690182"