Wikipedia:Teahouse

Marchjuly, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

Help me: status

I can't change my status. The pages that are related are User:Bank Robbery/skin.js, User:Bank Robbery/Status, and User:Bank Robbery/sandbox (go to testcase 2). It always displays somewhere. How? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 09:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

​Try renaming skin.js to common.js. It should then automatically update to the correct value when you click on the buttons (you previously wrote "on" when the template only regognizes "online", the available values can be seen here) – Thjarkur (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Right (I think). Somehow, the user was able to create an actual User:Bank Robbery/skin.js. If you try to go to your own Special:MyPage/skin.js, it's supposed to take you to the correct page for your skin. I.e., because I am using the Vector skin, when I click on User:AlanM1/skin.js, it takes me to User:AlanM1/vector.js (which, in my case, doesn't exist because I put everything in common.js instead). So, moving that skin.js to common.js (or, e.g., vector.js if you use the Vector skin), without leaving a redirect, should work. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

​ ​ So how can I move the page without making a redirect? or is there another way to do that? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 06:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Ordinary users (as distinct from admins) can't prevent a redirect from being generated by the move process, but you can tag it as U1 to get an admin to delete it. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

​ I found the thread. It works now. Once I update it, {{StatusTemplate}} works. -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 13:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

TRADEMARK

Greetings,

I own a Trademarked name of a Wikipedia page and I would like to know my options for protecting the page? I have just joined the Wikipedia family and therefore I am not an administrator. The page that I am inquiring about was not created by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlborgert (talk • contribs) 14:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It would help if we knew which article you are referring to. - X201 (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Earlborgert: just so I'm clear, you are the owner of a Trademark - presumably a company or organisation of some kind? - about which there is a Wikipedia article? And what do you mean exactly by 'protecting' the page?

I can tell you that as the owner of the company, you should avoid editing the page directly, but if you wish to make changes you can request them on the talk page of the article. You cannot, however, prevent other editors from editing the article - this is an encyclopedia and if your organisation is notable, Wikipedia can have an article about it, your Trademark does not give you any rights over the content on Wikipedia. If the article is being vandalised or otherwise damaged, don't worry as other editors will be very happy to prevent this. Hug^syrup 14:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Ivan the Gorilla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_(gorilla) is a trademarked name & some of the information contained in the page is inaccurate.

Earl

@Earlborgert: Alright. Please suggest changes on the talk page, not all of us have the time to go through the page in its entirety hunting issues. The trademark does not affect wikipedia in any way, and while you are here, you should simply forget about it. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know it was possible to trademark the name of a deceased gorilla. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

331dot, Me neither, I'm just going with it, because they clearly think they can. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess it could be done in order to sell things with the gorilla's image or name on it. Maybe. In any event, it's immaterial to protecting the article, which won't be done for this reason. 331dot (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

331dot, And that indeed appears to be the case. See trademark 86913298, which happens to be owned by this guy. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback & the inaccurate content is not harmful, I just wanted to inquire about my rights in general since Ivan was my family member. Earl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlborgert (talk • contribs)

EarlborgertWhat info about Ivan is inaccurate?, please discuss on the talk page. I remember Ivan well, saw him each time I visited your family's World Famous B&I Circus Store.Three painted concrete walls and a large plate glass window for customers to view him.Always felt pity for him.Oldperson (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Earlborgert: You have the right to request changes to the page at any time if you find any issues. You can also edit it directly like any other editor, but it may be reverted for Conflict Of Interest related reasons. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again for the advice but one last question. Why would the truth be reverted for a Conflict of Interest reason? Earl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlborgert (talk • contribs)

@Earlborgert: Generally, if you abide by wikipedia policy, it won't happen. The problem is people with a COI have trouble adhering to policy like Neutral point of view. I recommend you read one of our essays on these policies, Verifiability, not truth. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Understood and thank you for the clarification. I will review the article. Earl

@Earlborgert: It might also be reverted if your source is merely your own personal knowledge. For example, you might know that Ivan's favorite fruit was mangoes, but unless that is mentioned in some sort of publication we can't say it. In most cases the source should also be independent of the subject. --Khajidha (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

For transparency, you should post on your User page the nature of your connection to Ivan. And as Khajidha stated, Wikipedia requires verification. Truth without verification is not sufficient. David notMD (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Since you clearly consider your trademark a valuable asset, the you certainly stand to derive financial benefits by having your say on the content of the article. Earlborgert, because of that you are considered a WP:PAID editor. There are numerous restrictions placed on PAID editors, and you are expected to learn about these and follow them. One of those restrictions requires you to post a disclosure on your user page. It is in no way optional. You also need to add a notice to the article's talk page, and except for indisputable vandalism reverts, are forbidden from directly editing the article. We are not here to tell your version of this story. We derive content from what reliable sources say. (WP:RS is our definition of reliable.) John from Idegon (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and you trademarked the name Ivan the Gorilla for use in marketing certain items. That doesn't give you any say whatsoever about what anyone says about said gorilla. All it means is no one else can use use the name in conjunction with marketing kids toys. That's all. So, by all means, read PAID, comply with its requirements and make edit requests on the article talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

upload to the commons

So Ive found an image I want to upload to the commons of a US Army tank from 1937, since its do so old do I need the permission from the uploader??(http://ftr-wot.blogspot.com/2013/04/revised-american-tank-destroyer-branch.html First image on article). Id imagine its public domain by now right?--Texas-Dude1914 (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The question is one for Commons, rather than for us here at enwiki, but you may find the table in WP:Public domain useful. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the copyright law definition of "old" is "before 1924". If the picture was taken in 1937, you'll need to find the date of death of the photographer. Maproom (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Texas-Dude1914: as Maproom said, the magic date is (this year - 95 years) = 1924. However, If the picture was taken by an Army photographer it is in the public domain anyway, since "publications" (including photograph) by US government personnel are in the public domain. -Arch dude (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Arch dude: So I'd need to figure out that it was taken by an Army photographer or do you belive it would be safe to upload now? Because when reverse image searching I cant find anyone claiming responsibility for the photo.--Texas-Dude1914 (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Texas-Dude1914: Sorry, but you cannot upload it to commons. We are obliged to follow the law, even in a case like this were the law leads to a ridiculous result. I personally think copyright law is in such a mess that it should be repealed and replaced, but I'm not in congress. -Arch dude (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Unable to access Wikipedia on Google Chrome

I wrote about this before at the Help Desk and at the Village Pump, but got no response.

As of 13 November, I can not access Wikipedia from Google Chrome. I get an error message that reads

www.wikipedia.org normally uses encryption to protect your information. When Google Chrome tried to connect to www.wikipedia.org this time, the website sent back unusual and incorrect credentials. This may happen when an attacker is trying to pretend to be www.wikipedia.org, or a Wi-Fi sign-in screen has interrupted the connection. Your information is still secure because Google Chrome stopped the connection before any data was exchanged. You cannot visit www.wikipedia.org right now because the website uses HSTS. Network errors and attacks are usually temporary, so this page will probably work later.

If there is anything I can do on my side that will address this issue, please let me know. I am using Microsoft Edge right now, but I really would prefer to use Chrome. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I am using Chrome now and I am having no problems. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Puzzledvegetable, Hi. Have you tried en.wikipedia.org instead? Basic things to try when browsing error occurs that doesn't make sense (which in this case would be because you're already signed in to the router and your ISP, and you are trying the actual address of the website and haven't made a typo in there), would be to check that the computer's calendar is up to date (both date and time, may be even the timezone), update the browser, turn off VPN, clear browser cache, restart the computer, etc. Which of these have you tried and hasn't worked? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It's obviously not a Wikipedia problem, but a problem with your Chrome settings. You could ask at WP:RD/C, or there are plenty of results if you do a Google search. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Puzzledvegetable IOW, does it work when you use this link: en.wikipedia.org? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Puzzledvegetable: HSTS remembers the "correct" certificate and prevents connection when somebody substitutes a different one. Are you on a corporate network or somehere like that, where they may have valid reason to decrypt and inspect your web traffic (TLS inspection)? If they have changed something in your environment then you should also be seeing problems with sites like Google Search, if you had used them before Nov 13. Could you view the certificate and report back whom it's issued by? (Include the root CA and all intermediate CAs, please.) Please ping me in replies. –Pelagic (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Deleted and shut down by Itti

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I made a rather good contribution to "Psychiatrische Klinik"/Diskussion but was mobbed away and disabled by Itti (German wikipedia) who accused me of vandalism which is what Itti does IMHO

Lutz Fehling

@89.15.238.133: Please sign your posts. Also, since this is the English Wikipedia, the editors here have no control of what happens in the German Wikipedia. If you want, address your concerns there, not here. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 20:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

See section #Terrible mobbing in German wikipedia above. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This one had ended with me being enabled again

Lutz Fehling

Do you have a question? UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 21:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• If you have anything actionable against the German Wikipedia and you feel that it's too moblike to tell them directly, you are free to take it to the Meta-Wiki. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The cutting away from text is even here in the Teahouse

Lutz Fehling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.237.102 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Lutz - I'm sorry that you feel aggrieved, but you are starting to become disruptive by continuing to create new sections, with non-specific statements about a topic that appears to relate to an entirely different Wikipedia. If you have a question, and if that question relates to the English Wikipedia, then please do ask it, and we will genuinely be very happy to help. If not then, as several users have already told you, there is simply nothing we can do to assist you here. Hug^syrup 15:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Please don't call me "disruptive" (you're arrogant); 2nd: What "new sections" are you talking about ?

Lutz Fehling 89.15.237.102 (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

But the Teahouse is Wikipedia, isn't it ? The German wikipedia is, too ?!

However, if you say English wikipedia can't help with the German, OK, I'm alright with this.

Lutz Fehling 89.15.237.102 (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

You're speaking of more then yourself: "we" ?

Lutz Fehling 89.15.237.102 (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Lutz. Please do not reformat my text and insert your responses within it. This makes the conversation impossible to read, as well as coming across as rather rude. In answer to your points:

• The 'new sections' I am talking about are the bold text above. When you first created those, each of them was a brand new section. Myself and another editor reduced them to just be regular bold text to prevent this.
• The Teahouse is English Wikipedia. The German Wikipedia is a different Wikipedia. Both come under the umbrella of the Wikimedia foundation but are otherwise entirely separate.
• When I say 'we' I am referring to myself and other editors who regularly reply at the Teahouse, all of whom I assume would be happy to answer specific questions.

I hope this helps. Hug^syrup 15:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Inserting text wasn't meant to be rude at all and was or is common when answering emails.

Lutz Fehling89.15.237.102 (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche - Changed references

Hi, I found some new links pertaining to this topic, which came across as being more reliable than the previous ones that were mostly interviews. So, I removed all the old references, barring the University degree, and added these new links - there are about 4 and one picture gallery of the event. Before I re-submit, I would like an opinion on whether these new references are valid and if they would count. Thanks in advance, Tycheana (talk) 05:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tycheana: if you think you have sufficient reliable sources, you should submit the article for review. It's not really the role of editors at the Teahouse to provide a 'pre-review review' of your article. What I will tell you is that (based on the source numbering as the draft stands at this time) source 2 is not independent as the article subject is one of the authors, and source 4 is in no way a reliable source and should be removed. The assessment otherwise hinges on whether we consider 'glamafrica', 'glitzafrica', 'tmghlive' and 'gistreel' to be reliable sources. I personally am very skeptical that they have adequate editorial standards and are not simply regurgitating press releases, but I am also not an expert on either African journalism or fashion journalism so I would probably choose not to review this article and to leave it to someone who might be more familiar with the sources. Hug^syrup 10:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Hugsyrup:, thanks for reviewing. The 2nd source is a University degree, and yes, he is the co-author who wrote on the topic related to pharmacology. This reference has been used to prove that the subject attended the University and did a course on pharmacy to become a qualified pharmacist. 4th source is a collection of pics related to the event published by an unrelated source, so it is independent. These sources mostly pertain to Africa, but then the person in question is a Nigerian, so might be that he has received coverage in his own country, something that I have realized about other Nigerians too. I hope my clarifications are satisfactory, thanks once again, regards, Tycheana (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC).

How to make more accessible a list of translation resources

I stumbled on the following:

Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week#Translation machines and dictionaries

I tried unsuccessfully to find a similar list that was not language-specific. Does one exist?

If not, what can I do to make this more accessible to people not interested just in Spanish translations? deisenbe (talk) 10:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Deisenbe, and welcome to the Teahouse. I wasn't aware of that page, which is the work of a particular collaborative project. If you look at the categories at the bottom, you will see Category:Wikipedia translation by language, which has some similar projects. (It's a redlink because nobody has written any descriptive text for the category; but it still contains several pages). But each of these was created and maintained by a particular group of Wikipedia editors interested in that particular language. I doubt if there is any such resource more generally. If you can see a need for such, and have the interest, perhaps you could start as WP:WikiProject? --ColinFine (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Corrected spelling in redlink. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Deisenbe - it's also worth noting that the list was created for a particular activity which now seems to be inactive and hasn't really been touched in a couple of years. Not that that should stop you creating your own list if you think it would be useful, but just something to keep in mind. Hug^syrup 11:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

But where would such a list go? deisenbe (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

On a side note: we have pages for translation which is in dire need of people dealing with the backlog there. Regarding your specific question: I for one am not too fond of translation machines; for Wikipedia-purposes, machine translated texts need so much work that they are nearly useless in producing viable articles. Lectonar (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

There's a WP policy that a machine-translated article is worse than nothing. Where they are useful are circumstances when the goal is not a published translation but a general sense of what a piece of writing is about ("jisting"). deisenbe (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

How to align text in a column

I've been editing/updating some wikitables. I know how to align text in the whole table as well as in an individual cel. Is there a way I can align text differently in a whole column in 1 go? Dutchy45 (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Dutchy45. Help:Table#Column_operations doesn't mention alignment as a possibility at the column level. As far as I can remember, CSS does not provide a way of doing this directly, so I would be surprised if WikiMarkup did. I think you just have to set it for the cell in each column. --ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Dutchy45 (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft for CEO Mark Okerstrom

Hi, my name is Victoria and I am a representative of Expedia Group. I am a paid employee of the company and therefore have a financial conflict of interest. I've submitted a new article draft for Expedia Group CEO Mark Okerstrom and it was declined, with the editor commenting that there was a lack of reliable sourcing. This confused me as in the draft I was careful to properly cite all statements with quality sourcing such as The Wall Street Journal, The Daily Telegraph, The Seattle Times and Financial Times. (Also, I did make a mistake in missing my COI disclosure but I've added that now.) I've responded to the feedback on my AfC request, but I have not heard anything back. As a new editor, I'm not quite sure if it is best for me to resubmit the draft or get other input first? Can Teahouse editors advise? Thanks! Victoria at ExpediaGroup (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Victoria at ExpediaGroup Welcome to The Teahouse. I tend to agree that the sourcing in the draft looks adequate, and if I were reviewing it, I would probably accept it. However, I'd be interested to know if @Robert McClenon: sees an issue with the sourcing that I have missed, or has a different perspective. For future reference, adding a comment on the draft isn't necessarily the best place to discuss this sort of thing as reviewers don't always watch a draft once they have declined it, and usually the same reviewer won't review a draft twice. If you want to query a decision, you're better off going to the reviewer's talk page, or the AFC helpdesk. But in this case, unless Robert or another user offers a wildly different viewpoint to mine, I would probably just resubmit your draft in a day or two. Hug^syrup 16:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Victoria at ExpediaGroup. I'm not convinced that I'm seeing the multiple reliable independent sources that are needed to establish that Okerstrom is notable. Source 1 is based on what a colleague said, so not independent. Sources 2, 4 and 6 are based on what he said himself, so not independent. Sources 3 and 7 are behind paywalls, and so I haven't been able to check them; maybe they're acceptable. Source 5 looks good. Source 8 is based on what a company spokesperson said, so not independent. That's a total of one "yes", five "no", and two "maybe". Maproom (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The FT one is decent, although like most such business profiles it has some quotes from the subject mixed in. I don't see that as fully undermining the source though, particularly insofar as it's being used to establish basic notability. If the FT or WSJ does a profile on someone, that goes a long way to establishing notability, regardless of whether the profile includes quotes from the source. I completely agree, of course, that specific facts should not be sourced to parts of an article that are simply quotes by the subject, and this may need work. However, bear in mind that the core criteria when reviewing a draft is not whether it is flawless, but would it pass an AFD. I would be very surprised if this article, given its sources, would fail an AFD. Hug^syrup 16:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It appears that User:Maproom and User:Hugsyrup have done more detailed reviews than I did, and I thank them. In hindsight, it appears that I didn't do a detailed review because I was annoyed at the lack of a conflict of interest declaration, and because I know that I have a difficult time giving a neutral review to a draft by a paid editor, so I don't always try. As to how to get comments on a draft, I agree that adding them to the draft is not usually the best way, but would add that one of the best ways is this, to ask for advice at the Teahouse. I agree that it should pass AFD, because I won't vote to Delete, and I am something of a deletionist. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I have now approved the draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I felt there was enough there for notability as well, but entirely understood the original decision. We at the various helpdesks are, sadly, deluged by promotion; being human, it's hard not to paint a contribution with the same brush if they don't follow all the rules. Glad it worked out in this case.

Is there a discussion/study going on anywhere as to how to reduce the unreasonably large percentage of bad article attempts? Are we somehow not putting up enough red flags along the way? Maybe a quick 10-question multiple-choice test that demonstrates an author's understanding of the rules before they create? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Making additions to a page related to the CIA's Medal of Merit

Good morning. I would like to add one more name to the list of noteworthy recipients of the CIA's Medal of Merit. The site in question is: Intelligence_Medal_of_Merit

I took a look at the "edit" link, and found all the machine language to be daunting. Can you help me make an addition to this page. The name to be added, and the caption, are: William Gregory, former Commander of the CIA’s U-2 detachment, for his service during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Very much appreciate your help. Robert Richardson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.254.242.107 (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Robert Richardson can you supply a reliable source, showing that Gregory has received this honor? Also, we list not all recipients, but only notable recipients, that is those who have, or readily could have, a Wikipedia article about them. See our guideline on the notability of individual people. Thank you for wanting to help uupdate Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Blog citing "wikipedia" as an image source

An article I found says that the images are from "Wikipedia commons" and "French Wikipedia". I know there is something about the CC license that means that this isn't the right way to credit the images. What should I do next? Is there a page about "how to use images from Wikipedia" that I can link to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.107.218 (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hola y bienvenidos a la casa de té. Here's a guideline that might help: WP:IMAGES. Interstellarity (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, not all images are under CC. You will need to check the license on each image to determine how to credit it correctly. RudolfRed (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

You can for example link them to this page [1] or [2]. You can also just give them a friendly pointer that they need to give the name of the author (or a link to the original page on Commons) and a link to the CC license. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

BrE vs. AmE

Does Wikipedia use British English or American English? I have seen instances where users are in dispute over whether British or American spellings should be used, such as here and here. I would like to know, so that I can avoid getting into such disputes myself. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 18:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiWarrior9919, It's complicated. Essentially, use whichever the article you're editing uses. If you're making a new article, use whichever you prefer. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Moonythedwarf Alright. Thank you. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 18:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiWarrior9919, There are exceptions to this. For example, an article on New York City uses American English because it has strong national ties to the article. London is written in British English for the same reasons. Please read: MOS:ENGVAR for more info on this. Interstellarity (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity Got it. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 18:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

If you find an article where both varieties are used (and there is no obvious choice as described above), then the one to choose is the one that was first used in the history of the article. This might require a bit of research to determine. See WP:ENGVAR for details. Dbfirs 19:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I prefer to lean towards WP:TIES in toss-up cases. If someone creates an Indian placename stub with AmE, and there is signficant addition in InE since, I would make it InE consistenly. Note that English variety changes are often controversial, but particularly so when they are to the non-WP:TIES variety. Date formats have similar issues. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the TIES test should come first, but there are many articles that have no ties to any particular country. In the case cited above, the British spelling programme should be used under both tests. Dbfirs 07:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Notability Question

So I had the idea to write an article on a song called "Keep it 100" by the band 3For3. The band has a Wikipedia article but the song doesn't. Before I spend hours working on the article I want to get opinions if it will be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to expand it. See WP:NSONG for notability requirements for songs. If it fits, follow WP:YFA to start on the article draft. RudolfRed (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to "LENI WYLLIAMS" re-write blind-siding

I've noticed as indicated below that LENI WYLLIAMS has been included in the category AMERICAN WOMEN CHOREOGRAPHERS . . .

18 November 2019‎ Vycl1994 talk contribs‎ 16,369 bytes +86‎ +Category:American women choreographers;

LENI WYLLIAMS was a MALE African-American dancer/choreographer. Hoping the ultimate categorizing will reflect this! THANKS!

Paynethymaya (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Paynethymaya

 Done by Icarusgeek. Thank you for pointing out the error. Maproom (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Defunct organisations domain bought by a porn site - references need deleting.

This is to advise you about the reference no 14 on Libby Houston's page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libby_Houston - which reads

"Site Report for October 2010 – visit to field around Victory Park, Brislington, Bristol" (PDF). brislingtonarchaeology.org.uk. Brislington Community Archaeology Project. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 February 2014. Retrieved 21 August 2012.

Brislington Community Archaeology Project ceased in 2016, and the person who was supposed to take on the domain name didn't: it was subsequently bought by a porn site, where the links now leads. I can't find any way to remove the reference myself: can a moderator do it? Or can you advise how I do it myself?

Thanks in anticipationThe OriginalAlestrel (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

In general, such citations should not be deleted, _The OriginalAlestrel, but rather an archived copy should be found, and used to update the citation. See WP:DEADREF for instructions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

When an archived copy is found, you can set |url-status= to usurped to prevent the original link from showing. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello there - you seem to be clicking the hyperlink in the words 'the original' in the citation. If you click the actual first link in the citation itself, it should lead you to this wayback machine link of the PDF. Easy mistake to make, I've done it myself. Hope this helps. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the url-status to usurped, so the porn page is no longer linked. Case closed. Fabrickator (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Choice of words for parenthetical disambiguation

Hi y'all!

When there's been ambiguity between the name of a rapper and something else, I've generally seen the article on the rapper be moved to <rapper>_(rapper) (e.g. Eminem_(rapper)), but today I encountered Face_(rap_artist). Assuming Face_(rapper) would is the de-facto correct title for the article, is it worth moving? And if not, is there some sort of standard on what words should be used in parenthetical disambiguation?

Tiraboschi (talk) 09:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Tiraboschi, the title policy for articles is at WP:TITLE. WP:DAB also has valuable information. And, it's not as simple as putting a rapper's biography at "Name (rapper)". As you'll note, Eminem doesn't have a (rapper) after his name. That said, I do agree with your observation and reasoning in this particular case. I managed to reach WP:SINGERDAB starting at Category:Wikipedia naming conventions, and it specifically recommends your choice. Hence, I endorse your proposal to move the page, and of course, also recommend you read/bookmark the policy/guidelines pages I just linked, for future reference. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks}, I wasn't aware of WP:SINGERDAB. I'll keep it in mind! I've also moved the page :) Tiraboschi (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced Claims about the Voynich manuscript and Chinese

Dear all- I have just now deleted a large section of material on the Voynich manuscript page which was comprised of three paragraphs and an image which were nothing but unsourced claims about alleged connections between Asiatic languages and the Voynich manuscript. The content had been on the website essentially unchallenged since 2004.

I invite you to take a look at my triage work on that page ([3]).

Thanks for any input. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Appears you deleted three paragraphs in the Natural Languages section that have been in the article for a very long time, but without references. I suggest you create a new section on the Talk page to concisely describe what you did. David notMD (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Geographyinitiative, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your edit. It actually looks like you have found and removed a 15 year-old copyright violation from the page. In your edit summary you noted that the same material exists at [4] - I had a look and our article is a verbatim copy of the link you provided. Copyright violations are very serious and should be removed whenever they are found, so thank you. Having had a brief look at the article and the website you provided, I would guess that there are more copyright violations in the article. I will report the article at the copyright problems noticeboard and put a note on the article's talk page. WJ94 (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Editing multple articles caused a composite history

Soon after creating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Oliver_(artist,_born_1823) I received a message as follows When creating draft articles please could you start with a fresh page, it is very confusing to find that looking at the history of William Oliver (artist, born 1823) the article began life as a draft for another article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC) I therefore investigated this problem further. When I clicked 'sandbox' On my User:BFP1/sandbox page it said Draft William Oliver. I then went to 2 other articles that I either created or extensively edited, namely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_James_Wilson and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul-L%C3%A9on_Jazet. When clicking 'sandbox' on both these articles I again got Draft William Oliver on the User:BFP1/sandbox pages. It was the same for another three articles that I had edited.

This is presumably why the resultant history was a confusing composite of previously edted articles. I think it was caused by using the same sandbox page (writing and deleting drafts) for all the articles. Obviously this should stop. So how do I start a fresh page (with its new associated sandbox) if I want to draft a new article? Also, if I want to extensively edit an existing article do I do a preparatory draft on the User:BFP1 page (rather than a sandbox) before copying and pasting into the article? I apologise for inadvertently continuing what, for many, was such a basic error. BFP1 (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

BFP1, hi. If you search for the title you want to create, you will get a message saying the page doesn't exist, and asking if you would like to create it; if you follow the link, you'll be asked if you want to create a userspace draft - that's how I always create new articles. When it's ready to publish, just move it into article space, as you have been doing with your sandbox. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi BFP1, thanks for your question. It looks like you are a little confused about what the sandbox is. When you say that you are clicking the sandbox link on different articles, do you mean the one at the top, which appears along with a link to your talk page, preferences, etc? This link is not specific to the article you are on - it directs you to your own sandbox, rather than the sandbox of a particular article. This means that it will always direct you to the same place, whatever page you click it from. Articles do not have their own sandboxes - feel free to make your edits directly to articles. If you want to check what you have written before you publish it, click the "Show preview" button - it is good advice to preview your edits every time.

If you want to create a new article and would like to draft it before you publish it into the main article space, you can create a draft in your user space. Your user space is any page which begins with "User:BFP1/". So if you wanted to draft an article called "New page", you would create it at User:BFP1/New page. To create this page, type it into the search bar - if the page does not already exist, you will be given a link to create it. I hope that helps with some of your questions; let me know if you need further help. WJ94 (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello again, BFP1. You don't need an "associated sandbox" for a draft, and in fact there isn't an "associated sandbox with these various article drafts. When a draft is started in your user sandbox and later moved to a draft page, a redirect is left behind in the sandbox, so that clicking on the sandbox link takes you to the draft. Doing a copy&paste (which i strongly advise against) leaves the history of the former draft in the sandbox. In my view, the better practice is to start each draft on its own fresh page. There are several ways to do that. One is to decide on the desires name of the page and to use Special:Search to look for it. When the results start with "ou may create the page ..." click on the red link and start editing, and save (publish changes) to create the new page. Another is to type the desired new name into the "Search Wikipedia " box near the top of every Wikipedia page, and again click the resulting red link and edit. A third is to edit some page, such as your snad box, and create a linbk to the desired new name, such as [[User:BFP1/NewTopic]] or [[Draft:NewTopic]]. You don't even have to save this, just preview. Then click the red link and start editing as above. Any of these will get you a new draft page without a prior history. When/if you want AfC review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. Or just move the draft to article space directly. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everybody BFP1 (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC) That helps with starting a fresh page. What if I want to greatly expand a named stub article? I would like a suitable space for large scale preparatory editing with no retention of history. Then that draft can be pasted into the article and recorded as history relating to the article. BFP1 (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

BFP1 It is often (albeit not always) better to do such improvements incrementally in the article itself. But if you don't want to do that, you can use a user page for it. Say you want to improve the stub XYZ. Then create User:BFP1/XYZ-Revisions (say) by any of the methods described above. Do your edits there, and when you are ready, paste them back into XYZ. As long as no other editor edits yiur work page, you don't need to do anything about the history. (However if anyone else does edit your work page, you will need to preserve attributions, at least by linking in the edit summary when you do the paste, and preferably by using {{Copied}}. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more detail. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC) However, BFP1, it would probably be wise to announce your intent on the talk page of the stub, Talk:XYZ in the example above, and when you do the paste, to post an explanation of your changes to that same talk page. This lets other interested editors (if there are any) know what is going on, and makes a reveert for "unexplained major changes" less likely. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DESiegel BFP1 (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect Japanese in Topaz War Relocation article

In America, immigrants direct from Japan are called, Issei (ichi=1=first)( generation), Children born to the Issei in America are called Nissei (Ni =2=second) not Nikkei as in your article. The grandchild of a direct Japanese immigrant is called a Sansei (san=3=third), and so on by the japaneses numeric yomikata (number tablet) so, the forth generation of a direct immigrant from Japan is a Yonsei. That is how Japanese Americans count thier generation from the direct imigrant. I am a forth generation descendant of an England Imigrant, from Scothern England, Ishmael Scothern is my Great great Grandfather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.69.34 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that you post this to the relevant article talk page, and then correct the article. If some editor reverts, do not edit war, rather discuss on the talk page, as per Bold, revert, discuss. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The article in question is Topaz War Relocation Center. The word nikkei means "Japanese diaspora" and is used correctly in that article. It means people of Japanese ancestry living outside of Japan, without regard to the number of generations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no "happy editing", I'm afraid

because the weird people cut everything away

Lutz Fehling 89.15.238.121 (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Lutz Fehling, do you have a question about editing English Wikipedia? If so, feel free to ask it here in this section (don't start a new section, just click the "Edit" next to the heading "There is no "happy editing", I'm afraid", and add your text below.) As stated when your previous section was closed, people here are not able to help with questions about German Wikipedia. Each language version of Wikipedia is its own project. --bonadea contributions talk 16:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

We English-speakers have no more control, or influence, over German Wikipedia than German speakers do over English Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Contacting a specific editor

I would like to contact an editor to discuss a revision to an article. I have gone to his/her talk page to ask a question, but it just seems a list of interests. There does not appear a space to to ask a question. How do I do it? BFP1 (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

While I can't say for sure without seeing the page in question, I suspect you visited their user page rather than user talk page. Clicking on someone's name on a revision of a page leads to their userpage. You can navigate from there to their talk page by clicking the tab "Talk" near the top left of the page. Alternatively, you can navigate directly to someone's user talk page by clicking the link 'talk' after their user name from the revision history of a page. (Most signatures also include links to one's user and/or user talk page: in the standard signature format (like yours), the username leads to the user page and the (talk) link to the talk page. In custom signatures, the links may be more hidden. See for example my own: the first half of my signature (yellow text on purple background) links to my user page; the second half (purple text on yellow) to my talk page.) AddWittyNameHere 18:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks that is helpful. BFP1 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Inline citation issues

Hello, My inline citations are no longer numbering properly in my References, nor are they visible. I noticed that they began to disappear and the numbers became jumbled when I began making changes to the citations. I refreshed the page, removed all text and tried to essentially start over with a blank slate and as I added my first citation, which should have auto-populated as [1], it's showing up as [5]. Any ideas as to why this is happening and how I can get past this?

Thank you for your assistance. Dawnpalmyra (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Dawnpalmyra, what article or draft is this about? Your list of contributions does not show any page where you've been using references. Maproom (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Dawnpalmyra, you need to include your citations between <ref> and </ref> tags. Generally, it is preferable to use a {{cite web}} template (or other "cite" template) so that the citation can include more that just the url. BTW, "less than"/"greater than"/"less than or equal"/"greater than or equal" are not the way to "wikify" your links. Look at the source of other pages ("edit" them but don't save) for examples of citations and urls in general, you shouldn't have to look too hard. Fabrickator (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I am editing the released removal draft for Carmen Gentile. The issue seems to have resolved itself. Thank you.

Dawnpalmyra, unless you've got a lot more than is at Draft:Carmen Gentile, this fella doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NCREATIVE. In short, it doesn't look like this guy qualifies for a biography. John from Idegon (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Cropping Images?

I'm looking for a help article I saw recently that described syntax about how to crop an image. It showed a cropped image that focused on a drop of water on a leaf. I'm having trouble finding it again. Also, is there a way to crop images using multiples of the original dimensions, instead of pixels as that guidance described? Thanks so much! – Kekki1978 talk 19:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I once read a page about how to crop images. But I found it hard to understand, so I put some working examples on a user subpage at User:Maproom/cropping for my own use. I can't help with your second question. Maproom (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

missing url-status parameter from editing page templates

When editing an article and using the "templates" to insert a citation ("cite web", "cite news" and "cite book") and selecting the "show extra fields" option, there is an "archive url" field displayed. For "cite web", the "url-status" field is also displayed, but it is not displayed for "cite news" or "cite book". I presume that this is an oversight.

Please suggest where this should be reported (or perhaps "the teahouse" is good enough). (ex post facto edit) Fabrickator (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fabrickator. If you do not receive a good answer here, please try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Fabrickator, I am not sure what the criteria is for what is displayed there. I am guessing it is either the most relevant ones (in which case there would be a room for an oversight) or the most used ones. Of course, for cite web, what's most relevant would be the url and the status of it, while that's not at all true for news or book, for both of which url isn't one of the primary requirements. Indeed, I imagine in a perfect world, we'd have more cites to offline books and newspapers than online ones. At any rate, there are dozens of other fields which may be relevant but can't be displayed on the drop down (when I click the show more on the cite news template, it shows about three fields and below it says "show 93 more fields"). That's why there is a blank text-field where you can type "url", and no matter whether it is a book cite or a news cite, you'll get all the relevant fields associated with citing and maintaining an online book or news reference. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, my point is that if you have the archiveurl parameter, you should be able to specify url-status, which determines how the two urls are displayed, i.e. if url-status=dead (this is the default), then the main link displayed is archiveurl and the url link is displayed as the "original" link, if url-status=live, then the main link displayed is url, and if url-status=usurped, then the main link displayed is archiveurl, but the url link is not displayed at all. To reiterate, if you're going to have the option to specify archiveurl, then you ought to be able to also specify url-status. FWIW, there isn't really much difference between "web" and "news" citations, and I expect editors will generally try and identify urls for newspaper citations. Fabrickator (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Fabrickator, when I try to cite news as a template from the insert menu, it has more than 90 available fields, only a few of them displayed by default. When I click "Add more information" at the bottom of that list, I get a blank textbox, followed by three fields listed and 93 more available but not listed. I can simply type "url" on the blank textbox, and it displays all fields related with URLs, which include "archive-url" and "url-status" fields. So, your contention that "url-status" isn't available doesn't make sense to me. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm clicking on "cite" at the top of the editing area, then click on the "templates" selection list, which offers four difference "cite" templates. This initially displays around a dozen fields, then I can click on "show/hide extra fields", and it displays about 25 fields. Of course, these are merely "tools" so I can pretend they don't exist without any loss of functionality, but using these specialized interfaces helps to remind me which fields I might want to enter and helps to produce a more standardized result. Fabrickator (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Fabrickator, when I click "cite" at the top of the editing area, I get three choices, "Automatic" which takes only the url and generates a cite automatically, "Manual" which gives options for "web", "news", "book" and "journal" cites as well as an option at the bottom to type in the whole citation manually, and "Re-use" which gives me a list of citations already in the article to choose from. When I click one of the template options offered in the "Manual" tab, it opens the window for the template of that citation as discussed previously, which has a few fields by default but about 96 more available for news and about 185 available for book, any one of which I can get to by clicking "Add more information" followed by "show xxx more fields" or using the blank textbox to type in the field related keywords. Perhaps we are using different editors? I am out of ideas. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

And if we are using different editors, I am guessing that's what the answer would be. To simply switch to an editor which doesn't have the limitations. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Evidently, you are using "visual" editing, while I am using "source" editing. Source editing has not been deprecated. Please do not be dismissive of my choice. Fabrickator (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Fabrickator, I was actually thinking of the various customisations to the editing experience available in the preferences menu. FWIW, I use source editing too, but I checked with both source and visual editing when formulating my response here. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will drop by shortly. I am sorry my last response came off as dismissive and apologise for wasting your time. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Need advice whether my edits violated the copyright criteria so badly that they merited a Revision Deletion? Guglusharma (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia who has been trying to contribute to this wonderful platform in the proper way. I made a few edits to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_vigilante_violence_in_India I tried to make several edits to my post based on user suggestions, so that they complied with the paraphrasing guidelines "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text" under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing However my edits were deemed so illegal that they were permanently deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cow_vigilante_violence_in_India&oldid=927507375 I need advise whether the violation was serious enough to merit revision deletion and whether I can dispute this or not? Is this the correct forum to ask this question? Regards Guglusharma (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Guglusharma: welcome to the Teahouse. Only an administrator (which I am not) will be able to see the revision deleted text, but since you have already been clearly informed here and here that your edits were copyright violations, I can say with some confidence that they merited revision deletion. Close paraphrasing is a lot more difficult than writing original prose, so why not simply use your own words to describe the issue? --bonadea contributions talk 20:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your Quick reply. I reported 3 separate incidents. I edited the text quite a lot in all 3 reports after first intimation by User MPS 1992. You cancheck the word count difference to see that it was not a simple redo. The second user El C instantly Revision deleted my text without giving me an opportunity to correct the text. Regards Guglusharma (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The word count does not tell us anything at all, I'm afraid. And copyrighted text must be revision deleted, it would not be allowed to remain in order to be "corrected". --bonadea contributions talk 21:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I understand, but I feel that since you can't see the deleted text, you can't be certain whether its copyrighted or not. I have messaged the 2nd editor El C to clarify, but is there a forum on Wikipedia where another Admin may be able to see the edits and judge? Regards Guglusharma (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

As an admin, Guglusharma I can see deleted content, and I will take a look. Such a thing could be reported at The admin notice board but that forum will often examine the conduct of the reporting editor quite thoroughly, and is not likely to fault a RevDel for even a merely probable copyvio. Really it is better to just start over with original text. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help DESiegel, My edits had language similar to the news reports because Cow lynching cases are complex cases where there is difference in narrative between 2 sides. The killers try to portray the victims as Cow smugglers for Beef whereas the Victims families portray them as traders or transporters. So the language of edits had been kept similar to what was reported in news to maintain neutrality. Guglusharma (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Guglusharma I looked over the most recent deleted revision in that article which was created by an edit of yours. In at least two of the incidents you added, you included specific wording from the source with no acknowledgement. This is enough for revision deletion in my view. I have done over 80 RevDels myself. It is true that statements of facts (such as news reports) have less protection than creative works. But specific wording still must not be copied, and Wikipedia is very strict about this, perhaps stricter than the law requires. It is better to either completely rewrite the passage, using the facts but none of the wording from mthe source, or else to explicitly quote the source, marking it as a quote, and introducing it with an attribution such as The Hindu reported that: "{Quote from news story here}"{cite to sourer here}. This was not revenge, El_C was in my view acting quite properly, as I would have expected from that editor. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand that you wish to portray the source accounts accurately, but copying specific adjectives such as "mercilessly" is likely to cause problems. Report the same facts, in detail if that is relevant, but in different words in future, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification DESiegel. I did not accuse the user El C of revenge, but I admit I had accused another user because he kept undoing my edits without giving me a little more reason. Now that I understand the concerns of Wikipedia, I would try to act accordingly in the future. Regards Guglusharma (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Guglusharma . You should know by the way, that doing this kind of reveiw is more than a bit tedious. The reviewing admin must find the deleted revision in the history, open it, find the relevant passage, find the allegedly copied sources, open them, and manually compare the text. This is just FYI. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate you doing this for a newbie. Guglusharma (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Guglusharma: While I can't see the deleted content, the above mention of "mercilessly" leads me to think that, in addition to the copyvio issue, the text also may not have been encyclopedic in its tone or neutral in its point of view. Please keep those in mind as well. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Locked websites

How could I get access to locked pages to edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyplayer (talk • contribs) 15:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Tommyplayer, and welcome to the Teahouse. Some pages are semi-protected, and can only be edited by autoconfirmed users Some are EC protected and can only be edited by Extended-confirmed users Some are fully protected and can only be edited by admins. Some have other levels of protection. The vast majority of pages are not protected at all. Please see Wikipedia:Protection policy for more details. Please add a link below to the page you would like to edit and more specific advice can be given. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Tommyplayer. You can make an edit request on the talk page of the locked article. Please read Wikipedia:Edit requests for the details about how to do that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Bio box questions

Hello,

What is this box called that contains bio info, pic, occupation, years active, etc.? I am a wiki rookie and attempting to add this to a draft I am working on. Should I insert an image and write out the bio, etc info in the description space?

Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnpalmyra (talk • contribs) 16:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Dawnpalmyra and welcome to the TeaHouse. That would be what Wikipedia calls an "Infobox". Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes for information about infoboxes. The most common infobox in an articel about a person is {{infobox person}} but ther are quite a few more specific infobox templates. See the instructions on the template page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

If you would link to the page you are interested in, we could give more specific advice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and please WP:SIGN your talk and discussion page posts (but never contributions in articles) with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software will convert this to your default or custom signature plus a timestamp. This helps both people and script recognize separate contributions to threads, and keep track of who said what. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. Dawnpalmyra (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Donald Lynn Loriaux by Patricia Hastrich

I am a little confused. Is my page deleted or shall I do corrections and keep going? Dr. Loriaux received an email from Wiki person offering to finish my page about him if he pays them money? I am feeling my toes have been stepped on completely. Is this accepted from a Wiki editor?

Patricia Hastrich Hasttago — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasttago (talk • contribs) 18:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Hasttago, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, that is not acceptable. It is quite likely to be a scam. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. There has been a history of people trying to get payments in such cases, or even people claiming that they can get articles deleted if they are not paid off. Do not pay any such people. I haven't yet looked t the page you have been working on, but I will. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hasttago, Draft:Lynn Loriaux has not been deleted, and you absolutely may continue to work on it. There are some formatting issue. For example section headers should be in sentence case, not title case or all caps.The citation formatting could use work, see referencing for Beginners. But most important, additional Independent, published reliable sources are needed to celarly demonstrate the notability of the subject. See our guideline on the notability of individuals and [[Wikipedia:Notability (academics)|our guideline on the notability of academics. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and please WP:SIGN your talk and discussion page posts (but never contributions in articles) with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software will convert this to your default or custom signature plus a timestamp. This helps both people and script recognize separate contributions to threads, and keep track of who said what. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

That scam is famous enough that it has an article on Wikipedia, Hasttago. See Orangemoody. John from Idegon (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hasttago. Just going to add some things to the comments you've received so far. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project that basically anyone from anywhere in the world can participate in without even having to register an account or pay a fee; so, in that sense of the word it's really a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". This means that anyone asking you for money to edit on your behalf is basically asking yu to pay for something that anyone can do for free; of course, what they're trying to charge you for is their time, effort and knowledge/experience, but all editors are really only WP:VOLUNTEERs and there are plenty of editors who are here for the right reasons without looking for some kind of personal gain. Most things on Wikipedia tend to be decided through WP:CONSENSUS; articles are being constantly created and improved, and disagreements about how to best do those things are often resolved through discussion. For sure, there are Wikipedia administrators chosen by the WP:COMMUNITY to make sure things run smoothly and an administrator may take action to prevent disruption or serious violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but for the most part they will just monitor things and try to keep them track. So, if anyone is promising that they can guarantee a certain result (e.g. creating an article, preventing an article from being deleted), they are either not very familiar with how Wikipedia works or not being very honest with you. Nobody has any real ownership of any Wikipedia page; so, nobody can really guarantee that the page will end up a certain way or stay a certain way. Anything you or I change in a Wikipedia article, can be undone or improved upon by someone else at anytime. We agree as part of Wikipedia's licensing and meta:Terms of Use to give up any claim of ownership over the edits we make as soon as we click on the "Publish changes" button.

It's OK for you to continue to work on the draft; when you think it's ready, I suggest you submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review. However, as pointed out above by DESiegel (DES), it's not really ready to be published as an article just. There are formatting errors such as DES pointed out (I suggest you also take a look at MOS:DOCTOR and WP:SURNAME for some other minor issues that I noticed), but the most important problem is that it's not clear how this person meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). Everything cited in the article is a WP:PRIMARY source which proves that the person you're trying to write about is an actual person, but does not establish how they are Wikipedia notable. The word "notability" as a very specific meaning in a Wikipedia context and what determines whether the draft you're working on is ultimately accepted is going to depend on assessing the subject's Wikipedia notability.

In the end, it's your money (or Dr. Loriaux's money) and you (they) can spend it as you (they) see fit; however, whatever contract you enter in with someone to edit on Wikipedia is going to be between you and them, not you an Wikipedia; in other words, they are a private contractor, not an employee or representative of Wikipedia. If you feel the emails being received are suspicious in nature, perhaps the best thing to do would be to take a look at Wikipedia:Contact us or Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Reporting undisclosed paid editors and contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly by email to ensure privacy. You need to be very careful about posting too much real world personal information about the person or persons sending you the above emails as explained in "Posting of personal information" even if you truly believe this person is doing something inappropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project Northern Kentucky University

Hello, my name is Fatoumata Sow and I am currently a student at Northern Kentucky University. For my class project, I added a paragraph to the Wikipedia article entitled "Haitian Mythology" and I would love to receive feedback because it is part of the assignment. Help me with any comments you have about the article or ways to improve the paragraph please.

Here is the link to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_mythology The title of my paragraph is: History and Origins of Voodooism in Haiti

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timsha54 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Your paragraph is pretty good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by !matt2446 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Timsha54, and welcome to the Teahouse. That section (it contains three paragraphs) needs additional sources. Most of the first paragraph is uncited. So is most of the 2nd paragraph. The Americas citation in the 2nd paragraph uses a non-standard |date= value and the URL doesn't work -- I think it includes your personal session data. The National Catholic Reporter. citation in the third paragraph uses a URL that is a search, not a document. This is not acceptable, and I have commented it out.

You wrote ... that is till today the main source of misery, poverty and natural disaster. Did you mean "still today" or "until today"?

You wrote the Haitian Voodoo practitioners invoke these same spirits that in return will possess their bodies and dictate to the people the solution to their social preoccupations. As written this implies that the spirit possession actually takes place. If you meant only that this is the belief of the practitioners, this should be made clear.

In short, while not a bad start, there are significant issues with this section as a part of a Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: Duplicate request here, with additional response(s) here. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see my comments at your Talk page, in response to your question to Wiki Ed content expert Shalor. One important issue is whether that paragraph belongs in the article at all, per article title policy, as it seems more appropriate to Haitian Vodou to me. Mathglot (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Backlog

What is the best way to clear a backlog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by !matt2446 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@!matt2446: To which backlog are you referring? Please provide a link to the page. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@!matt2446: It seems you are going through articles that are marked as being underlinked, adding wikilinks to them. Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of those are unnecessary. Please see WP:OVERLINK for what shouldn't be linked, as well as the surrounding section for what should be. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@!matt2446: More specifically, links like music (common term), 1892 (date), and domestic (dab page) should not be made.

Also note that there is a special way to link a plural form of an article without using the "pipe trick"; e.g, the plural ownership rights is formed with [[ownership right]]s. The software automatically includes characters immediately following the link (without a space) in the link to allow easy use of the different forms of a word (plurals, participles, etc.).

Please also see MOS:DUPLINK, which describes another form of overlinking. As you've seen, there are sometimes pages that are adequately linked, yet nobody has removed the underlinking tag from them.

I hope this helps. It would be appreciated if you would self-revert or correct the overlinking that you did. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

P.P.S. Your contributions can be seen at Special:Contributions/!matt2446. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I will try I am sorry that I over linked.

Reliable source

Hi all, I am trying to add my first article on wikipedia about a new form of martial art - Kungchido. Wikipedia is so huge that I am feeling I am already lost. I did my 10 edits and now I think I have a confirmed wikipedia account. I thought I could first publish some information about Kungchido and then keep on editing afterwards and get someothers to add more information about too. My article was rejected unfortunately due to sources as it says. I have added those information in references and also the weblink. Can I please know what else should I need to do in order to get my article available to public to view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajra 2019 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You should add third party sources such as books, journal articles, news articles or publications on the well-known websites devoted to martial arts. Ruslik_Zero 13:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You deleted the previous feedback, but apparently hadn't read it. It gave you useful links, including to Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Notable biographies - artists

Hello there, I am a new editor on Wikipedia and I need some advice. I work in the contemporary art field and I see a lot of artists who are notable for their work in my field, but do not have wikipedia pages. I would like to begin adding some of these online, but I need help selecting the ones considered noteworthy.

I wanted to ask, if an artist had verifiably been exhibited in a gallery such as the Royal Academy, Tate Modern or Somerset House for example, and there were articles about this artist's work in chronicles such as Art Monthly, The Verge, Timeout, or Frieze Magazine, then would this be considered noteworthy for this platform?

Hoping to upload some knowledge of the art world in 2019 :D

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contemporaryartlover1 (talk • contribs)

Hi Contemporaryartlover1, thanks for your question. The general notability guidelines are that a subject is notable if they are the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The examples of sources you suggest would appear to meet this standard. If you are unsure about whether an artist meets our notability guidelines, you can always try creating your article as a draft and having another editor review it for you - let me know if you need help with this process. WJ94 (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

See List of contemporary artists for examples. However, while all of those articles exist, it does not mean they should all exist - sometimes articles are created with inadequate referencing, and either need to be improved or else nominated at Articles for deletion. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello there WJ94, thank you so much for your reply. Yes, I would love to get some advice on this process. I am particularly unsure of how much detail I can/should go into about each artist. I have begun an article already (working my way through alphabetically).

Hi Contemporaryartlover1, the best way to create a draft is to create it in your userspace. You userspace is any page which begins "User:Contemporaryartlover1/" - so if you wanted to create a page called New Page, you would create you draft at "User:Contemporaryartlover1/New Page". To create it, just type the title into the search bar and the option will appear to create a new page. I see you have already worked out how to use {{userspace draft}} - that should go at the very top of the article. There is much more advice on how to write an article at Your first article which I would recommend having a look through. The main thing I would suggest is that you get your sources together before you start - it is important to make sure you do actually have the sources to support an article you want to write (it can be frustrating to put a lot of time into an article and then find that it is not notable). The minimum is two, though I would recommend having three or four sources ready to go before you start; once these are in place, you can work from there. WJ94 (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Offering an alternative version.

Hi, This is concerning the entry for "Luna de Xelaju". The account given is correct except that the song was actually written in 1942 and dedicated to another woman, born and raised in Xela. While i have not seen the actual letter, La Morena de Dulce Mirrar's daughters found the letter from Perez, the composer, to their mother, with the lyrics and a dedication. For reasons of privacy, and La Morena's sense of discretion concerning the 1944 dedication to Sra. Cohen, the family never did and, to this day, won't talk about it. I was a very close friend of the son of La Morena, whom i met 40yrs ago in La Antigua, and knew the whole family, including La Morena, who was every bit the delightful and beautiful woman to whom Perez wrote his song. My friend also passed away but i'm still in contact with La Morena's daughters, granddaughters and great grandchildren. Is there a way i can offer an alternative version to that presently on the Wiki page without documentation? Thanks very much. Best, Jeffrey Haptas