Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 949

Archive 945

←

Archive 947

Archive 948

Archive 949

Archive 950

Archive 951

→

Archive 955

Discussions and consensus

I sometimes open up discussions that end up without a consensus to do the action. I try to abide by consensus even if I personally do not agree with it. I try to be bold and if someone reverts my changes, I discuss them on the appropriate talk page. I take these principles to heart when I edit Wikipedia. My question is if I open up too many discussions that result without a consensus to do the action, is this a form of disruptive editing? Should I be worried about my actions? Interstellarity (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Interstellarity You are doing great and other editors might be overzealous in reverting. If you wait a little (days) and then notice that no one opposes your edit, you should be bold and make the changes you want. This not disruptive editing. If you run into any other problems, feel free to leave a note on my talk page. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 22:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Based on what you've just said here, and the fact that you even care, means you are probably one of the more pleasant editors to work with.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Esprit15d: I agree. I probably wasn't one of the pleasant editors to work with back in 2013 because that was the year I got blocked. I was recently unblocked earlier this year and I try to work with other editors and understand their concerns. If I make a mistake, they point it out to me, and I don't do it again. When I see other editors making a mistake, I calmly point it out to them and they correct their mistakes. It is very rare for another editor to not be civil and kind to me. It only happened a few times. That is how I became the editor I am today. Interstellarity (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Interstellarity:I'm glad you're having such a great experience.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 22:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I momentarily disrupted Wikipedia

I was editing the sandbox to see what would happen if the sandbox page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox)’s header was commented out. When I published the edit, there was a site error (as in “Wikimedia Foundation logo screen with the “try again” text and the “if you report”), and the search feature became unavailable for a few seconds, until Lowercase sigmabot II executed its "Reinserting sandbox header) (bot" edit, by which point the site was functioning normally. I apologize if anything broke. JohnSmith13345 (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi JohnSmith13345. Don't worry, the site does not break that easily. We get more than 100,000 daily edits and you are allowed to experiment in the sandbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

How do I change the Title of a Subject page?

We would like to change the title of the page below https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/두루두루amc

It is actually the name of our company and we have changed the name to 두루두루 아티스트 컴퍼니 (DooRooDooRoo Artist Company), so the title of the page would have to be 두루두루 AC. Yet, we cannot seem to change the name.

We either want to change the name or delete the page because there is already a separate page made with the correct title. https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EB%91%90%EB%A3%A8%EB%91%90%EB%A3%A8_%EC%95%84%ED%8B%B0%EC%8A%A4%ED%8A%B8_%EC%BB%B4%ED%8D%BC%EB%8B%88

Please kindly advise. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gclefgal (talk • contribs) 02:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Gclefgal, we can't help you here at the English Wikipedia. You may want to ask your question at ko:위키백과:질문방, which I am fairly certain is the Korean Wikipedia's help desk. Eman235/talk 03:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

If the edit is about your group, then you’re at risk of a conflict of interest. JohnSmith13345 (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia language makes its own policies. I don't know what the Korean Wikipedia says about conflict of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!

Vintage police uniform Australia

I see you have a small write up on police helmets/ hats .. I have a photo to add to your history.. but am finding it extremely difficult to send you a picture Regards Wendie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:F4CC:1400:7DFA:AC8:1431:4F5C (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Wendie. If you wish to donate a photo to Wikipedia, there's a few things you'll want to know first. Most importantly, the photo has to be yours to donate. You cannot use a photo found on the internet or in your Grandmother's attic. You must have legal copyright to it, which in almost all cases means you must have taken it. An exception might be if the photo is very old. Copyright does expire, and after that the photo falls in a catagory called Public domain. How old it must be varies depending on what country it was taken in. Secondly, by donating a photo to Wikipedia, you are licensing away most of your rights to it. It can be reused or modified and reused by anyone anywhere for anything. If you still want to donate your photo, there is a tab in the left toolbar that says "Upload a file". Click that, choose the option that says "Upload to Commons" and follow the instructions there. If you have further problems, come back and ask about that specifically. The entire process is simpler if you have an account which is very simple to do and has many benefits, one of which is more anonymity. It's fairly easy to determine at minimum what town you are editing from by your IP address and sometimes even more specific information than that. A registered account does not have that problem. John from Idegon (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article for Aashish Kaushik

I want to create or write a Wikipedia Article for the Indian singer Aashish Kaushik. Help me to create — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhsankalp (talk • contribs) 05:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Subhsankalp: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears you have already started creating a draft; you may wish to review Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn about the process and what is needed. In the case of a singer, that singer must meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable singer, written at WP:BAND; the singer must meet at least one of the listed criteria. Having social media accounts and YouTube are not part of the listed criteria, as anyone can do those things. Once the singer meets the criteria, you must have independent reliable sources to support the content of the article; those sources must not be affiliated with this person in any way, and give them significant coverage. If you cannot do these things at this time, the singer would not merit an article yet. That's okay, as not every singer does. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Subhsankalp: If you would like help with adding to and revising your article, I would be happy to help you. Feel free to add the link from your draft onto my talk page. Happy editing! WIKIrestrict (talk)

I don't know what to do with this article

Please see here: Religion#Modern_Western

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, almost every culture throughout human history has had a religion. Greeks and Romans thousands of years ago understood the concept of religion and that others had different beliefs. Natives around the world had religion before Western influence. The idea that religion is a modern Western invention is nonsensical. How does someone address this? Do we just delete the section? Ikjbagl (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Ikjbagl, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to ask questions about the process of editing Wikipedia. It's not a place to debate specific content issues. That place for the article you are asking about is Talk:Religion. Note please that the section you are enquiring about is extremely well sourced. If you want to see changes to it, especially as drastic as removing it, you will also need extremely good sources. Article content is decided by consensus. Consensus is formed by arguing from reliable sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. John from Idegon (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ikjbagl No. We mustn't remove the section without adding reliable sources. Article's content is decided by well-sourced informations rather than personal opinion. Please read WP:NPOV. Also John is right. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 06:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ikjbagl, if you choose to argue your case on the article's talk page, as John from Idegon recommends, I suggest you point out that the Latin word "religio" was in use over 2000 years ago. I find that a compelling argument. Maproom (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I advise against making that argument; the Latin "religio" just meant "following obligations" (e.g. Julius Caesar Sic terror oblatus a ducibus, crudelitas in supplicio, nova religio iurisiurandi spem praesentis deditionis sustulit mentesque militum convertit et rem ad pristinam belli rationem redegit (Thus the terror raised by the generals, the cruelty of the punishments, the new obligation of an oath, removed all hopes of surrender for the present, changed the soldiers' minds, and reduced matters to the former state of war); "religion" ultimately came to mean "faith in a god" in English by virtue of the association of "religio" with monastic vows. As our article correctly states, the notion of religion as something distinct from the sciences as an explanation for how the world functions is indeed a relatively modern concept. ‑ Iridescent 08:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi all,

I'm wondering if it is worth requesting adminship. I have roughly 200 edits and a barnstar. I often edit on pages which belong to high protection catagories, i.e. YouTube, List of most-subscribed YouTube Channels and Google. I am not very confident in the community but would like to be able to edit freely. Should I wait to be extended-confirmed first or apply now?

Thanks in advance,

Muffington (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Muffington, becoming an administrator is far from easy. The community expects certain standards from adminship candidates. I would probably wait a few years before applying for adminship. Interstellarity (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to say the same thing. Three months of editing is probably not sufficient experience for an administrator. Most of us here edit freely without being administrators. Their job is often to clean up the mess made by others. You can read up on all the Wikipedia policies over the next few years if you are still keen on becoming an administrator. Dbfirs 10:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It takes years to become an admin. Admins or sysops are editors who are experienced enough to perform system and community related tasks. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 10:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Muffington Please keep in mind that you can probably do 95% of tasks here without being an administrator. Administrators have no special status other than having some extra buttons that would be irresponsible to allow everyone to have. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Muffington: You must note, that the point of becoming an Admin is to help make sure the Wikipedia community is clean and reliable, and not necessarily about editing. WIKIrestrict (talk)

Follow-up to I have edited a wiki page which said "this article is written like an advertisement". How do I remove this template?

I had edited this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjiv_Mehta_(Indian_businessman) couple of days back. Had provided correct sources. yet the template (Advert and COI) appears on this page. Whenever I remove it, editors keep reverting it. Plz help me remve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizanmqs (talk • contribs)

@Faizanmqs: Please do not remove maintenance tags unless the issue is resolved. Also (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.). Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 10:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100 How and when the issue will be resolved? How much time a community usually takes for a concensus? Faizanmqs (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Faizanmqs: Thanks for your email. I don't reply by email for privacy concerns as it reveals the sender's email address. Please post about it on the article's talk page. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 11:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article still has a promotional tone. Maybe remove all Board memberships and Awards? Either way, I recommend taking up your mission at the article's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

In the news nominations

Hi! Brief question: is it considered contrary to etiquette to nominate articles or stubs as In The News candidates that have maintenance tags? Many thanks beforehand! --Jamez42 (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jamez42 and welcome to the TeaHouse. The criteria for nominating an article for ITN are at Wikipedia:In the news#Criteria. If you scroll down to the sub-section on "Article quality" you will see a description of the minimum standards expected, which includes "...comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items. Stub articles are never appropriate for the main page... Generally, 'orange' and 'red' level clean-up tags are signs that article quality is not acceptable for the main page as well."--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Gronk Oz Hi! Thank you! I understand this, as I have nominated articles before. My question is if it is unadvisable to nominate these articles even with such tags, hoping that it could be improved. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: the problems should be remedied first. Don't rely on nominating an article to prompt somebody else to do the work.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! --Jamez42 (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

How do I properly cite a source on mobile?

I am on mobile and whenever I type in what the source is supposed to look like it stays in the main body of the article and doesn’t go under the references. The only way I can get it to go in the reference section is by leaving the link, which looks out of place — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generic.editor.2019 (talk • contribs)

@Generic.editor.2019: Just add the URL between ref tags just before the sentence and then run Refill. For example <ref>URL</ref> . I cite sources this way because it is very convenient for me as a smartphone user. I recommend new beta refill as it provides more features but the old refill works great too. Just enter the page name correctly and hit the Fix page button. Then after the page gets loaded click preview and save or save and return. You need to publish your changes if you choose the first option. P.S the second option isn't available in beta. Hope this helps. (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 15:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

merging accounts

I have over the years been active in contributing, creating, and editing. Unfortunately, during those down times, I lost usernames and passwords. I have figured out my previous usernames (vbofficialohio & vbofficial); however, is there a way to merge my previous work and contributions to my current username or even to one of my previous usernames?

It is not currently possible to merge user accounts on the English Wikipedia. The best thing to do is to choose an account to use and don't use the other accounts. Interstellarity (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

... but you can put a link to your previous user name and contributions on your talk page and user page. Dbfirs 16:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Help with drafts

How do you create a strong draft that is likely to be accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKIrestrict (talk • contribs) 22:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@WIKIrestrict: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may wish to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial, both of which will help you learn about the process. Successfully writing a new Wikipedia article is the hardest task to do on Wikipedia. I see that you have declared a conflict of interest; I would also note that if you are being paid or compensated to edit or are editing as part of a job, you must comply with the paid editing policy as well. That is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement if you are a paid editor. Since you have a conflict of interest, writing a new article is even harder for you. Essentially, you must forget everything you know about the subject and only write based on what independent reliable sources state; Primary sources do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2019

(UTC) 331dot (talk) I am very honored that I could be mistaken for a paid editor, but I assure you that I am not. I really love being a part of Wikipedia, and when I found out that Gies & Co. didn't have an article, I just had to create one. As it had a very big importance to the Frank family during the Halocaust. I would like to finish off, by again saying that I am just a volunteer editor, who is very familiar with Wikipedia, thankyou. WIKIrestrict (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2019

If you are familiar with Wikipedia, you will know that we prefer in-line references rather than a list of general sources. Each statement should have a reference to show from which reliable source you obtained the information. Paid editors tend not to be respected here because their purpose is often (but not always) to promote a subject rather than to improve the encyclopaedia. Once the refs are sorted, you can try submitting again. Dbfirs 16:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou Dbfirs for your input, I will certainly go and work on fixing those refs! Happy editing! WIKIresrict

Trying to edit a wiki page about my creative project.

Hello, Multiple edits I have made to a wikipage about my creative project have been deleted. I understand this is not a promotional tool, but I have added sources, and included info about certain songs I have written and accolades my projects have received. All of this info has been erased and certain information that is misleading is brought back. For example, my project is solely my work, but yet the editor will not accept the edit that the "band" is solely me. I understand now that I cannot add any writing that has been on another webpage, but why are certain small edits refused? It means alot to artists to be represented truthfully, for example why would the list of positive reviews or awards I received for a project be erased and yet minor performances I played that seem to have no significance be added?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Airheart13 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

They are supposed to give explanations when they do things like that. Didn't you get any? You could put all your concerns into the talk page of that article. Knowing which article you are talking about would have helped. And you probably shouldn't have mentioned you are editing a page you are a subject of yourself. A lot of prejudice comes with that revelation around here. I reckon someone experienced will help you with the technical stuff. As for the edit refusal, it may be that a different template altogether is needed, if it's an infobox you are talking about. If your problem doesn't get resolved, you can leave a message on my talk page, and I'll see if I can help. Good luck. P.S. if you don't get any other replies, you can delete this one. Maybe if it's empty, someone will answer. Usedtobecool (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, Usedtobecool - it's always best for editors to disclose any conflict of interest, and indeed in some circumstances it is compulsory to do so. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Airheart13, but no one person gets to decide what goes into an article - especially somebody who has a connection with the subject. Wikipedia is only interested in what reliable published sources say about subjects, and a consensus of editors decides what goes into an article if there is disagreement. If you look at the history of Hurray for the Riff Raff, you will see that Diannaa undid your changes, with the comment "restore sourced content, removed without explanation". For you to reapply the changes without discussion is edit warring, and is regarded as disruptive. I haven't looked at the changes in detail, but I see that the Monger biography (which you removed the citation to) did describe the band's work as "Americana". It is certainly open to you to argue that this is not an appropriate description but frankly, unless you can find another reliable published source which describes it in different terms, you are not likely to have much success. In any case, you should open a discussion on Talk:Hurray for the Riff Raff before making any further edits there; and if you are indeed part of the band, you should urgently read about conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Kalpana Mohan Page

Hi, I have been referred to you by Masumrezarock100

I need to Thank Oshwah & Masumrezarock100 for their help & support. Masumrezarock100 has provided me with the link, See WP: FILMCAST. It is really helpful & its further strength my case. The article explains film articles depending on three key elements: 1) the prominence of the cast in the film. The articles point out the relevance of the character to the plot. There is no specific time frame mention as such; the character can be small but significant.

In 1st movie Movie Picnic (1966) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3ZMFUrXgAU Her name appears on the screen at 0.23 sec, along with Shobha Khote & Azra. The name of all three ladies appears in the same frame. Kalpana, Shobha Khote & Azra. Kalpana was as popular as the other two leading ladies. It shows her relevant in the Film. She appeared in two songs of the movie

1st Song: He Nainva Na Pher Pher Ke Chalo Her character appears on screen at 7.15 sec

2nd Song: Baalamavaa Bolo Na Bolo Her character appears on screen at 1 hr 13 min

The film is still remembered for Kalpana dance no as well, she has done an excellent performance on the Kathak-based dance choreograph on her. For two songs in the movie, she shares about 10 minutes of screen space. You can call it as a special dance number or an Item Songs as it is referred in today’s time.

In 2nd Movie: Ek Bechara (1972) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3lgj99Z3UE Her name appeared on the screen at 3.37 sec, along with Vinod Khanna Her character appears on screen at 1.32.29 sec & it there till the end of the movie. Point to be noted her name appears in the cast with Vinod Khanna (The main negative character in the script i.e. "villain")

Brief summary: “A poor man marries a rich girl & lead a happy life. Women claim to be his 1st wife appear & trouble begin in his life. Kalpana plays a pivotal role as she claims to be his first wife. “ She played a significant & relevant character in the movie. She shares about 15 minutes of screen spaces in a 2 hour 11 minutes film.

My request is to add these two movies in her list where her character is relevant in the movie. I have excluded her few small scenes in different movies, For example, her character in Movie: Shaadi (1962) as it was not significant in the script.

My second question can her interview given to a magazine, be added in her Wikipedia page. I am excluding blog, IMDB, Wikipedia & BlogSpot reviews. I understand Wikipedia: Reliable sources/Perennial sources cannot cover all. We need to be a bit flexible with Wikipedia policies it needs to be relevant with changing times. Warm regards Yashkkaryan (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Yash Aryan

References

Yashkkaryan, as you've been told by multiple editors in multiple places, you cannot add anything to a Wikipedia article without having reliable published sources for it. The answer is the same here. I will expand on that somewhat. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is not to tell the story of a subject the way you want to tell it; instead, the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what others have written about the subject in reliable sources. End of story. If you want to weave your own narrative get a blog. This is not the place. John from Idegon (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Like I said before, you need to add reliable sources to support your edits. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 06:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi John, Thanks for your reply. You can check with Oshwah & Masumrezarock100. The addition so far is based on reliable sources, verifiability. information I had provided links to the articles. Masum Reza added after verifying them.

The point of conflict arises for adding two movie names in her list. The point I need to highlight the movies are 5 decades old, so it difficult to get Newspaper articles but we can check her name in Movie credit the prominence of the cast in the film list & in the movie itself. I followed WP:CITEWEB

Citations for World Wide Web pages include: 1st Movie: Picnic (1966) • URL of the specific web page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3ZMFUrXgAU • name of the author: Ultra Movie Parlour • title of the article: Old Hindi Movie: Picnic (1966) • title or domain name of the website: youtube.com • publisher, if known: Ultra Movie Parlour • date of publication: Oct 30, 2012 • page number(s) (if applicable) Her name appears on the screen: 0.23 sec, 1st Song: 7.15 sec, 2nd Song: 1 hr 13 min

In 2nd Movie: Ek Bechara (1972) • URL web page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3lgj99Z3UE • name of the author: SEPL Vintage • title of the article: Old Hindi Movie: Ek Bechara (1972) • title or domain name of the website: youtube.com • publisher, if known: SEPL Vintage • date of publication: Dec 1, 2015 • page number(s) (if applicable) Her name appears on the screen: 3.37 sec, Her character appears on screen at 1.32.29 sec & it there till the end of the movie.

My question is the production house mentioning her name in their cast & her visibility is not a reliable source. Even the celebrity interview with a tabloid is not a reliable source a bit strange. I seek clarification on Wikipedia policies. Thank you for your help in advance. Yashkkaryan (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Yash Aryan

Great Horned owl - contacting author/s

I am very impressed with the Great Horned Owl entry and would like to contact the author. I am writing a book on the Great Horned Owl in Falconry. Mark Borden <phone no redacted>— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.34.187.180 (talk • contribs) 2019-05-05T16:11:33 (UTC).

Hello, Mark, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have removed your phone number, as nobody here will contact you that way, but it is a very public place to post it. If you look at the History of the article Great Horned Owl, you can see that dozens of editors have worked on it, starting with Big iron in 2003, and most recently Malcolmlucascollins. All of them are "the author". If there's a particular one you want to contact, you can post something on that user's User talk page - though there's no guarantee that a particular editor is still active in Wikipedia. If you want to get in contact with them more generally, you could post something on the article's talk page Talk:Great horned owl: it's likely that many of them have that page on their watch list. If all you want to do is to get permission to use material from the article, then you don't need to: almost all material in Wikipedia is freely reusable, requiring only attribution, not permission: see reusing Wikipedia content. If there's something else, please come back here and ask further. --ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Small amendment to the above: the license Wikipedia is under does require that you release any derivatives under the same license (the "share-alike" clause). Eman235/talk 20:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Page photo edit

I try to put a photo of an artist who already has a page and I just Can't figure it out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimi fantox (talk • contribs)

@Kimi fantox: Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. You can add a picture using this code [[File:example.ext|thumb|caption]] where example.ext is the filename with extension. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 02:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

That's assuming that the photo already exists in WP:Commons. If it's a photo that you took yourself and it hasn't been uploaded yet, see Wikipedia:Uploading images. If it's a photo that you got from the internet then it is probably copyright and you can't use it here. Dbfirs 20:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I need an admin to semi-protect a page

This is a q&a forum for new users to ask questions on how to edit Wikipedia, making this off-topic. John from Idegon (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I need an admin to semi-protect a page. The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Brooks has been subject to persistent vandalism for many years by college professors and students attempting to prove that Wikipedia is unreliable. See:https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Wikipedia-dismissed-as-an-unreliable-source/answer/Cai-Esson?ch=10&share=161cecfd&srid=n1aP3 GalantFan (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC) @GalantFan: These requests can be made here. I had a look at the page, and the disruption is just not big enough for any protection. Please read our protection policy. Lectonar (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC) @Lectonar: It has been discovered that the multiple anonymous IP edits are part of a concentrated attack on the very soul of Wikipedia itself, to cause disrepute to Wikipedia, which have been organized and encouraged by a tutor at Robert Gordon University in the UK, who has been telling his students for several years that Wiki is an unreliable source and encouraging them to vandalize Wiki to prove it. Please don’t abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! There are other wikis out there – Wikipedia is just one of them. JohnSmith13345 (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC) If you will follow the "contribs" links of these anonymous IPs and their WhoIs info, you will see that they all come from the same little area of the UK, and none of them have ever contributed anything but to vandalize this article by reposting the exact same fake information, over and over again for since 2012. This Hannibal_Brooks page needs to be semi-protected against anonymous IP edits PERMANENTLY because this has been going on since 2012. GalantFan (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)  Comment: This user has opened up a OTRS ticket regarding this topic, in which the user was advised about editing policies and encouraged to illicit discussion on the talk page. It seems like the user cannot drop the stick and cannot hear us. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC) @Dusti: WHAT?!?! It seems like you just ignored everything I just wrote that THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE discussion to be had regarding the fictional information, and that the VANDALISM is a coordinated attack on wiki by a UK university instructor and his students, with the deliberate aim to discredit Wiki. Quora contributor admits that Olga the Elephant is a hoax to troll Wikipedia "Just to be clear the story of Olga the Elephant is fictional, the Tutor has this story in his opening lecture every year when going over how to reference research papers, with glee. Needless to say none of his students reference Wikipedia anymore, and everytime we see someone do so, we start giggling." GalantFan (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC) References

Help with sources

Do you, the Wikipedia Admins, have any good sources that I could use as strong references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKIrestrict (talk • contribs) 20:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Good sources for what? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Presume Draft:Gies & Co.. You should not ask here and at the AfC Help desk. David notMD (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh okay, thankyou David notMD, I shall try at the AFC help desk, can you please provide a link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKIrestrict (talk • contribs) 21:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

According to AfC Help, you have already asked for help there. David notMD (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, the Opekta article is clear that it was renamed Gies & Co. I do not see a need for a separate article "Gies & Co." Instead, there should be a re-direct, so if someone searches for that name, they will be forwarded to the Opekta article. David notMD (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: Okay, I thought that there should be a need for a Gies & Co. article, as it was the original company, well thank you for your time anyways. Happy editing! WIKIrestrict (talk)

According to the Opekta article, that was the original company, renamed Gies & Co. David notMD (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Edits deleted because of "POV tone and large amounts of irrelevant and unsourced material" I disagree

This is for the article the history of medical marijuana

However, I sourced every sentence I wrote, mostly from an academic article, a newspaper article or from a history book written by a professor. I also explained a little more about the history of the federal medical marijuana program (which I think is very important to this article). This article only has one sentence about a study conducted on 4 of the surviving patients. Furthermore, this article is poorly written. Paragraphs are made up of sentences which have nothing to do with each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Publicspeakerzohreh (talk • contribs) 00:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Also what does POV tone meean? how did I use POV tone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Publicspeakerzohreh (talk • contribs) 00:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Publicspeakerzohreh: POV stands for point of view, so maybe your edits on these articles are more opinionated than factual, or you used phrases like "I think" or "I believe". WIKIrestrict (talk)

Publicspeakerzohreh, you wrote "Fortunately, the use and acceptance of medical cannabis continues to evolve in the United States and around the world and marijuana is finally being recognized for its potential medical benefits." The words "fortunately" and "finally" are advocacy language in this context, and that violates the neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. The proper place to discuss improvements to the article is Talk:History of medical cannabis. You can also discuss the matter with the editor who reverted you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Create a new page and adding images

How can I create a new page on wikipaedia? and how can I insert an image to a page when the image is downloaded from imdb.com? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Vinuka Walawage (talk • contribs) 2019-05-06T11:04:40 (UTC)

Hello, Vinuka Walawage, and welcome to the Teahouse. Writing a new Wikipedia article is one of the hardest tasks for Wikipedia editors, but you can find a guide to how to do it at Your first article.

The answer to your second question is that you probably can't. Most images you find on iMDB or anywhere else on the Internet are not licensed in a way that allows them to be freely reused. One of the aims of Wikipedia is to provide content that anybody may reuse for any purpose, so usually unless you can get the copyright holder to explicitly release the image in a compatible way (see Donating copyright material) it can't be used on Wikipedia. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Dead link fix?

She's Like a Comet

So I came across an article and found that two of the links had no information (not found error) but I found a web archive version of this which I edited recently. I'm pretty new to editing referencing and I was wondering if I correctly referenced it properly? --Calvinharris fan (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes,Calvinharris fan, that's perfect. |deadurl=yes is optional and does nothing. It's used to prematurely archive links that are not dead yet by setting it no. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Uploading logo

Hello

Could you please assist me in the process of uploading a logo? I don't mean the basics of uploading, but the particular licensing etc when it comes to logo? I created page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Rowing_Society_International Now I would like to upload logo. I looked at other logos and it looks like there is some non standard solution applied. I would appreciate advice. Thanks Intoextreme (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I actually just posted this question on commons, I guess they are the right place to ask, Intoextreme (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Intoextreme: the logo on the website looks like a copyrighted one, which means you can't upload it to Commons. Upload it here: Wikipedia:Files for upload. It will guide you through the process, including licensing (it asks you if it's a logo and that will append it with the standard licensing in this case). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse?

Just got invited, what is this— Preceding unsigned comment added by XTMontana (talk • contribs)

@XTMontana: Hello and welcome. This is a place for new or inexperienced users to ask questions about using Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to come here with them. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

oh okay, thanks

Biography

Hello,

I was wondering how I submit a biography for consideration? I am a published author, one who apparently isn't very tech savvy, and am trying create a Biography for the site.

I appreciate any help or guidance you can offer!

Thank you, Allison Chawla — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllisonChawla (talk • contribs) 2019-05-06T18:53:38 (UTC)

Hello, AllisonChawla, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the answer is that you probably don't. I suspect that, like many people, you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia, and suppose that it has anything at all to do with your online presence. I'm afraid that promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia. If at some point somebody writes an article about you, it will not be your article, it should contain little material that derives from you, and it will contain what a consensus of editors decides on, not what you want. Please read autobiography to understand why we strongly discourage you from writing such an article. --ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't know how else to get this approved!

I have created this page for a very successful finance company. I wrote all the history of the company, the successes, the failures, the buyout. I understand there are a lot of numbers in there, but its a financial company, so the numbers are important, especially to explain why it went defunct. Taking out the financial information or the different sub companies takes a significant chunk of information away from the history of the company. The reviewer Hell in a Bucket keeps rejecting it, but not giving me anything specific about what is upsetting him. Please help, this article has been sitting dormant since August.

American Capital

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksaraf (talk • contribs)

@Ksaraf: Hell in a Bucket gave you their reasons at the top of the draft. If you don't understand them, you should ask them directly on their talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: I have tried to follow what he said at the top of the draft. I have shown it to several people who agree that its written in a neutral point of view and I took out what could possibly be considered peacock terms. He also said it sounds like an advertisement, but why would you write about a company going nearly bankrupt in an advertisement? This is why I would ask someone else to take a look and give feedback please. Ksaraf (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Ksaraf, you admit that the company nearly went bankrupt, yet you describe it above as "very successful". This suggests that you have difficulty maintaining a neutral point of view.   Also, you have no reason to suppose that Hell in a Bucket is upset. He is merely applying Wikipedia's policies. Maproom (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ksaraf: I'm reading over the article and, while I agree with you that most of the ad-sounding language has been removed, the article is still not encyclopedic. Go through every single single sentence and ask yourself (1) is this a fact? (2) Is this an opinion? (3) Is this original research/analysis? If it's a fact, include a reference. If it is an opinion, attribute that opinion to someone who is famous for giving opinions. Don't say "the stock was risky" (an opinion). Say "Forbes magazine said in a 2015 article that the stock was "risky.". If it's original research, it has to go. An example would be, "the company failed because the CEO resigned." The CEO may have resigned, and the company may have failed after that, but as editors, we cannot connect those two dots. Ideally, we just relate what happened and let the reader make whatever conclusion they want to or, again, quote reputable sources about their opinions.

Language that I saw that was problematic were the following: "striking a blow" (that sounds like the company was attacked. Wikipedia just reports occurrences without commentary); "was not immune" (again, gives a shade of feeling to a neutral occurrence); "had to dramatically depreciate its assets" (this is opinion. Some would say it was the adequate amount. A percentage would be better); "Performance declined, in many cases materially, at some of its portfolio companies and investments." (WE NEEDS STATS! These figures are subjective; You would actually do better by just removing those words); "With the market failing to reflect support for its Spin Off plan, including lack of support from its major shareholders, and a new activist shareholder that had become the Company’s largest shareholder," this is 1000% an opinion (because it is an analysis).

I can't comb through the whole article, but I think this is what is keeping it from going live. That said, don't give up, and more importantly don't get attached to this draft. You might have to cut a lot of it, but the article will be better for it, and you will learn to write in a neutral style.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Ksaraf: For an example of POV wording: the whole paragraph The Great Recession began at the turn of 2007 ... Performance declined, in many cases materially, at some of its portfolio companies and investments. could be replaced by American Capital's <X> decreased by <Y%> during the Great Recession, with X being asset values or share price or whatever else is relevant and Y being cited to a reliable source. It all sounds like you are making up excuses for the company performance ("it's the recession's fault"). I would gladly have filled in X and Y myself, but cannot just from reading the text, which is part of the problem. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, Ksaraf. As well as addressing the comments above, you also need to fully attend to the reason why the draft was declined back on 18 December 2018. There are still whole paragraphs in the draft that lack citations to reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, the only thing I was irritated (minorly) about what was said about me by the author prior to the second review [[1]]. I am quite content to let a other reviewer look at the article, in no way am I the final arbiter but the promotional tone and sourcing needs to be beefed up. I am curious do you have a connection to this company Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

How to upload low resolution Fair Use art with copyright?

RE: Upload art history images under copyright.

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Empire_of_Light .

Using: Visual Editor.

There is a Wikipedia article on a series of around a dozen artworks by an artist who died less than seventy years ago. The article already has low resolution images of three paintings in the series (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Empire_of_Light_Guggenheim.jpg ). I have low resolution images for the rest of the paintings to upload.

I have tried to “Locally Upload” reduced size, low resolution images. I am using the plain form for local uploads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload . Whatever I do it says its -- open to Speedy Deletion.

Info to include with images: "Fair use image of art: Image unsuitable for commercial purposes. Reduced size image for educational and informational purposes to enable visual identification of the object of the article."

Example of Picasso copyright painting on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Les_Demoiselles_d%27Avignon.jpg (Also, where is the form for “artist” rather than “author” ? )

It would be wonderful if someone would walk me through this step-step!

Thanks,

Beth Timken (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Southern Decadence entry - two websites should be noted on the page

Hello:

There are two competing websites for the New Orleans celebration known as Southern Decadence:

southerndecadence.net and southerndecadence.com

Both espouse to be the "official" website for the celebration. I am not affiliated with either of these entities.

I have added southerndecadence.com several times to the entry, but each time it is deleted.

I feel at the very least that both websites should be included for the public.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilbogg (talk • contribs) 22:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nilbogg: I think you have a point. It appears that southerndecadence.com is the official site, not the .net one showing now. It is produced by the publication that owns the trademark. But you should discuss on the Southern Decadence talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding a [+] to pages whose version(s) need to be updated.

How do I add a [+] to pages whose version(s) are in need of updates (e.g. Evernote)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dozed Off (talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wantint to make it better. I'm not sure what you are trying to do, can you explain more? If there is an article that needs improvements, the best action is often to "be bold" (WP:BOLD) and fix it yourself. Otherwise, you can start a discussion on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

How to come across vandalism? (among other topics)

Hello. I am Drew, and I've been an established editor here for 5 years on this account. Awhile back, I confessed to long-term block evasion that I wasn't proud of at all on here, and was blocked. I earned near-unanimous support for an unblock, and have since been editing far more frequently and have become a pending changes reviewer recently. However, I feel like I need some assistance before I can consider myself a true experienced Wikipedian. Like, for instance, I'd want to become more familiar with policies more so I can contribute more efficiently and articulately and actually have a better idea than I currently do about what's happening in discussions, but don't know the most efficient way to memorize and express it. I have completed the Wikipedia Adventure game. I feel I might eventually seek adoption in order to refine my skills and master my Wikipedia experience, but first I'll see what I can do with advice given here. That's why I consider myself an intermediate editor: because I know some things and not so much about others. I'm not so much of a page creator, but to a certain extent I'm willing to expand articles and fix them up a bit, particularly pro wrestling articles but maybe even some on other subjects as well. I feel the editor type that describes me best is WikiElf: I do some things I like on mainspace, particularly Pending Changes Review, pro wrestling, and other subjects I'm interested in, but feel by far the most passionate for behind the scenes work, alongside the PCR and pro wrestling. Hell, I've even subscribed to the Admin newsletter, owing to my interest in such matters, to see what ways I could help with such matters. I've already described my desire to find the most efficient way at understanding policies and guidelines, along with info and so forth, and am requesting help with that here. Adoption, I'll seek that when I feel it's time to do so. But, I would like some help with finding vandalism. I don't feel that I need to take the CVU course, because I already know what vandalism is and how to deal with it. My problem is that I'm struggling to actually come across and encounter vandalism, and as a result my ability to fight it is limited owing to my low amount of encounters with it. What's the best way to actually come across vandalism in order to take it down? Thanks so much. DrewieStewie (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@DrewieStewie: The CVUA course not only teaches you how to deal with vandalism but also good faith edits. It also teaches you how to use powerful anti-vandalism tools like STiki and Huggle. Other stuffs like username violations, speedy deletion, dealing with problematic users etc are also taught during the course. I certainly found it beneficial. I highly recommend you to take the course. This course is so short that you can complete it within a week (I have completed it within a week).Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 03:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Why not, I'll see when I have free time for it. I'm mostly concerned about actually coming across and finding it though. Will the course teach that too? DrewieStewie (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes the course will teach you that too. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 04:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources doubled

On Gimme (Banks song) I have two things with the same source but they show up as different citations. Help please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricwater (talk • contribs)

@Electricwater: Fixed it for you. When you're working with refs in infoboxes, it's easier to work with source code to name the references with the name="" parameter so you can use it later. Check the [2](diffs) to see what I mean. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 04:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

New editor trying to expand an article

I've been working for a month trying to expand a stub article on John Morris and work within the structure and processes. While I've received some feedback from editors, and have tried to address their concerns, I don't seem to be making much headway. I see a ton of other articles that are continually being updated, yet I seem to keep hitting roadblocks. Can anyone provide me guidance on how to make this a smooth and efficient process? I have been clear in as many places as I can that this is a paid edit, although maybe that is being used against me, but I have NO desire to make this a promotional piece, just a more complete article. I've scaled this back, re-reviewed all references and tried to use more of what was already there, just to try to make progress. I've created a user page to test with and to use as my guide to request smaller incremental changes, but neither seem to be getting me much progress. Again, I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to better understand the process so I can continue to try to make positive contributions to the Wikipedia community. Thank you for the feedback and assistance. BLong2438 (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Blong2438 I don't quite understand what you're asking. You article seems to be doing fine! Keep going! If you need more help, directly contact me or any other Wikipedian or wait for the Teahouse contributors to write back to you. Best Muffington (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Blong2438 Check out WP:PEACOCK, MOS:BLP, and biographies rated GA, A, or FA by Wikipedia:WikiProject Business. For a few that seem appropriate/similar in scope: Eli Lilly, Paul S. Walsh, Peter Bynoe. Note the choices of words used in the article. As for why things aren't getting placed in the first section, that's the lead and should summarize the later sections. See MOS:LEAD for more. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 04:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Timed and Transient Text/Code

Is it possible to add text/code to an article that will automatically delete/hide itself at a set time? Also, is is possible to add text/code to an article that won’t appear until a set time (the opposite of the previous sentence)?  ⠀—‌‌  Glosome‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌  💬 04:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Glosome, you can use {{Show by date}}. Eman235/talk 05:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Mechanics of proper referencing of Wikipedia articles

Dear Teahouse Volunteers - I am attempting to get an article posted to Wikipedia, on my ancestor Nathaniel Bartlett, A Revolutionary War era clergyman. It is presently in the draft stage, and can be accessed at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nathaniel_Bartlett. Stephen Philbrick of the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team has informed me that my end noted references are not properly formatted.I am 71 years old and not an academic, nor am I a computer technician. I also have no previous experience in submitting an article to Wikipedia. Frankly, I'm not sure I am even capable of understanding what is required of me, let alone mechanically implementing the necessary formatting changes. Stephen suggested I review 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners', which I did, but it is lengthy, complicated, and confusing. Moreover, I doubt that most of it is even pertinent to whatever problems my references might have.

My reference citations which follow below my article, have been executed in the traditional manner that I was taught in school - e.g. "The History of Redding, Connecticut, by Charles B. Todd, Newburgh Journal Co., Newburgh, NY, 1906, p. 89" - i.e. book name, author, publisher, publishing date, and page number. Apparently this is not acceptable for Wikipedia, however, though I am not sure why.

Stephen suggested I post this SOS request to the Teahouse, and ideally my hope would be that someone would convert one of my references into the appropriate format as an example - then walk me through the mechanics of how to accomplish it, so that I might revise the other references accordingly.

I believe my article to be informative, clearly written, and well supported by reference citations sourced primarily from well recognized published books on local history. It would be a shame if it were to be rejected by the Wikipedia reviewer solely due to formatting issues.

Could someone please assist me with this concern? The link to the draft of my article will enable you to review my 32 reference citations.

Any assistance you could offer me in this respect would be sincerely appreciated. Please bear in mind that my technical expertise with computers is somewhat limited. Awaiting any response, I close with my,

Best regards - Gary Bartlett — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connecticut Puritan (talk • contribs) 19:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The way you were taught is entirely correct and appropriate for paper publications. In Wiki we use templates that cause links between the reference and citation, so that just clicking on the number takes you down to the citation. I'm a little busy for the next couple of hours, but if no one else has jumped in by then I'll run through setting things up for you. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Martin of Sheffield (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)