Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 907

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 900←Archive 905Archive 906Archive 907Archive 908Archive 909Archive 910

Can you delete stuff off your talk page?

Can you delete stuff off your talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, with very limited exceptions. See WP:OWNTALK and WP:BLANKING. Note that removing a warning form your talk page does hide it. It can still be seen in your history. Meters (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi BigRed606. You can delete almost anyhting from your talk page (including the warning notice you received). The few exceptions – things you cannot remove – are: i) A notice (template) informing any visitors to your talk page that your talk page itself is being considered for deletion through Miscellany for deletion; ii) if you are currently, blocked from editing, you cannot remove any unblock notices where the responder declined to unblock you; and iii) speedy deletion tags and requests for uninvolved administrator help. Please note that though it is not mandatory, it is considered much better practice to archive the content you remove, rather than to just remove talk page content outright. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
So how would I delete just like I would regularly delete something or do I have to request something — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Read the links. Meters (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC).
I Read the link it doesn’t say pacifically but I got a good ideal of what I can and cannot delet. But the Question is that do I need to request to delete or can I just delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi BigRed606 Techinically, you'll be blanking content from your talk page, not deleting it. All you need to do is go into your talk page's editing mode and simply remove the content you want removed. There will still be a public record of the content in the page's history, and anyone checking that history will still be able to see who posted what and when (this is necessary because of Wikipedia's licensing requirements), but the content will no longer be visible on the latest version of your talk page. You only need to make a request if you would like the content removed from your page history as well as explained in Wikipedia:User pages#Deletion of user talk pages. However, this is not commonly done and typically requires a really good reason like those given here. Even in this latter case, the content might only be hidden from public view and still capable of being viewed by an administrator or others specially approved to see such content.
Now, if you're asking about this just because you want to keep your user talk page as clutter free as possible, you can archive your user talk page instead like many editors do. There are a couple of ways to do this, but you can find out more information at Help:Archiving a talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nominated page for deletion - can't create discussion page

I put in code to this page to nominate for deletion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanessa_Bley I'm stuck on the instructions #2 (Create the article's deletion discussion page). The AfD box isn't looking how it's described here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion

Can you help walk me through it or explain what I may have done wrong with the original edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actaudio (talk • contribs) 02:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Actaudio I stumbled across you issues and I wanted to help (Although I don’t work for the help desk nor do I have any special credentials) I do know some about editing and if your submission template is not working out more than likely a bot or someone else would fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Actaudio . Do you see the red link in the AfD deletion template you successfully saved at Vanessa Bley that says ... this article's entry ...?

 • Click on that.

 • On the resulting page, paste:

 • {{subst:afd2 | pg=Vanessa Bley | cat=B | text=YOUR NOMINATION TEXT}}--~~~~

 • Save the page.

 • Follow the next instruction at WP:AFDHOWTO.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't say "this article's entry" - that's the issue. I've created an AfD page before and it didn't look like this one. Actaudio (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind - now it's there. Weird! It wasn't 10 minutes ago. Thanks! Actaudio (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Actaudio: Aha! I bet you were in some type of cache loop and needed to purge the page cache and/or your own cache (see WP:PURGE and WP:BYPASS). This can be one of the most bewildering experiences – with people, for example, fooled into thinking they didn't save when they did, and so reverting back to a prior version and down the rabbit hole they go.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I Have A Question!

Hello! I have a question. How do some of Wikipedia's editors became admins? I'm not asking to be one, and I don't want to be one. (No offence.) I'm just asking. Thanks for responding (hopefully) quickly! From, Username Goes Here 062805 (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Username Goes Here 062805. You can find out more about this at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (or RfA). Basically, it's kind of a election in which someone either submits their name as a candidate or is nominated by another editor. Members of the community then discuss the candidate's qualifications, etc. and comment on whether the candidate should be granted administrator priviledges. There is currently one RfA ongoing; so, you can take a look at it to get a feel for how it actually works. You can also look at some recent RfAs for reference as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Well I really have no idea what I am doing on here but I couldnt find any kind of media that would allow me to make a point or make my voice heard.

I saw Mr Whales on Question time tonight. For the last 5 or 6 years I have contributed a few quid every year as I regard (did regard) that wiki was a great source of general knowledge, sometimes a fascinating amount of knowledge and felt it incumbent on me to attempt, in my own small way, to keep it going for both myself and others. After Mr Whales contribution regarding Brexit 2 things will happen immediately - Mr Whales begging mail for my regular funds to keep it going are cancelled forthwith and secondly I shall look elsewhere for my general information. In the great scheme of things it wont make a difference to Mr Whales or wiki - but it will to me knowing I am not supporting the opinion of a blinkered one trick pony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redthommo (talk • contribs) 23:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Redthommo. The Teahouse is really a place for people to ask questions about Wikipedia editing; it's not really the place for posts such as yours per WP:NOTFORUM. Not only is it highly unlikely that Jimbo Wales (no "h" in his last name) or anyone else from the Wikimedia foundation will see it; it's also highly unlikely they would respond here even if they did. So, if you want to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly to express any such concerns, you should take a look at WP:CONTACT. You might also be able to leave a message at User talk:Jimbo Wales (he does appear to respond to posts there), but you should do so according to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Redthommo. I assume that you are talking about Jimmy Wales. Wales is entitled to his own personal opinions as is everyone including you and I. When he comments on issues, he is speaking as an individual unless he makes it clear that he is speaking on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation in an official capacity. As far as I know, the Wikimedia Foundation has not taken a stand on Brexit. If you want to withhold your donations, that is your right, and you can also look for your information elsewhere if you want to. I recommend your local library. But please make your decisions based on accurate information and not false assumptions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Wales recently said this on his talkpage:
Unless an issue has some direct bearing on Wikipedia/Wikimedia or the free culture movement, I don't think there's any good reason to have a political discussion on my Wikipedia talk page. You want me to offer a general opinion about wealth inequality and mention my role on the WMF Board but I see zero relevance. The WMF is not going to take any position on what the appropriate level of taxation is, obviously. On certain other matters where I am involved in diplomacy or negotiations, I must deliberately sometimes hold my tongue if speaking is not in the best interests of the movement. I defer to the WMF on such things. A good place to ask me about random political issues would be twitter or quora. But as I am not a political candidate running for election, and have no intention to ever be one, I do reserve the absolute right to speak or not speak on various political issues as my personal mood strikes me. So no, I don't think volunteer editors - or anyone else - has a "right to know where I stand" on such things as marginal tax rates. On the other hand I'm a friendly and open person and I might answer just about anything that I'm asked - in the appropriate venue!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Help with Editing

I would just like some help with creating a Wikipedia page that will be accepted as I have made one and it was declined and I am not sure why it was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpc1981 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Bpc1981 Welcome to Teahouse and I believe you were referring to Draft:Danny Searle. Pls note that the reviewer have left you a note (the gray/pink panel) atop of the draft and also a comment below the panel. Pls click on the blue highlighted texts for further info. Also pls read WP:Your First Article, referencing for beginners to familiar yourself what is needed and how to provide inline citations in Wikipedia. Also checkout Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything for your question in a nutshell.Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Locked

How do I make a page locked? Quiz shows, 10:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Quiz shows, What do you mean by "make a page locked", could you pls explain a little in detail? CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Just when you make a page that can't be edited. I don't want to do this right now but it's the feature that makes people make accounts. Quiz shows (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Quiz shows. You don't (unless a page is subject to a high level of vandalism). Wikipedia is a community project, and we don't lock anything to the way one person wants it. --ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
ColinFine. So who is deciding when a page becomes locked? Quiz shows (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
A Wikipedia:Administrator, either on their own or as a result of a discussion somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Quiz shows, please see these pages:
for information on WHO, HOW and WHY can decide on 'locking' some page, perform such lock and release it. --CiaPan (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Quiz shows. Page protection is what it's called and is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Applications will only be granted if they meet the dictates of Wikipedia:Protection policy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

How to change a page title

I made an account to get the features to change a title, but I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiz shows (talk • contribs) 10:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Quiz show Welcome to Teahouse. You have only made one edit (to Teahouse). May I know why you want to change a article title? and what is the name of the article you were referring to? Also pls sign your post at the end of your comments by inserting type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~.Thank you CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I went to the move page and now I think they can test a move I offered to submit, but I want to remove names from titles, like on some other discussions of pages where they discuss this. Quiz shows (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Quiz show Hi, sorry but I dont understand who is "they" you refer to above and pls provide the article name for us to understand how to help you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
It is the requested move page, that's they. Sorry, I don't truly understand the words to use, but I want to take out the phrases in brackets from some articles, like that is discussed on the requested move page sometimes. I think I have figured it out though, I put a notice on one page to see if people can agree to move it, and I might try some others tonight, if people are not opposed to my first idea. Quiz shows (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
For other Teahouse hosts - I believe the page is Derek Luke (actor) that Quiz shows mentioned above. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
In which case, the reason that it's titled Derek Luke (actor) is that there is more than one Derek Luke with a Wikipedia article. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
... but the OP may wish to argue primary topic, on the basis of evidence such as this. Evidence would need to be supplied to support a requested move. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Editor

I think you should define what an editor is in this century. My understanding is that an editor checks spelling, grammar and verifies facts. I am old. I can definitely check grammar and, of course, there are so many spell checkers out there. How does one verify facts these days, if not through Wekipia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.184.147 (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your interest. Quoting from Wikipedia:Glossary#E, an "Editor" is "[a]nyone who writes or modifies Wikipedia articles. That includes you." This last part is important: Everything you read here was written by people just like you that got interested and decided to help out here. So, please do check spelling, grammar, verify facts, etc. If you are interested in doing so, I think a great introduction is provided at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, and you might also take a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. By the way, while you don't need to log in to edit, signing up for an account takes only a minute and has many benefits. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
About About verifying facts, this guy has some thoughts on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Alex in Pawn Shop Pawns Wikipedia help!

Hello, I need your help, I keep trying to post Alex in Pawn Shop Pawns to the wikipedia site, but it keeps getting denied, I know i'm doing something wrong and I need your help to get it right, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexBd25 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@AlexBd25: There are two problems, and I'm afraid both are insurmountable.
First, this game does not come anywhere near meeting our notability requirements. In order for a game to have an article on this site, it needs to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Your game simply doesn't have that.
Second, you have a conflict of interest when it comes to writing about your game. It is strongly discouraged for people to write about a subject they have any financial ties to, and people with such COI's should, instead, limit themselves to requesting edits at talk pages.
If you have any more specific questions or would like more details about something I said here, let me know and I will respond as soon as I am able. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
AlexBd25: :@ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants:, hello! Thanks for reaching my problems to me, sorry if I was being conflict of interest. I'll try to do better with that, btw thanks for not deleting it :) i'll try to fix those issues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexBd25 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
As M-Pants noted, this game is not known or written about yet, so it is too soon for it to be the topic of an article. No amount of revision will change that. David notMD (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Marking a Reference as broken

Hi Teahouse, I keep finding references whose link leads to a dead webpage. Is there a template to alert other users about this? Thanks! BladeRikWr 14:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

BladeRikWr, There is {{dead link}} but the best thing to do is to find a replacement, such as through the InternetArchiveBot interface. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello BladeRikWr, welcome to the Teahouse! You can place {{Dead link}} after the closing </ref> tag for a reference to alert other editors to the issue. There is also a bot that will attempt to fix dead links in citations by adding a link to the Internet Archive. In many cases you can fix dead links yourself by following the instructions at WP:Linkrot. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello BladeRikWr and welcome to the Teahouse.
Ideally such links should be replaced, either with a new reference that supports the related information or with an archived copy of the original reference. If you can't do one of those actions, you can use the template {{dead link}} just after the closing '/ref' tag to indicate to readers that the reference can't be followed and to put the page on a work category so another editor will see it needs cleaning up. Do not delete references (or the material they supported) just because the link has gone dead. For more information, see DEADREF. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 15:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
To correct what my 2 colleagues above have said, if you look at {{dead link}} you'll see that it should be placed before the closing </ref> tag, rather than after. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
It's true that the doc says the template should go inside the ref tags, so that the "dead link" notice goes into the reference section. There have been a few debates over the years (one at: WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 104#Shouldn't dead link be an in-line template, like citation needed?). As evidenced above, this placement seems more natural to some editors. And the doc for the template also says you can use {{subst:DATE}} in the {{dead link}} but this trick does not work inside ref tags — I confess that this is the reason I quit trying to leave {{dl}} tags inside the ref. The earlier arguments about the placement being easier for automated tools have long since been overcome by improvements in the tools, so what remains is an argument about how visible or intrusive the dead link notice should be. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@ WelpThatWorked, AntiCompositeNumber, jmcgnh thank you all for the advice, and for helping a new editor! — BladeRikWr (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to This page is about Tasty tibet.

Hello I am trying to create a page called Tasty Tibet. But my previous attempt on the same was deleted saying it has promotional content. Can you please have a look at the content and references I have complied in this new draft and tell me about any changes this draft needs to be approved. :) Thank You.

[Tibet Draft]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mot1992 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I've added some suggestions on the article's talk page. Good luck :) --Cornellier (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Fed gov website citing

what is the best way to cite a Federal Government agency's website if you are using content either directly from their website or paraphrasing their content? The links that were provided were helpful, but I would like to know how to cite something I pulled from the first paragraph on [1]. Thanks - Scott8905 (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Scott A-C

References

  1. ^ https://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/mission-and-functions


Hi, Scott8905, I think I would do it like this:
<ref>{{cite web| url=https://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/mission-and-functions| title=Mission and Functions {{!}} USAO {{!}} Department of Justice| publisher=US Deparment of Justice| date=December 9, 2014| access-date=February 15, 2019}}</ref>
to get a result like this:
EOUSA was created in 1953 to provide for close liaison between the Department of Justice and the 93 United States Attorneys[1]

References

  1. ^ "Mission and Functions | USAO | Department of Justice". US Deparment of Justice. December 9, 2014. Retrieved February 15, 2019.
--CiaPan (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
BTW, Scott8905, have you seen Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines? There's lots of information there, most of which will be helpful sooner of later. --CiaPan (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Some questions following your message

Hi

First, I have a horrible feeling I have two sandbox articles of the same name. I started one ages ago and was contacted by A Haworth in January when I went back to it (New Year's resolutions etc.). I wasn't sure how to restart and evidently got it wrong. Is it possible to delete that edit or is that even necessary, if the edit here is the latest?

Second, I don't want to pester you with submissions while I find proper links to works and mentions and other relevant links, plus I will check in with the tutorials for layout when I have my ducks in a row. Please could you tell me how I can save without submitting, which is the only button offered.

Third, and this is only small, would it be overplaying it to insert a second portrait from his army years in that section, while keeping the elder man for the main portrait?

That's it. Thanks.

Best wishes, Rory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rory Fellowes (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

If you click on the "Contributions" link at the top right of any page it will show you all your contributions. You only have one draft; it was moved from your sandbox to Draft: namespace. You can save changes using the "Publish changes" button without resubmitting for another AFC review. The button used to be named "Save changes" but the WMF changed the name of the button and confused everybody by so doing; it doesn't publish the draft to mainspace. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you do if sources disagree about when/where someone was born?

I'm working on an article draft, but two sources disagree about when Hughes was born. One source says she was born on November 12, 1876 and another source claims November 20, 1876. The first is an electronic biographical source with copyrights associated with the University of Toronto and the latter is from the media club of Ottawa (a source I haven't yet cited but can be found at http://www.mediaclubofottawa.ca/Profiles-Katherine_Hughes.html. I would tend to think that the first source would be more reliable, but Hughes was one of the founding members of the club that wrote the later source. It doesn't make much sense for the latter source to falsely claim that Hughes was born 8 days later than the other source, but I'm not sure which source would be considered more reliable and how I should write about it in the article. The other thing that differs is where she was born - mainly with some sources being more specific than others. The aforementioned sources agreed that she was born in County Line Emerald Junction, Prince Edward Island, Canada but some other sources state Emerald, Prince Edward Island. Clovermoss (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

What's more confusing is that the first website acknowledges that she was one of the founding members of the Canadian Women's Press Club (and some of its connections to the media club of Ottawa) in a seperate article found here: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/canadian-womens-press-club. Clovermoss (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: The club is officially called The Media Club of Ottawa in both sources, not the media club of Ottawa (my mind rearranged the wording for some reason). Clovermoss (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I dealt with two issues of this stripe through in text attribution at the article on Rudolf Wanderone a/k/a Minnesota Fats. See the second paragraph at this revision of the article (we later found better sourcing and pinned down his exact date of birth and death).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: Ok, I'll take a look at it. Thanks for the advice :) Clovermoss (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding Images

How do we add images? I know “fair use” won’t do. How do we add images properly? I’m not used to adding images like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdeaFan128 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

IdeaFan128, what in question are you trying to add? WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I want to add the cover to Mega Man (Archie Comics), but I can’t find a way to do it. I’ve tried sending a release notice and nothing works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdeaFan128 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
IdeaFan128, fair use is acceptable in this case: see WP:NFCI and WP:NFCC. Basically, you just need to upload a fairly low-resolution version of the cover and tag it appropriately (the upload wizard will help with this). Eman235/talk 22:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sending out thank you's after an edit-a-thon

How do I use wikimedia images in a new section on a user's talk page? I am trying to use images in my thank you's after an edit-a-thon. --Egallaugher (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Egallaugher (talk • contribs) 22:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

If you're thinking of something similar to the box that Fishantena posted on your talk page, you can try the "wikilove message" button — found on user talk pages right next to the watchlist button. Eman235/talk 23:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Egallaugher, welcome to the Teahouse. Images work the same way in talk pages and articles. Which problem are you having? Help:Pictures has general help. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

London Skolars 2019 season

@RHaworth:, please may I request you restore this page I deleted in error yesterday.

Thank you

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Calder1966 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Edited. --CiaPan (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

There is some confusion here. There is an article London Skolars which Gary Calder1966 has edited, ditto 2019 London Broncos season, but not London Skolars 2019 season. Maybe someone else can solve this, as well as GC's undeletion request. David notMD (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps 2019 London Skolars season? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
If that, then GC created it on 2/15, blanked it on 2/15, then built it up again, but smaller. Still does not address apology for deletion. David notMD (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Prior to the current creation it had been deleted once yesterday and once earlier today: see logs. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Feature Request

I was reading an article on the english wikipedia. Then I decided I wanted it in Simple English. I tried to obtain pages "In other languages," where I discovered that, associated with any article, my browser shows a button labeled "{x} more" and clicking it gives a search feature. (It was new to me.) So, typing "Simple" in the search feature returned no good result (when I know the article is available in Simple English). Can this search feature be changed so an end user, like myself, can have Simple English Wikipedia as a result?

Sorry for posting this just here; I realize this request could get lost in the wind. I just don't know where else to start; Wikipedia's skeleton and nervous system seem so large. I haven't posted this complaint/idea elsewhere, this is my first attempt to make contact with anyone.168.179.217.67 (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a known bug that Simple English is missing there, both from search and the list. For example, Ashdon should have linked to simple:Ashdon which is included in wikidata:Q1832065#sitelinks-wikipedia. Simple English is listed for registered users if they disable "Use a compact language list" at the bottom of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. This removes the language search feature. The bug is tracked at phab:T210840. A cumbersome workaround for unregistred users using the desktop site: Click "Wikidata item" under "Tools" in the left pane. Then manually examine whether there is a "simple" link under "Wikipedia". Your browser may be able to search for "simple" (or any other string on any webpage) with Ctrl+F. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Looks like developers have worked on a possible fix for this issue, but it's not quite clear when a patch will be finally released. But there's still hope. GermanJoe (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

status on article submitted September 10, 2018

I wrote an article for Wikipedia on September 10, 2018. It was for a group doing submissions on women composers. I have heard nothing since. Apparently the article was not submitted.

How would I learn what the status is?

If by mistake it was not submitted, how do I get it submitted?

here is a link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mary_Lou_Newmark

thank you,

Mark (justintunes)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justintunes (talk • contribs) 04:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Justintunes. Draft for articles are not automatically reviewed; you need to actually submit the draft for review. I will add a template to the top of the draft. You can click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button if you feel it's ready to be upgraded to an article. I wouldn't, however, suggest you do that right at this moment because there some issues with the formatting, etc. which might lead to the draft being declined by a reviewer. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Manual of style for some general information on how to write and format articles. You can find some good examples of how this can be done in Wikipedia:Featured articles or Wikipedia: Good articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I have some updates to make since September 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justintunes (talk • contribs) 01:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Accidentally moved page to user - not sure how to fix

I created this page in my Sandbox and accidentally moved to a user, not an article. How do I change it back? I'm basically looking to publish or move to AfD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paula_Fairfield 05:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Actaudio (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actaudio (talk • contribs) 05:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Actaudio. I have moved the contents to Draft:Paula Fairfield for you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I see now it says "Warning: The page Paula Fairfield redirects to User:Paula Fairfield. Please ensure it is not a copy or that this page is located to the correct title." Can you help or advise what I need to do? Actaudio (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Someone tagged the main page for speedy deletion because of the redirect - the draft is still ok - so I think it's resolved... Actaudio (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I have deleted the extra unneeded pages. Continue working on the draft, Actaudio. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Editorial Intolerance, Lack of Transparency and Accountability - "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit"

Invited here by Hostbot, thank you. Re: myContribution in the Topic: "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit" (now "suspended" by JFG) Complaint Reposted for your response, please: [I have no intention to engage in any "edit war", JFG. As you must know, I have only just begun to contribute to Wikipedia. This initial experience has been very disappointing. Your editing actions - "unsourced" and "off topic" - are totally baffling, arbitrary and untransparent, especially for a Commons encyclopedia. I have some experience in writing and editing for top-class refereed journals. You (and all the purported unknown editors? who?) now decided to delete the entire "Reactions" section of the "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit" - why? What's left are just fluff and dry stuff. An encyclopedia should contain much more facts-based, credibly-sourced perspectives - just compare with the Encyclopedia Britannica (assuming you and other self-appointed editors, truly with due respects, would accept it as a gold standard). And you threatened in a message to "ban" me? Sounds very China's and DPRK's intolerance of free speech and diverse thinking, eh? Why/what are you so afraid of in the "Reactions" contents? They provided interesting background information to inform Wikipedia users of the complex issues of the Summit. JFG, you could have simply pointed me to the proper formatting of the contributions instead of brushing it off as "unsourced" (which of course it is not but contained multiple sources) or "off topic" (which indicated that the 'editors' did not read and/or understand the contents and embedded links). And your "best way" to consider the NationalInterest and my materials is to censor/delete them off? Seriously, people? Your latest action WILL discourage other contributions who would have richly added to the Topic in the run-up to the Summit. myEndNote - Wikipedia processes are well-written and respected, but I think they are being abused and misused by "humans" who are knowingly or unknowingly arrogant in their self-importance and un-selfconsciousness of their own bias and prejudice. You DO NOT have to censor or delete multiple & credibly-sourced materials - however disagreeable they may be to you and then some. Just trust your readers' intelligence to form their own conclusions - isn't that's why the Commons and Wiki movements are about? written by: DrMikoWise (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC) ]

Please DO NOT throw me your beautifully written policies or "processes"; I have NO ISSUE with them.

I hope to see the "conversations" among the editors who concluded that myContribution was "unsourced" and "off topic", both misconceived and untrue. And why did you accused me of initiating a "edit war" and threatened to "ban" me (like some totalitarian regimes)?

In the 1st instance, myContribution was simply off-format - it should be simply pointed out and guided. And when MULTIPLE sources were properly formatted and introduced, your editor(s?) decided that it was "opinion and conjecture", again without substantiation, and decided to DELETE and CENSOR it altogether with an earlier NationalInterest article. Your editor(s?) now awaits some "Neutral Text" (what this?) so as to restore the unreasonable edits. The ORIGINAL contribution was under the "REACTIONS" heading of the Topic - please explain and elaborate on the oxymoronic "Neutral Reactions".

I hope JFG and other editors involved in this seeming editorial intolerance could kindly educate me, a newbie to Wikipedia but very familiar to well-sourced writings, with SPECIFIC reference to myContribution. Your transparency and accountability are extremely CRITICAL to the integrity of Wikipedia. Thank you.

Whither Editorial Intolerance, Lack of Transparency and Accountability - "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit"? DrMikoWise (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi DrMikoWise. It appears that you've found Talk:2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit and have started a discussion about this topic there. That's really the best place for a discussion about the content of 2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit since that it where those interested in the subject matter are likely going to be found. In addition, when you're WP:BOLD and make changes to an article which are subsequently reverted by someone else, the general thing to do is follow Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle and engage in article talk page discussion. Please try and remember that the ultimate goal is to the improve the overall quality of the article, not to try and have the article reflect our own personal viewpoints, etc., and any disagreements among editors as to how to achieve this goal are expected to be resolved per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. So, you're going to have to establish a consensus in favor of making the changes you want to make by showing how the changes comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you're not familiar with how article talk pages work, you can find some more information in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Help:Talk pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, MarchJuly, for the the sensible advisory reminder to one and all. Your fellow editors should also read AGAIN the Wikipedia Guidelines before rushing to judgement and delete the "disputed" content. Acting contrary to your own Wiki-Guidelines, they DID NOT first attempt to edit or improve on the content but simply dismissing it WRONGFULLY as "unsourced" and "off topic". Neither did any of the arrogant self-righteous editors follow the CONSENSUS guideline to "take into account all of the proper concerns raised, (so as) ... to arrive with an absence of objections ...(or) ... settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached". And since "there is (YET) no wide agreement, consensus-building ...(SHOULD)... involve adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal". In accordance with the Guidelines, I had in fact "DISCUSSED" why I made the Contribution and then "REVERTED" the wrongful edits, before being threatened with a "BAN" for daring to start an "EDIT WAR". Such behaviors by your editor(s) are reprehensible and should not be condoned by the rest of us who feel more ordinary and less self-righteous. How indeed can you build CONSENSUS, as advised by the Guidelines, when the purported "offending" content have already been removed so arbitrarily by a few editors before any Consensus decision, thereby preventing others from viewing them (with their multiple sources which also contained other multiple embedded sources!) so as to adjudge publication suitability. Up to this very moment, the editor(s) involved HAVE NOT even bothered to explain and shared their thinking driving their rush to "delete" instead of building the recommended "Consensus" in the Wiki-Guidelines. Do the said Wiki-Guidelines NOT apply to these "editors"? Did they have special EXEMPTIONS from the Wiki-Guidelines because of some superior "editor" status? Their stubborn refusal and failure to explain their actions denies critical accountability in editorial decision-making and constitutes a DANGEROUS and blatant disregard for basic and decent human respect accorded to every Wiki Contributor. Suggest the edits be restored for others to read and to debate further HERE so as to build the needed Consensus ... in accordance with the Wiki-Guidelines.
The proverbial ball is clearly now in the hands of those few editors (JFG /and others) who are guilty of gross editorial negligence by disregarding Wiki-Guidelines and acting prematurely in haste without first the requisite due diligence and mutual consultations.
DrMikoWise (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@DrMikoWise: Firstly, I'd advise you, strongly, to stop WP:SHOUT'ing. It doesn't help convince anyone of your viewpoint, and only gives the impression that you're throwing a tantrum over this (even if that's not your intent).
You seem to have read a lot of pages, but was one of them WP:NPOV? Even reliably sourced opinions are still opinions, and when not clearly the overwhelming overwhelming majority of opinions, especially on political matters, we should not state them as fact. Therefore, your edits were removed entirely – also because of WP:BRD wherein the burden is on you, not them, to develop consensus for your edit. Any editor has the right to challenge an addition by reverting it, and the other editors in your situation have chosen to do so.
See also WP:NOTTABLOID: paraphrases of opinion pieces do not belong here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear Jasper, thank you for rushing to advise me. Truly appreciated. No, I am NOT "shouting". Yes, read NPOV. And if my "disputed" Contribution could be read in its entirety, together with all the multiple sources and their corresponding embedded sources, you would also discover that they complied largely and squarely with the NPOV Guidelines governing writing from "a (balanced and) neutral point of view". You will see that the supporting sources "represented fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on or related to the Topic entitled: "US Holds Key to Korean Peace". The sources which even included admittedly controversial wall street journal (wsj.com) and politifact, among others, also do not point to any particular editorial bias. I also noted that the "editors" has earlier already allowed an article by NationalInterest whose bias is well-known. I am a deep believer in even handed and balanced perspectives, and to allow my intelligent readers to form their own conclusions. While the Title may suggest a particular stand for effect, the arguments contained therein relied on many "reliable published sources" dating as far back as 2014. True, opinions are not facts; and the facts of informed opinion whatever their degree of consensus can only be taken prima facie, nothing more and certainly not to be equated with scientific facts. The "editors" who first concluded my materials erroneously as "unsourced" and "off topic", and then changed their mind to ""opinion and conjecture" did not clearly ground their conclusion in the material facts. They should be held accountable by explaining their decisions referring to SPECIFIC statements and sources which informed their "factual" conclusions. That when their edits were legitimately challenged in accordance with Wiki-Guidelines, they have been unable or unwilling to do so tarnished all Wiki editors, notwithstanding beautifully written guidelines which they apparently did not apply to themselves and adhere to eg Consensus.
Indeed, Jasper, instead of confining to just a few of us, why not just restore the edits - even temporarily - for others Wiki Readers to weight in and debate @ Teahouse?
Why do you and just a couple of editors object to this? WE must and should have faith in the wisdom of the Commons which FACTUALLY provides the soul to the Wiki movement.
DrMikoWise (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Because this is not the place to debate anything, DrMikoWise. Because the way content disputes are handled is outlined in WP:BRD and that is not it. Because the content you added and another editor rightfully removed is still visible in the article's edit history and there is no need to restore it. And stop shouting. John from Idegon (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@DrMikoWise: Clearly you did not actually click my link, so here it is again: WP:SHOUT. Specifically, your overuse of all-capitals and boldened text, as well as not being concise, makes it very hard for others to want to work with you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear John and Jasper, it is not my intention to hurt your sensitivity with CAPs and bolden text. Pls accept myApologies. They are usually use for respectful emphasis, not rudeness. Will use less of them in future here. Have you et al actually read fully my article together with all the sourcing and their embedded sources? Don't be offended by my question. Let me explain. It usually takes me some time to read thoroughly and referee an article fairly and giving it the due consideration; that is, checking and reading the references as well as lookup the sources and sourcing of quotes, in addition to grasping the thrust and logic of the arguments. From the discussions so far on the "disputed" Topic, it does not seem that the primary editors had actually fully read everything before making their erroneous decision to exclude. I sense the other editors are merely "protecting" the primary editors out of commendable collegiality. I can understand that. Correct me if I were mistaken here. There is no need to "protect" them - they are under no threats of harm from anything. In fact, I think they would become better editors if they were encouraged to fully explain their decisions by referring to specific material statements and facts from my "disputed" article and sources which had informed their final decision. I do that with any author whose article has been rejected, without even being asked. That's being professional, respectful and polite. Can we afford to be less than professional and respectful in Wikipedia? The most impolite and disrespectful is to throw the proverbial book at them, quoting verses and chapters of policies, processes and rules. Again, I must reiterate that Wiki policies and processes are beautifully written and I do not have any issue with them. Your editorial transparency and accountability however leave a really sour aftertaste to this newbie to Wikipedia. Thanks for all your good intention and advice.
DrMikoWise (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear MjolnirPants et al, don't worry. I am very cool and calm. I am not the basic problem focus here. The primary editors who arbitrarily decided to edit off my voluntary Contribution is Wikipedia's main problem for refusing to explain their thinking driving the final decision to exclude. That's accountability and editorial transparency, which should be the key cornerstone of Wikipedia should you value integrity in your media. Why is it none of you fellow "editors" getting JFG (and others? involved) to just respond to my query? Their silence is deafening indeed. And your strange brotherly conspiracy of silence simply emboldens and encourages their irresponsible and intolerable editorial misbehavior. Trust me when I say that I have never encountered such a poor editorial standard, notwithstanding beautifully written Wiki policies and processes. Seriously, I am mulling giving up on Wikipedia as a serious and credible "encyclopedia" given my newbie experience with your "editors" who evidently lack a sense of professional accountability and the value of editorial transparency - both key ingredients of familiar highly professional editorial boards deserving to be taken seriously. Clearly, I am engaging with some of you more mature ones who are responding very positively, except those who first created the issues and seem to lack the personal credibility or professional locus standi to engage and rebut my allegations of their editorial incompetence. I am however prepared and willing to accept their remorse and regrets for admitting being wrong in this instance. Know that Silence is a self-defeating guilty option. DrMikoWise (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Okay, let's try to examine your argument. I'm going to quote your response here. I will highlight false statements in red, logically unsound arguments in green, unnecessarily emotive language in blue and spurious and irrelevant claims which are not verifiable in yellow.
Dear MjolnirPants et al, don't worry. I am very cool and calm. I am not the basic problem focus here. The primary editors who arbitrarily decided to edit off my voluntary Contribution is Wikipedia's main problem for refusing to explain their thinking driving the final decision to exclude. That's accountability and editorial transparency, which should be the key cornerstone of Wikipedia should you value integrity in your media. Why is it none of you fellow "editors" getting JFG (and others? involved) to just respond to my query? Their silence is deafening indeed. And your strange brotherly conspiracy of silence simply emboldens and encourages their irresponsible and intolerable editorial misbehavior. Trust me when I say that I have never encountered such a poor editorial standard, notwithstanding beautifully written Wiki policies and processes. Seriously, I am mulling giving up on Wikipedia as a serious and credible "encyclopedia" given my newbie experience with your "editors" who evidently lack a sense of professional accountability and the value of editorial transparency - both key ingredients of familiar highly professional editorial boards deserving to be taken seriously. Clearly, I am engaging with some of you more mature ones who are responding very positively, except those who first created the issues and seem to lack the personal credibility or professional locus standi to engage and rebut my allegations of their editorial incompetence. I am however prepared and willing to accept their remorse and regrets for admitting being wrong in this instance. Know that Silence is a self-defeating guilty option.
Once one eliminates all the fluff and -frankly- bullshit from your statement, what we arrive at is something like "I'm upset I got reverted."
Well, I explained why you were reverted at talk. JFG used the thank button to endorse that explanation.
If you come here preaching that WP lacks integrity and professionalism, all the while ignoring the people trying to help you, then I'm afraid it is you who lacks professionalism and integrity, and we will quickly stop trying to help you. So go read my response and talk and try to take my advice. If you can't or won't, then you will need to stop complaining about this before an admin decides you've caused enough disruption and blocks you. I hope this helps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear DrMikoWise, Wikipedia is a complex social construct that has remarkably managed to deliver a sensible presentation of over 5 million topics while relying only on the good will of volunteer editors like you and me. Our five pillars and our core policies were not imposed from high on by capricious dictators, but rather painstakingly refined by the same community of volunteer editors over many years and many disputes regarding content or behaviour. Those rules and guidelines are very, very far from arbitrary, and they are actually designed to welcome and embrace contributions from all good-faith editors, old or young, experienced or newbies, rich or poor, academics or amateurs. Your initial contributions did not by themselves cause trouble, but your attitude after your edits were rejected is the main reason why several people are going out of their way to explain how things work here, in an effort to help you come to terms with the Wikipedian ethos. In my own communications with you, the only sin I will confess to was perhaps coming through as biting the newbies due to my use of standard warning templates on your talk page, and for this I do apologise.
However, when several editors revert your content, point out in their own words how it was not appropriate, advise you on policy, try to engage with you in various forums, and still you remain perched on your high horse, accusing people of "gross editorial negligence" and pretending to teach us how to uphold "editorial transparency and accountability", you do come out as daft, and we have a humorous guideline that may help you come to your senses. Finally, while pondering your next reply here or elsewhere, you may wish to meditate on the First Law of Holes. Rest assured that there is no cabal against you.
Now, if you still would like to discuss the merits of inserting some content into a particular article, I and other interested editors will be happy to debate on the relevant talk pages of said articles. While such discussions are ongoing, the disputed content temporarily stays out, because the WP:ONUS is on the initial contributor to convince his/her fellow editors that said content should remain. Only this way can we ensure the best possible experience for our readers. — JFG talk 21:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Wow does DrMikoWise understand? A lot of effort was made. This question and answer should be saved and refer future editors to read. Opinion and point of view are hard subject for new editors. Eschoryii (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

translate an existing page into another existing page

Hi,

I would like to add more content to the French page about the Fribourgeois - the language. The Swiss-German version of that page is really rich of information, has many useful tables etc. I would like to use the translation tool to make it easy to see both pages at the same time and to add the same headings, tables, etc in a simple way. However, the information about translation tool suggest to translate one existing page into a language that does not yet have a page for it. This is not my case. So, when I try to create a new translation, it bugs because a French page already exists and it believes I want to create a new one. How can I simply edit an existing page using the translation tool to make it easier and faster?

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.37.78 (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there an easy place to locate stub articles or orphan articles which need work? Looking to help out when I have free time.

Pretty much what the subject says. Is there a special location I can find a list of stubs and orphans to expand upon and cite better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfire101 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Halfire101, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can find stubs here: Category:Stub categories. They are ordered by topic so that you can find the ones that interest you the most. Orphaned articles can be found here: Category:Orphaned articles, but they are ordered by how long they've been orphaned and not by topic. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey Halfire101. See also the Wikipedia:Community portal (a perma-link in the navigation panel to the left, under the Wikipedia puzzle globe icon), which contains a list of tasks to help out with. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Page going live

After I submit my draft when will the page go live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielwilliams651 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Arielwilliams651: Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm assuming you're talking about Draft:Dr. Dana Carson? If so, it will be checked by an articles for creation reviewer - if they believe it meets our criteria for inclusion, it will be "approved" (moved from the "draft space" to the "main space"). This could take a while. - TNT 💖 20:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Already declined. See what reviewer wrote. And resubmitted with minor changes. David notMD (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
And declined again. David notMD (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
And submitted again and declined again. Large sections of the content have no references. Much of the content is the opinion of the creator of the draft: "As his ministry continues to grow, we can only wait and see what more God has in store for him." All content not drawn from independent published citable references has to come out. David notMD (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_907&oldid=884045703"