Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 898

Archive 895

Archive 896

Archive 897

Archive 898

Archive 899

Archive 900

→

Archive 905

Need clarification about the page Alfred de Zayas

Last night I had a curious experience about 2-5 minutes after I had completed editing the Alfred de Zayas Wikipedia page in which I wrote the following:

The UN Independent Expert advocated for legal compliance within the territory of the Hawaiian Islands, by publishing a pertinent legal memorandum involving illegal American military occupation. The memorandum clearly states:

"I have come to understand that the lawful political status of the Hawaiian Islands is that of a sovereign nation-state in continuity; but a nation state that is under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and fraudulent annexation. As such, international laws (The Hague and Geneva Conventions) require that governance and legal matters within the occupied territory of the Hawaiian Islands must be administered by the application of laws by the occupied state (in this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom) not the domestic laws of the occupier (the United States)."

The complete memorandum is published here: https://hawaiiankingdom.org/p…/Dr_deZayas_Memo_2_25_2018.pdf

However, my post was removed by Oshawah. The reason given was for supposed lack of citation, although I cited a link to his memorandum PDF using the website link above, and did so in the correct wikipedia citation format. So I re-edited and left 2 citations. The second citation was The Guardian newspaper which quotes the memorandum. I took a screenshot after the second edit, which is posted here. Again my post was removed, this time by "Melcous", who said it was for: "...making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted...Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)" (reference the second screenshot in this post) This is removal of clearly factual and easily verifiable information that is significantly groundbreaking in its impacts and implications in Hawaii. I see no reason why this is "unconstructive" or "disruptive"? Please advise... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom (talk • contribs) 19:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The link that you posted above is dead. Ruslik_Zero 20:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is the correct link: https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Dr_deZayas_Memo_2_25_2018.pdf. There was a typo in the link SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom posted above. MarkZusab (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom. You tried to insert the same content into three different places in the same biography. That is disruptive even if it was unintentional. You tried to link to the hawaiiankingdom.org website operated by David Keanu Sai. This is an advocacy website and not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, and your link is defective and not functional. You used advocacy language pushing a point of view, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. On the other hand, the Guardian reference is useful, and can be used to support neutrally written content about this opinion of de Zayas. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. The place to discuss the specific edit is Talk: Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. Your username motivates me to inform you that Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. All that being said, I agree that the annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii by the United States was a terrible injustice, and that Wikipedia needs to cover those events and their contemporary results accurately and neutrally. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

While I can agree that perhaps my link was "dead" or was a misprint somehow, and that I may have been in error in placing the excerpt in multiple locations throughout de Zayas page, however I strongly disagree that the content of my post used advocacy language. I simply summarized what de Zayas himself wrote, and then published an excerpt from his memorandum. Can you please explain the words that indicate advocacy, beyond what de Zayas himself is advocating in his memorandum (after all this is his wikipedia page, can we not print or summarize his advocacy?). I suppose if I didn't use the words "pertinent" (legal memorandum) and "clearly" (states) it would sound less like advocacy? Other than that I am simply summarizing de Zayas and then printing an excerpt from his memorandum. And finally to respond to your last point in which I appreciate your sympathy for the situation- what de Zayas points out in his memorandum is that The Hawaiian Kingdom was never annexed by the United States and is therefore an ongoing military occupation- which is now a known legal fact of international law. Alfred de Zayas work on this issue has had a profound impact in Hawaii, and should be recognized somewhere in this page. Please advise what would be acceptable language... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom (talk • contribs) 02:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps if I publish it like this:

The UN Independent Expert advocated for legal compliance within the territory of the Hawaiian Islands, by publishing a legal memorandum that states:

"I have come to understand that the lawful political status of the Hawaiian Islands is that of a sovereign nation-state in continuity; but a nation state that is under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and fraudulent annexation. As such, international laws (The Hague and Geneva Conventions) require that governance and legal matters within the occupied territory of the Hawaiian Islands must be administered by the application of laws by the occupied state (in this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom) not the domestic laws of the occupier (the United States)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom (talk • contribs) 02:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom, as I told you previously, the proper place to discuss this matter is Talk: Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, and you have not yet posted there.

You wrote "In February of 2018, de Zayas advocated for legal compliance within the territory of the Hawaiian Islands, by publishing a pertinent legal memorandum involving illegal American military occupation. The memorandum clearly states:"

You simply cannot state "illegal American military occupation" in Wikipedia's voice. That is non-neutral editorializing. Use of the term "clearly states" is also non-neutral since those words imply that the opinions of de Zayas are more credible than other opinions on the matter. Using variations of the word "legal" three times in a sentence is poor writing.

When you write above that the theory that de Zayas supports is "now a known legal fact of international law", you are making an unsupported assertion. In order to say anything like that on Wikipedia, you must provide a reference to an impeccable reliable source that says that, and if other reliable sources contradict that (and they do), then the views of the contrary sources must be reflected as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I will check in at the deZayas page- however since you are discussing this with me I will continue to respond here as well. First, it was not my personal opinion that Hawaii is under an "illegal military occupation"- that is exactly what de Zayas himself writes in the memorandum (and again its HIS wikipedia page). I was summarizing his statement using his language- not my personal opinion. However, I agree that the use of the word "clearly" and over-use of the word "legal" is biased and poor writing.

My personal opinion and observation that the situation is "now a known legal fact of international law", was never published on wikipedia, but a personal comment in our discussion. However, you can read Dr. Keanu Sai's PHD Dissertation which he had to defend against a committee of international law professors and experts. His argument was also accepted at the permanent court of arbitration, and by Alfred de Zayas. I do not know why you asked me to cite my sources on that statement as it was a personal comment in our discussion, but also because you did not cite sources for your claim that there are other legal opinions (or facts) in the matter. All that being said, I am more concerned with how I can publish the excerpt from de Zayas. Does the following form comply with your standards? Please advise:

The UN Independent Expert advocated for legal compliance within the territory of the Hawaiian Islands, publishing a legal memorandum that states:

"I have come to understand that the lawful political status of the Hawaiian Islands is that of a sovereign nation-state in continuity; but a nation state that is under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and fraudulent annexation. As such, international laws (The Hague and Geneva Conventions) require that governance and legal matters within the occupied territory of the Hawaiian Islands must be administered by the application of laws by the occupied state (in this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom) not the domestic laws of the occupier (the United States)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom (talk • contribs) 04:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom, for the third time, discuss this at Talk: Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. You have not done so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion is now underway on the article talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Date formats

Is the chart in the date format a suggestion or a rule for WP? There are a number of formats or styles that are identified specially as inappropriate and recommendations sometimes follow. I started to edit a particular style in WP since sometimes in the same article the inappropriate style and preferred style were consistent. Unfortunately, especially after advising that the style as incorrect some have been reverted based on the previous style based on their opinion was correct. It is my understanding that when it comes to commas in the "month year" style and the "day month year" style commas are not to be used to separate the parts unless it is a quote. All the dates revised have not been quotes. What is what? Is this a matter of some "quirk" of that particular English/Language/Grammar? I looked at the coding to see if there was any such notation and found none. I would appreciate it as those who insists on the previously existing format care to have a basic level of courtesy to explain on the talk page(s). Thank you.2605:E000:9149:8300:7C35:42EA:E43D:D94A (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 2605:E000:9149:8300:7C35:42EA:E43D:D94A. You'll find more detail about this in MOS:DATES, but date formats are like national varieties of English in that there's no one particular house style that is preferred for all articles. Generally per MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:DATEUNIFY, you should try to stick with whatever style was used by the article's creator or first major contributor (as long as it's not a bad date format) and try to keep the formatting consistent throughout the article. In some cases, as explained in MOS:DATETIES, a particular format may be preferred for certain subjects, but you shouldn't really just change a date format simply because it's your preferred format or it's the one commonly used in your home country. You can propose such a change on the article's talk page if you think it should be made, but you should at least try and establish a consensus for it first, particularly if it's an article which is heavily edited and watched by lots of editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Further to this, IP 2605:E000:9149:8300:7C35:42EA:E43D:D94A, since I am one of the article creators/first major contributors in question. When I first submitted an article for review for Good Article status, I was told that the preferred format in English Wikipedia is month (not abbreviated)/day/comma/year, unless it's in a quotation, in which case the format in the quotation should be used, if different. My personal preference is day/month/year, but I conform to the preferred format. This is why I've been reverting your edits, and I explained this when you were registered under a previous IP address. I would have been happy to discuss this with you through my talk page (since you don't have one) and save both of us some time and effort. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

You are aware of the chart in the date format section that does specifically say that it is inappropriate? Not only that there are many instances in WP style development that things change. This is very much now that various styles have been explored through the years have been found to be revised and so why it is included in the inappropriate chart? So to say that at "X" time it was okay therefore until time burns itself up it will be followed is on face value ridiculous? nd there are many instances where in the same article the styles differ? So basically it is being said that for clarity different styles regardless as to inclusion in the inappropriate chart are welcomed?2605:E000:9149:8300:EC1F:6BF6:5F84:F209 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I find it difficult to follow your style of writing, and a reply that consists of a series of rhetorical questions is also difficult to answer. Perhaps the answer to all of them is "Yes". What I can tell you, as the creator of at least one article that has been rated as Good (331st Rifle Division), it would not have received that rating if the date formatting was wrong. In fact, I had to correct my previous formatting to get the Good rating. However, more importantly, you are wasting your time, my time, and that of several other editors over something that is, by any objective standard, trivial. Wikipedia has bots to handle these trivialities. I would suggest, in all sincerity, that you turn your attention to something more productive, like some actual content. I am trying to work with you, not against you. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

If a rating is the basis of maintaining how an article should not be edited to current standards then that WP would not be editing. Could it be that at the time the article was greenlighted that was the practice but according to the chart in date formats it clearly says that the style is inappropriate and even goes as far as to provide examples of approved formats. It could also be the situation that when the article was greenlighted that that was what the administrator thought was current. It is not. The WP system is not infallible; it is not written in stone because that is why there are countless screens of style standards. All that can be said is that from what has been responded to with my question directly on the talk page of date formats is the following: "My understanding is that if an article consistently uses one of the styles in the acceptable date style table, then that style shouldn't be disturbed without good reason. But if an article uses some other style, including the ones in the table of unacceptable styles, then the dates may be changed to one of the acceptable styles. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)" The talk page was consulted directly as what seemed to be coming from previous answers was not definitive to explain just why "X" could be found in the date format section. The first reply to this question here said that there are different appropriate styles for different English language places. If that is so then the chart most probably would have provided that clarification. There is no such content there and so far that differentiation has not been pointed out in the format section. Just as WP follows proper grammar then it should also follow proper style otherwise there can only result confusion. Again, despite what may have as previously expressed being rhetorical, WP articles are not written in stone. They are constantly being reviewed and even "*" articles can be found to have either style that is no longer followed or outright grammar inconsistencies. Any justification based on what was suggested at the time of a rating status as the reason why an article should be treated as written in stone is not an adequate justification. Just as significant is grammar ask any attorney about what role can punctuation serve in the legal field WP should adhere to what is stated in the date format section so as to encourage the least amount of confusion especially for those who may not have a great grasp of the language and then perpetuate with additional articles styles that have been found to be inappropriate. As for belittling my contribution to WP, I would suggest that there be considered some refrain so as to not appear imperious. It can be noticed that at any time did I personalize these statements by stating "you" or "yours" etc. There are many aspects of editing in WP that can be followed if that is what the editor feels comfortable with. It should be a pleasant experience to follow the policies, guidelines and standards otherwise proper grammar would not be used.2605:E000:9149:8300:C9E:6B46:95A6:3A0C (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to make one more effort to encourage you to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. 1. Do not reply to a post in the Teahouse, or any other talk page, without using the requisite number of colons; 2. Ranting is a waste of everybody's time, mostly yours; 3. You have been banned from editing repeatedly, under several UP addresses, and you have yet to learn a lesson. Good night and good luck. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

An imperious attitude is not what can generally be thought of as cooperative or is that a point that seems to be unrecognized in these replies. I have absolutely no control over what IP address I am issued by my internet provider so if it is an intention to in some way discredit a another contributor? That issue has been repeatedly addressed in the past and to have gone to the effort to look into things it should have been evident ";" WP endorses the use of IP addresses as user identification. In fact, at times the IP address will change while editing is happening during the same session. Pleas refrain from attempting to direct to what direction someone contributes to WP a that implies a sense of ownership which it seems is an attitude of being uncooperative. If it is believed that editing according to WP standards is behaving badly when maybe it is time for this issue to be addressed at a community level? To base a reason for reverting edits that are in line with WP standards based on what an administrator advised is only evident that being imperious is supported. If it is noticeable to a reader that additional punctuation might make something more understandable to them then it should be assumed that a certain level of mental agility exists that to instead say otherwise is again a sense of being imperious. That should be evident with a history degree when reviewing original sources and it seems that is not applicable. All thr best.2605:E000:9149:8300:4560:D1CF:6806:3065 (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Could someone with authority close this discussion as there seems to be a differentiation as to what is the proper date format for the question at hand. The "Help" page says one thing and another contributor rests the reverts on an action when an article was to be rated at some time. It would seem clear enough what is to be followed and any variances should also be explained in the same section All that can be said is that if the style is to have commas then there are millions of improperly punctuation instances in WP.2605:E000:9149:8300:4560:D1CF:6806:3065 (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

IP 2605:E000:9149:8300:4560:D1CF:6806:3065|2605:E000:9149:8300:4560:D1CF:6806:3065: If you're going to be assigned a different IP address each time you post something and you plan on contirbuting regularly to Wikipedia, then it might be a good idea for you to register for an WP:ACCOUNT; you don't have to, but it will make it easier for other editors to know it's you making the edits and might help others from mistakenly assuming you of inappropriate using multiple accounts. Just a suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wreck Smurfy: Just from looking at the article 373rd Rifle Division (Soviet Union) and 331st Rifle Division (Soviet Union), the IP might have a point about the choice of date format and comma use. When you begin a sentence with a phrase such as "In month date year", you would add a comma after the date and the year per MOS:DATE; however, if the phrase is "In month year", then common practice is that you only need a comma after the year, at least in most national varieties of English I'm familiar with. Writing "In month, year," and "In month, year" seem to be both incorrect, though the latter case might be acceptable if the the month and year are part of two separate "parts" of the same sentence. As for the article in question being a GA, that's certainly quite an accomplishment; however, that's doesn't necessarily mean the comma use is correct and it could've been something that just wasn't noticed at the time. Since the article is about a military unit, you might want to ask about this at WT:MILHIST since the date formats used in military articles might be different from other types of articles; however, just look at the FA articles 13th Airborne Division (United States) and 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg, they seem to be using the "In month year," format. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

City populations

I was recently looking up the population of Minneapolis/St.Paul compared to San Diego CA. The page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area, does not even list San Diego, CA. How can this be right? San Diego is roughly the 8th largest city in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsmatthys (talk • contribs) 07:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Simply that San Diego is not a "combined statistical area", the meaning of which is explained in the lede of the article and which are listed in ref 2 of the article. CSAs are for combined authorities such as Minneapolis/St.Paul and Dallas/Fort Worth, not for individual cities. The "See also" section of the article includes a link to List of United States cities by population which of course does include San Diego. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lsmatthys. San Diego is not a part of a combined statistical area. Instead, it is part of the San Diego-Carlsbad Metropolitan Statistical Area. Please read this link. Combined statistical areas consist of very large urban concentrations of many cities. The San Diego and Carlsbad statistical area is hemmed in by the Pacific Ocean to the west, Mexico to the south, the El Centro statistical area to the east, and the massive statistical areas of Los Angeles, Orange County and San Bernardino to the north. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

How to edit a user's page

I still can't edit users pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polycarp Iwodi (talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC) I want to edit users pages,especially those i know i've played a part in their careers.

See WP:user pages. The main user page is usually considered to belong to the individual user so you should not normally edit these without permission. Sub-pages and sandboxes may be used for collaborative editing. WP:user talk pages are for communicating with the users. I see that you have been editing User:Polycarp Iwodi to make it look like an article. This is not permitted. Perhaps if you changed it to first-person it might be acceptable, but this page is intended for you to say something about yourself and how you intend to improve Wikipedia. It should not be a personal profile. Dbfirs 23:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Polycarp Iwodi, welcome back to the Teahouse. I don't understand why you say are unable to edit another user's page. I presume you mean their talk page? If so, having found the editor's own userpage, look for the 'Talk' tab towards the top of the page in desktop view, or the blue, 'talk' link in mobile view. Feel free to click the 'talk' link after my signature and try to leave me a message, remembering that new discussion go at the bottom of a page, not at the top. To make it easy, in desktop view there's an 'Add topic' tab towards the top of the page for you to click to start a new discussion.

That said, I don't understand your follow-up comment about editing those user's pages whose careers you have played a part in. Most editors have anonymous usernames, so how would you know who they really are? If you are thinking of editing actual articles about a notable person (presumably a musician?) who you believe you have influenced personally, you'd need to be extremely careful that you're only adding factually-based comments, supported by independent reliable references. You can't leave comments in the hope that you'll be promoting yourself via their pages - this would be a conflict or interest and would be quickly removed as promotion/spam. To that end, I was concerned, like Dbfirs about the content you have already placed on your Wikipedia userpage here. That's why I left you a little warning message about it on your own talk page. I'm afraid it is written in a way that resembles a mainspace encyclopaedia article, and in the third person. This is not appropriate content to leave there (see WP:FAKEARTICLE). Just saying a couple of lines to say who you are (using the first person tense) is OK, but not like this. Please delete the content and write something less 'promotional' about who you are and your interests in editing Wikipedia. If someone else spots it they're quite likely to propose it for deletion - so the best way is for you to quickly change it yourself. If I've misunderstood what it is you actually want to achieve here, do reply with further explanation, and someone will get back to you. Regards from the UK, and maybe I'll get a test message from you on my talkpage soon! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

User page has been sent to MfD. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, CoolSkittle Here at the Teahouse we do try to give users a bit more leeway - hence my gentle invitation to Polycarp Iwodi to remove the promotional content themselves. But what's done is done. @Polycarp Iwodi: You are welcome to re-create your userpage, but not with the same kind of content you had there before. Hope you'll still want to continue editing the encyclopaedia, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Capitol Studios article

I just read the article on Capitol Studios (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Studios), which partially seems more like an advertisement than a Wikipedia article. I am not sure if this is the right forum to bring this up, but since (at least among recording nerds) these studios are considered to be far from unimportant, I didn't just want to bury my comment in the talk section. Thanks. Garrrick (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Garrrick: Welcome to the Teahouse! In addition to the option of helping improve it directly (the best option!), we also have an advert template (Template:Advert) that you can place at the top of the article using {{Advert|date=January 2019}}; this will warn readers and editors that the article is written like an ad. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems in this edit, the whole article was rewritten to consist of a large amount of unsourced advertisement-like material. I don't have much time to deal with this right now but I will if I get the chance. Thanks for letting us know! Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Garrrick (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Lack of credible pages for citing

Hello everyone! I'm excited to begin creating articles on Wikipedia. I'm having a bit of trouble getting approval on my first article. Do we need to cite any works by an author? While I was able to cite 2 of the book titles, I'm having trouble with the 3rd. If there's no credible site to reference, is it best to just leave the book title off entirely in order to meet the Wikipedia requirements?

Also, if we include information in the "career" section, does it need to have a reference cite-source as well? There's certain information that I only see available on the writer's personal page, but I was informed that we can't use someone's personal page. (Side note: I also see that the writer has multiple other interviews and mentions through various pages, but I don't believe any would qualify as being allowed since they aren't as notable as something such as The New York Times, etc.) With that being said, I do see other 'live' pages using a notable person's personal page as a reference. Is there an exception for some but not others? And, how should I go around that?

I'm really looking forward to getting the hang of article creation and would be grateful for any input. Thank you for your time reading this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animegearlab (talk • contribs) 08:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

What is needed to demonstrate notability is coverage in multiple published reliable sources independent of the subject, so neither books by the subject nor interviews with her are suitable for this purpose. Primary sources can be used for some purposes, but not to demonstrate notability. You may find existing articles without sufficient secondary sources if the article hasn't been carefully scrutinised, but "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument for including further inadequately-sourced articles. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Animegearlab:. As a non-native English speaker I am not quite sure I fully understand your problem, but as far as I do you hesitate to reference some off-line sources, not published in Internet. Is that right?

If so, please refer to WP:SOURCEACCESS in the Verifiability policy, which explicitly says sources do not need be easily accessible. You can find more explanation at Wikipedia:Offline sources. Best regards, and good luck in editing! :) CiaPan (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Vis-a-vis Draft:Aya Knight I am confirming what DB wrote. Listing books by the person who is the subject of the proposed article does not contribute to establishing notability. Ditto citing published interviews. What you need is independent writing ABOUT the person. Can be website or print. David notMD (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! The feedback was really helpful. I'm hoping to create a series of articles revolving around notable novel writers and anime series that aren't yet included in the encyclopedia. It's taking me a bit longer than I expected to adjust to the requirements, formatting, and general navigation as a content creator - but, I'm confident that I'll get the hang of it soon. I appreciate everyone's time in providing feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animegearlab (talk • contribs) 29 January 2019 (UTC)

How to create an article?

I want to create an article about the video game Wrestling Revolution 3D. Can you please tell me how to do it?Cedric Grazer (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Cedric Grazer, Greetings. Pls read WP:Your First Article and referencing for beginners to familiar yourself on how to create an article and info on inline citation. You could create article via WP:AFC wizard [HERE. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cedric Grazer: (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would caution you that successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. New users who dive right in to creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work is mercilessly edited and even deleted. I don't want that to happen to you. New users are much more successful when they take the time to first learn about Wikipedia and what is expected of new articles and contributions in general. They also take time to first make small edits to existing articles, to get a feel for the process. I would strongly advise you to use the new user tutorial(click that link) and take some time to first edit existing articles that interest you.

When you feel ready, or if you still want to dive right in to creating articles, you should read Your First Article to learn what is expected. This includes gathering at least three independent reliable sources that discuss the subject you want to write about in depth. This excludes things like press releases or anything associated with the subject directly. You can then visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor, who will give you feedback before the draft is formally placed in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing my page

I am trying to remove my birthdate from my page. I have done necessary edits, but it does not remove it. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviatorgypsy (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Aviatorgypsy: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would note that the page is an article about you and not "your page". Your edits are being reverted because you appear to other editors be just a random person removing information from the article. You will need to confirm your identity with Wikipedia by emailing the address at the end of the paragraph clicking this link brings you to. You can then make an edit request on the article's talk page, as autobiographical edits are discouraged. While it can be removed, it will be difficult to keep out of the article if your birthdate is published in reliable sources. If it is not widely available in reliable sources, it will be easier to keep out(and should be, as all information in articles needs to be sourced) 331dot (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

My First article got rejected

Hi,

I was creating my first article and it got rejected. Please suggest what should i do to make that article public? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidscampusnoida (talk • contribs) 14:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kidscampusnoida: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry, but I had to delete your draft, as it was not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles cannot be promotional and their content must be supported with independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the subject. You also are associated with the school and as such you have a conflict of interest and must declare as a paid editor; please click those links to review those policies. You must also immediately request a change in username using one of the two methods at WP:CHU as usernames cannot be that of an organization. As you have a conflict of interest, you should not directly edit in its area. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I have posted some information on your user talk page about how you can request a new username. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

How To Become A Volunteer / Admin

Does anyone know how to become a volunteer for the wikipedia, besically work for them :)

Jeriqui123 (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jeriqui123 and welcome to the Teahouse! We are all volunteers here, so if you want to help out, just start improving or expanding articles you are interested in. Admins are just a group with some special tools to make it easier for us do necessary cleanup but they are only granted to editors who have been active for more than a year with several thousand edits, so I suggest you try editing first. And if you need any help, check the guide at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia or feel free to ask here. Regards SoWhy 14:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jeriqui123: (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. All you need to do to become a volunteer here is visit and be willing to participate, which you seem to have done. I would suggest that you take the new user tutorial to learn about how Wikipedia works and how you can participate. Becoming an administrator almost always takes years, as you build up an edit history and reputation that shows the community that you understand Wikipedia policies and processes. You don't need to be an administrator to do 95% of what needs to be done on Wikipedia, so I wouldn't worry about it. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Jeriqui123. This looks like a pile-on welcome for you! It's great to have you here at the Teahouse. Welcome. As has been said, anyone who edits anything on Wikipedia is a volunteer, as none of us get paid for what we contribute. Wikipedia is a freely available, open-to-anyone-to-edit sort of amazing encyclopaedia of notable stuff. So each of us contributes to the things that interest us. And you can do the same, too. The best way is to take our tour, called The Wikipedia Adventure which lets you gain up to 15 badges on your userpage as you learn the basics of how everything works. Being an 'Administrator' is a responsible position which any editor can become, subject to the rest of the community here approving them. It usually takes a few years and a lot of editing experience to gain sufficient broad knowledge to take on that role. But, once again, they're unpaid volunteers too! And all that volunteer effort has created what you see today - over 5 million articles on the English Wikipedia alone, and a resource that everyone from junior children to research scientists utilise. I have left you a welcome message on your talk page, full of a load of links and stuff to help you become a great editor. As you appear to be a young user, take care not to reveal any personal information about yourself that you might later wish you hadn't. We care very much for the safety of new, young editors, so feel free to take a look at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Remember that we judge people (if that's the right word to use) not by their age, their gender or other stuff - but simply by the quality of what they contribute, and how they go about dealing with other editors. Good luck at the start of your very own Wikipedia adventure! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Trying to add article for deletion

And I'm failing miserably. Using manual method. See today's list. Thanks. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Your afd3 template submission failed because you had nowiki tags and other formatting. I've fixed it, as you'll see in this edit. The easiest way of doing the 3 steps is to use Twinkle. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much!! I will try Twinkle next time. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Ideas

How to get ideas of editing? If I want to make small edits like spelling mistakes, how can I find those? Drunkguyash (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, User:Drunkguyash! Check out the Typo Team pages to find lists of misspellings you can help us correct. Schazjmd (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Drunkguyash: Can I ask, what are your hobbies and interests? One easy way to find things to improve here is simply to read articles about your favourite subjects. You might then follow links from that page to other ones (call it Wiki-surfing, if you will), or click the categories at the very bottom to find related articles. Along the way you're bound to stumble across spelling, punctuation and other things that cry out for some editor love and attention. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Simple question but hard to answer it

How can I change a name of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. James Dimsey (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

You move it to a new title. See Help:How to move a page. --Jayron32 19:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK to use self-published statistics?

When a website displays statistics, can you use those in an article or are they to be deemed as self-published and unreliable? Should one wait for a secondary source to publish the numbers? Asking on behalf of Draft:TSUKI_Project, as it has a counter of members (not right now, but when the draft gets a reply the official website may be out of maintenance mode again), but I'm not sure if it's OK to use its official member count, or just use the count specified in a secondary source (as the original author of the draft has done)... Anyone know what's proper to do here? ShindoNana (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@ShindoNana: That is probably OK. Wikipedia does allow using self-published info in some cases. See WP:ABOUTSELF. RudolfRed (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A subject's own website is not appropriate for establishing WP:Notability, but once independent WP:Reliable sources have shown notability, then the website can be quoted for a limited amount of basic facts that are not likely to be disputed. Secondary sources are usually preferred at Wikipedia. Dbfirs 22:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ShindoNana. I must disagree with RudolfRed on this matter. According to WP:SELFPUB, self-published material is allowed as long as "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". In this case, the topic is a cult with a deranged and delusional belief system. Such cults are motivated to inflate their influence and membership. I would not accept a single solitary thing this cult says as being factual. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you for that correction. I must admit I was thinking in more general terms and did not review the draft page. RudolfRed (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

... and I made the same mistake by replying in general terms and not checking the subject.  Dbfirs 23:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for the swift replies, that makes sense. I could definitely see a cult do that, so I'll stick to the used secondary statistic, then! ShindoNana (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Need help about how to prove that the subject of article is relevant enough to make it's own Wikipedia page

Hi, I would like to ask for your help to review this article I have made. First of all, I'm sorry if my wording or grammar is a bit off. There is (2) things that I need more guidance, in which it's about my draft article titled Lee Dae-hwi.

1) How do I prove that the subject of the article is relevant enough in the songwriting area? Lee Dae-hwi has made his name in the Korean Medias that he has been active in making, composing, producing songs. He already made 8 songs (1 unreleased in music sites, but has been played on broadcast). As he already active as songwriter, it is noted that he still has not released his songs with himself as the singer. I have added the online news links for the references, but it seems that the last review I got is that it's still did not show significant coverage and not enough to prove his relevancy in such area.

2) How do I prove that Lee Dae-hwi's released songs has been released legally / How do i credit them properly? As I got the review that my article has not meet the Notability of musician, I need your guidance in which part(s) that I should fix. I need to know if I need to put more details for the songs' copyrights.

Lastly, Thank you so much for your patience in reading my questions. I would very much appreciate it if you could help me. --Otterlyhwi (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Otterlyhwi. As was noted in the reviews of Draft:Lee Dae-hwi, it was determined in a deletion discussion that he is not notable as a singer separately from Wanna One. For the guideline for notability as a songwriter see WP:COMPOSER. The most likely criterion for him would be #1: “Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.” For the guideline for the notability of a song see WP:NSONG—a pretty high standard. Does one of his songs meet one of these criteria? (Do not worry about copyrights and legal release of his songs.) —teb728 t c 01:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello?

Hello this is ToodyFoot what is his — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToodyDoot (talk • contribs) 01:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse is a place to ask questions about how to be a Wikipedia editor. David notMD (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradley Steyn

Hello Teahouse, My rugby mate, Bradley Steyn has had an incredibly unique life experience that he is making a good faith effort to leverage into social change concerning violence in South Africa. His story has been covered by multiple news outlets and he is releasing a memoir, published by Jacarta, along with a corresponding documentary, potentially funded by Kevin Kostner. Please review the stub article that I have created for "Bradley Steyn" and help me understand how to present this information in a way that upholds the wiki's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esreekay (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Esreekay: The article looks dangerously vulnerable to being deleted as an A7. You may wish to add an introductory section. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Esreekay: I do tend to agree with A lad insane. I saw it half an hour or so ago at New Page Patrol, but decided to leave it a while as it had already been tagged regarding notability. There are lots of amazing people in the world (you and me included!), but for someone to merit a Wikipedia page, we need to see a number of articles that have written about them in quite some depth. (See WP:NBIO for details). I do think you will need more than what you've currently found about a witness to a massacre that, itself, doesn't yet have a Wikipedia page about it. The Pressreader article from Pretoria News seems moderately strong. Can you find any more like that to include? Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Esreekay: In addition to what the others have posted above, you're also going to have to verify the copyright ownership of the image you're using in the main infobox. Generally, it is the person taking a photo, not the person being photographed, who is considered the copyright owner of said photo; so, I don't think you can claim that photo (technically those photos) as being authored by Steyn himself unless he can show that copyright was officially transfered to him. Moreover, you uploaded the image as a single file, but it actually looks like a montage of three different images. The montage itself might be considered a derivative work eligible for its own copyright, but the copyrights of the individual photos themselves also need to be considered. Commons will not be able to keep the file unless you can estalish that the person or persons who took each of these photos have given their explicit consent for his/her/their work to be uploaded to Commons under the license you chose when uploading the file. If obtaining this position seems too much of a hassle or unlikely to be granted even if you do ask, then my suggestion to you would be to tag the Commons file for deletion using c:Template:SD and request deletion per c:COM:CSD#G7. You can then (if you want) take your own photo of Steyn and upload that to Commons under a free license of your choosing.

Finally, you should also not really be creating any new articles or adding content to existing articles about Steyn if he's one of your friends because you would be considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to him for Wikipedia purposes. Please see WP:COISELF for more details. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

How to make a meetup page

Hello! I co-organised an editathon last year and someone helpfully setup a meetup page for the event. I cannot find how to make a new meetup page for the new event, could anyone help me locate that info? I made a draft and tried to move it, which I thought would work, but there is no "meetup" space to move it to that I can see. Help! /Louise000 (talk)/ —Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Louise000. I believe the namespace used for "Meet up" pages in the "Wikipedia" namespace. As for how to create the page, maybe you can find that information in Wikipedia:Meetup. You could also try looking at some of the pages in Category:Wikipedia meetups and see if there's one whose formatting you like; you can then probably just format the one you want to create the same way. My only other advice to you is to not add any non-free images to the page since doing so is not allowed per Wikipedia non-free content use criterion #9; so, if you want to use images, you should probably stick to using those already uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Marchjuly. Thank you, with your help I was able to figure it out. The info I needed was that yes it is indeed the "Wikipedia" namespace as you suggested and that it can be located into the meetup subfolder by just adding "Meetup/" before the page title, which is straight forward but not completely obvious. Glad it worked!!

/Louise000 (talk)/ —Preceding undated comment added 05:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Including an Image to an Article

Hi folks! I hope everyone is having an excellent day. Being new to Wikipedia, I'm still having a bit of trouble dissecting instruction on how to handle certain formatting. On an article, does Wikipedia automatically generate the 'right side info box' images? Or, is this something I should manually include when creating an article? If this is something I should be doing, can anyone please instruct me as to how to format the infobox?

I do see the 'media' button at the top, but I wasn't sure if that simply embeds the .jpg into the article itself, versus the right infobox.

Thank you for your time!

-Mason, Animegearlab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animegearlab (talk • contribs) 07:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read Template:Infobox book which should show you how to implement infoboxes. The image location like [[File:Example]] goes in the image = line

You may also find WP:YFA a helpful guide as writing articles can be hard. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 07:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This is exactly what I was looking for. You've helped me a lot and I appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animegearlab (talk • contribs) 08:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Searching for a template

This template says something along the line of "This article only deals with TOPIC as it is in the United States. Expand it with international uses of TOPIC." I know it exists because I've seen it in the past year, but no idea where. I spent quite a while trying to find it in templates by category, such as Category:Hatnote templates, and learned many very interesting things about templates, but didn't find it. And I can't devise a search for it. The article I want to put it on is Game show. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like {{Globalize/US}}, one of a family derived from {{Globalize}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Timelines of cities in the United States

Some of these places such as Timeline of Albuquerque, New Mexico could be moved to a shorter title Timeline of Albuquerque and still be unambiguous. Should I comply with the guideline WP:USPLACE or is it fine to apply WP:IAR to this? Mstrojny (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't got a reply in 2 days. How long does it take for a volunteer to answer my question? Mstrojny (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Normally you would get a reply rather earlier. My own view is that we ought to be consistent. The article Albuquerque, New Mexico is not entitled Albuquerque, although there is a redirect from the latter. WP:USPLACE gives a ref for a list of those cities which do not require the state name to be included, and Albequerque is not on that list. I would recommend that "Timeline" articles use the same naming convention as that for articles on the city directly, but I see no reason why you couldn't have a redirect from Timeline of Albuquerque. If you have a differing view you could discuss it at WT:Naming conventions (geographic names). --David Biddulph (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: I have created a proposal here if you would like to have a say in the proposal. Also, can you notify other editors about this proposal? Mstrojny (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Why the refusing editor doesn't wait a moment to see if some growing is happening.

Why the refusing editor doesn't wait a moment to see if the following ist happening. " A Wikipedia entry is a good idea. Would you maybe like to start it and let others improve it? No Wikipedia page needs to start off polished. Once it's there it's easier for people to add drive-by improvements." I was very disapointed because the invention of Melinda ist really a break through. I'm sure thet the refusing editor doesn't understand the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.92.161 (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi anonymous editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. The above is the only edit from your IP address, so we don't know what article you are talking about. In general, it's a good idea to start an article in your sandbox, at least until you have found WP:Reliable sources to establish WP:Notability. Once notability is established, the article should be safe from deletion unless there are copyright or libel issues, and it is then available for other editors to improve. Dbfirs 11:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

No cite button

Hi, I edit using visual editing on my iPad, and recently the cite button keeps disappearing, so there is no way to cite a source except for using source editing. The text & link features still appear at the top, but not the source button. Is this something I’ve done, or have Wiki removed the feature? Or a bug?

Thanks. – Joesimnett (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Joesimnett, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not experiencing any issue seeing the 'Cite' button using Visual Editor on my old iPhone5S, still using iOs10. Despite always receving a wiki-alert that my browser (Safari) is not officially supported, the cite button is certainly there. To test it I went to both the Ketchup and Visual perception articles in desktop view and clicked the top 'Edit' tab. Sure enough, there was the Cite button and its two big quote marks in both pages. It functioned OK. Had I wished to I could certainly have cited sauces sources, or even cited sight sources. Maybe others can suggest a reason you're not seeing it. I should probably crawl away now... regards Nick Moyes (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm Confused...

DAWNSEEKER2000 left me the following message:

"Hello, I have noticed that you have been using Wikipedia as a source, but the encyclopedia is not considered reliable. Please discontinue. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask." Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 17:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Dawnseeker2000 18:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Help me to understand because I'm under the impression I am under evaluation for the possibility of having my account terminated. Am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smittypots (talk • contribs) 12:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Smittypots, All that is being asked of you at this point is to not use Wikipedia articles as references in other Wikipedia articles. This looks like it has been going on for a while. You need to find sources that are not associated with Wikipedia to support the information in Wikipedia articles. You should go to WP:ANI#User Smittypots and explain you understand that Wikipedia articles can not be used as references and that you will not do that any more. ~ GB fan 13:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Smittypots: To elaborate on the above: you should never cite Wikipedia articles as references because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you found claim X in article A and want to reuse it in article B, either article A cites an acceptable reference which you can then re-cite in article B, or it does not, and then you should look for an external reference to use (if there is none, you should remove the claim from article A). You may use wikilinks instead though.

I doubt you are at any serious risk of blocking ("account termination") (based on your current actions at least). I think Dawnseeker2000 (ping) overreacted big time in taking you to ANI (which should be reserved for serious and/or long-lasting conduct problems), and made a fairly poor job of communicating what the problem was to you. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)