Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1019

Archive 1015

←

Archive 1017

Archive 1018

Archive 1019

Archive 1020

Archive 1021

→

Archive 1025

there are evident mistakes in list of harmoncists?

billford was eliminated. sucker damn hell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Billford (talk • contribs) 02:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Michael Billford: Concerns over article content should be raised on the relevant article's talk page. Random expletives are unlikely to be met anywhere with anything more than disinterest, disdain and mild irritation. 'List of' pages should only contain names of notable people with articles already about them elsewhere on Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Booth Lusteg article

See note below

As per your response, I am NOT part of any company or corporation. I am alone & was simply making corrections to wrong info in the Booth Lusteg Wikipedia article. Also there is no conflict of interest. I am the daughter of the subject & was giving you the facts based on proof. Please make the corrections. Thank you, Lisa Lusteg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtlisa (talk • contribs) 01:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I have added a new section heading above your message as I suspect that your message may not be related to Mazewaxie's topic in which you placed it. I believe that instead you may be referring to WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1015#Wrong info in "Booth Lusteg Wikipedia" article on Google. If you are the daughter of the subject then you do have a conflict of interest; you need to read WP:COI. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Courtlisa. If you know of a secondary source which lists the correct date of birth of your dad, then please post a comment with a link to the source at Talk:Booth Lusteg. It's possible that the Pro Football Reference page currently cited in the article is wrong, but there needs to be some way to verify that, at least for Wikipedia purposes. You might not have noticed, but the Buffalo Bills 1967 year book you have posted on your website here also lists your dad's date of birth as May 8, 1939. Now, it's possible that both of these are incorrect, but we need something which shows he was born in 1938 and not 1939, and it needs to be something other than a WP:PRIMARY source like your website or a personal document. There are newspaper clippings posted on your website listing your father as graduating from high school in 1955. If he was born in May 1939, then that would mean he graduated when he was likely 16 years old, which seems a bit younger than usual but I guess is possible. Are you aware of any old newspaper clippings or books which list your dad's birth year as 1938? If you are, then please add that information to the article's talk page as well. Finally, please read WP:COISELF because you are considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to anything written about your father on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

A project i need help on

Hello, everyone. my name is bill cage. i am a large fan of the cartoon network series regular show, and i am sure there atleast some other fans here. i started trying to write articles for episodes and characters, the only problem is that the show has 261 individual episodes, and i don't if i can do that by myself. so i ask you, will some of you help me in my project, which will involve me and one other person writing articles about characters, and we all pitch in to write for every single episode?Bill cage (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bill cage. I don't think each individual character or episode is notable enough to deserve its own article. Anyway, they are already mentioned on their respective show. Also, tell me what is the show articles you want to work on. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 14:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

i would simply like for at least the main characters to be written about, and if not every individual episode, then at least the most popular episodes.Bill cage (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bill cage: Oh, okay. I just want you to tell me the name of the TV series for clarification. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 15:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Regular show. Bill cage (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Bill cage, you might find interested editors to collaborate with, on relevant WikiProjects. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 15:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That is, Regular Show. Or maybe Who's on First? . —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

no, regular show Bill cage (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Bigg Boss Tamil 3

Hello, Can I edit the page about Bigg Boss Season 3 which is locked ? There are many new details to add to that page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special Editor 2019 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The article is semi protected, requiring users to have 10 edits over 4 days to edit the page. You can either wait until you meet this criteria, or place the Edit semi-protected template on the article's talk page to suggest edits - simply place {{Edit semi-protected}} in a new section, then detail the changes you wish to make. An autoconfirmed user will then either carry out the edits, or detail why they can't be done. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

chef rakesh sethi article and or page is facing challenge in publishing

Please help me to publish renowned chef rakesh sethis article and or page,he is a know celebrity chef. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyparekh36 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sunnyparekh36 and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to read WP:Referencing for beginners which will show you how to convert your references into in-line citations. Each statement should have a specific reference to support it. Dbfirs 08:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

You had been told that the problem with the previous submission was lack of inline citations. You had been given a link to Help:Referencing for beginners. Why, therefore, did you resubmit without having provided inline citations? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The draft Draft:Rakesh Sethi has been nominated for Speedy Deletion for copyright infringement in addition to being highly promotional and not properly referenced. David notMD (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have looked more carefully at past edits, particularly the hijacking of the older Rakesh Sethi page, before assuming good faith? Dbfirs 10:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Request to remove the link "This article needs additional verification..." be removed in the the article "Health in Cameroon"

Dear Senior Editor

I hope this e-mail meets you well.

Please I wish the request stated in the aforementioned subject/headline (Request to remove the link "This article needs additional verification..." be removed in the the article "Health in Cameroon") be effected.

I look forward hearing from you.

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Foncha (talk • contribs) 12:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Robert Foncha, and welcome to the Teahouse. Goodness, that template was there for a long time! When it was added the article looked like this, and just before you started improving it, it looked like this. I would be happy to remove it for you. However, although you have put in a lot of work to improve the article, I'm afraid you have not done a good job with adding your own new references. For example, you have made nine separate factual statements, and have left users floundering with just a homepage url to Institute for Health Metrics (not Matrics!) and Evaluation at http://www.healthdata.org. This is not sufficient to allow anyone else to check statistical information you include. You need to use our readily available 'Cite' templates (available in the editing tool) to give individual web page references, access dates and, when it's a long 200+ page pdf publication, or a big book, a page number or numbers of where those statistics can be found. In another place you write about population numbers, thus: "There has been substantial increase from 2.3 million in 1900 through 4.34, 8.66, 11.7, 15.4, 20.1 millions in the years 1950, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010 respectively.[9]" But reference number nine just goes to Gapminder at https://www.gapminder.org/. You must have got the data from somewhere on that site (unless you made it up, or got it from elsewhere), so please could I ask you to return and improve each of these references to that other users can verify each of the factual statements. I can see that you are an expert in your field, but it is very important to all users of Wikipedia content - from students to other medical practitioners - that they can check for themselves the veracity of all statistical and other information provided. Then it would be fine to remove that template, but not before. I'm sorry about that, but I thank you for your desire to see the page improved. You might like to read WP:REFBEGIN which is a rather complex attempt to help beginners understand how to add references to the best of their ability, or see these help notes that I have drafted. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)    

Trying to communicate with an user

Hi. I had a discussion with an user here, things got a little "complicated" and I decided to write to him to make peace, but he called me "asshole" and told me to "fuck off" without an apparent reason. How should I deal with it? I just wanted to be polite but I don't know how should I behave now. I would be glad if someone could help me. Thanks, Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 18:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Mazewaxie Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I understand what you were trying to do, but sometimes it is better to let things go and move on from them. If it were me I might not have made the last post that you made on their page(which does not justify what they said, just some advice) What the other user said was inappropriate(and I've told the other user that), but they do have the right to request that you not post on their user talk page. If the dispute about article content continues, there are dispute resolution methods available. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: Ok, thanks for helping me out. I wish you a nice day. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 19:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: I'm writing this here because I don't want to potentially worsen the situation. I just saw what he replied and I don't understand why he's acting that way. I mean the most "rude" thing I said to him it's that he was wrong, and when he said he felt attacked for that, I went on to apologize multiple times. I'm really sorry for what is happening, it was not my intention to make him feel that way and I think the accusations he's made are far too excessive. My concern is that since I'm editing The Irishman and I plan on improving it in the next few weeks/months, I'm worried that this thing could continue. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 20:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the issue that user has is. They clearly feel wronged somehow, but I'm not sure why or what is causing them to react as they are. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: I only interacted with him on his talk page and on The Irishman talk page. I don't understand it either but to me it looks like an overreaction. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 20:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyway thanks for trying to mediate. I appreciate it. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 20:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It is a natural reaction to want seen that which is believed wrong to be corrected. Understand that the internet is probably the most anonymous and impersonal means of communicating of people that may best to left to their own selves. There may be underlying unexplained circumstances that play into the situation. Your experience and practice may not be prepared for the reaction. I cannot emphasize this enough. How someone react in public around others may be different and less severe than what someone may in an anonymous setting. This very well may have been what you experienced. Obvious;y, it does not happen all the time to every one but it can happen. It is disturbing because you do not expect it or may think that it is not appropriate but it is out of your control and you may never experience it again (thank god). The reasons the other person reacted as such may never have a plausible explanation or ever been in a state of mind to say that it should not have been done. The best thing it seems is to limit as much as possible your actions in the situation. All you can hope is that the other party is relying on themselves for entertainment and forget about you. If they start to bother you by initiating action toward you without you bringing it on, then by all means bring it to the attention of the WP community. It should not get to that point. I hope this assures you of your well being.2605:E000:9149:8300:48BF:1B93:B5D4:3F0D (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Mazewaxie, Regardless of whether they could have interacted better, I can see where they're coming from. (My reading, sorry for the mind-reading:) You were having a nice cordial discussion which led them to assume an amount of mutual respect incompatible (in their view at least) with the use of the revert button. Not only did you revert them, you left them a message about the revert at their talk page, instead of continuing the discussion you were already having on the article talk (a revert notification on talk page has connotations, not all of them positive). They obviously took it as a personal insult (either the revert alone or revert+user:talk posting). They were still civil enough, and asked for cessation of "edit-warring" and continuing dialog, at that point. Your use of the word "wrong" was seen as an assertion rather than an argument In future, saying "you're wrong" instead of explaining what the problem is and giving reasons for what you want might risk the perception of a personal attack. (in contrast to theirs, where it was a part of an argument). They threw the ball in your court when they wrote: There's still nothing wrong with the way I would have edited it, but if you are determined to revert my future edits on this no matter what then I accept it as a matter of consensus. You had a choice between taking your spoils and forgetting about them or making a gesture:

1. You had gotten them to accept your version, no matter their feelings. This was your victory. You could edit the article exactly as you liked it and forget about them. They had left disappointed from the conversation, so this meant you weren't going to be best buddies going forward, nor did they want any quarrel with you, obviously they couldn't wait to forget about you and that article. Or,
2. You could have said, "I didn't realise at the time that using the revert button would be a big deal. I will never do it again when in the middle of a discussion and propose my objections here instead. How about we restore it to its original before we began, and ask for a third opinion on what would be best?" They might have agreed, or left anyway, you might have gotten your version or have had it rejected in the end, had they agreed to stay. Whatever might have happened, that was the last moment to salvage your relationship with the editor.

You tried to have it both ways. That's why they got annoyed, and it only escalated from there. Whatever gave you the impression that you could reconcile, after your exchange ended disharmonious, the day before, and you hadn't made any concessions despite them clearly indicating that they were only agreeing to your version (more like withdrawing in frustration) because you were " determined to revert [their] future edits (...) no matter what"? Demanding an apology from them, by visiting their talk page was a particularly poor way to go about trying to mend the relationship. Considering that they had clearly withdrawn from the article talk the day before, and wanted nothing more to do with it (they even gave you the last word there), whatever did you really mean by Can you please stop the pointless discussion on The Irishman talk page?, when the last post on that page is by you which hadn't been replied to by them for 27 hours at that point (not that they have since).

Just hoping this helps make sense. Let me know if I missed something. Feel free to redact anything that crosses the line in my mind-readings.

Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 12:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Your explanation makes enough sense to me. However, I asked him to apologize because he started making jokes, like adding a pointless citation template here. I asked to him to apologize only to make peace, and because he got offended from my use of the word "wrong", when he was the first one to use it by saying "I'm right and you're wrong". You wrote that my use of the word "wrong" was seen as an assertion rather than an argument, but I think you could have misread something because I wrote "The way you changed it is wrong because it makes it look like Lumière is a city, when it's not, and you are not specifying the festival names either, so if my "version" is wrong, yours is even worse." I used that word to explain to try to explain myself, not to attack him, but I don't know why he felt that that I used "you're wrong" instead of explaining what the problem was. Also I used the word "wrong" 2 days before my first message on his talk page and I went on to apologize multiple times for that. I understand the fact that he was disappointed from the fact that I got him to accept my version, but my intention was just to clarify the situation, I didn't want to "harass" him, and I don't think I did honestly. Anyway, thanks to your explanation I understood that I shouldn't have continued the discussion. My hope is just that this situation could be resolved, so that we can both (me and him) edit the same article without having to discuss further. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 12:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I meant ""wrong" was seen" as such by them going by the quote, not that it's a fact. Their "LMAO" doesn't matter and could/should be ignored (WP:AGF). The citation needed template is Wikipedia lingo for "it's unlikely enough to just take your word for it (interesting/ extraordinary claim)". Users aren't allowed to edit others' comments on talk/discussion pages, even if not in the middle of a dispute, so they shouldn't have done that. If they had done the same as a reply of their own, that would be fine however, since it's not pointless, but conveys a generally well understood meaning in Wikipedia talk.

The wise words at WP:STICK would be of help here, since its clear it was too early to try what you tried at their talk page and had the opposite effect (they almost definitely saw it as gloating). If you and them both turn out to be good faith editors dedicated to contributing free knowledge for all, you will have future opportunities where you'll find yourselves on the same side of a dispute (one might even have reason to come to the rescue of another) and this will all be water under the bridge, a sort of an overreaction in the past to look back at and laugh about. So, do not worry about it any further. Just drop the stick for now, and hope for the best. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 15:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Thanks for giving me a third person perspective on the matter. I really appreciate what you suggested and I will do as WP:STICK says. Thanks again and I wish you a nice day :) --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Strange link(s)

While researching Teck Resources (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teck_Resources&diff=next&oldid=914472351), I found a strange link - footnote 11, which I undid

Out of curiosity, I looked at some of the other links and found one that has apparently been there since 2007. Footnote 16 link leads to an escort service webpage.

"Red Dog top toxic polluter". Siku News. 2007-03-31. Retrieved 2007-12-31 goes to http://www.sikunews.com/?artid=2873&catid=3

I am an occasional editor at best and I don't know what to do with this. Should I delete the link? Siku News doesn't keep article for that length of time.

Should I leave it alone - do nothing? Does not seem like a good option.

My personal preference is to let somebody more experienced deal with it. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilvrHairDevil (talk • contribs) 16:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Working on it ... —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I did: Special:Diff/917189339. The first change (the Globe and Mail cite about the merger) was correct – I just expanded the original some. The second change just had the "wrong" title (it actually came from the last heading on the page). The last change was weird – probably a bug at the Sun's site – redirecting to a totally different article. That happened unintentionally when Scatterjoel expanded the cite in June. I updated it to use the archive.org snapshot from 2012. I'm changing the inconsistent dates next... —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@SilvrHairDevil: I spent some time rescuing some more cites from archives and updated the infobox from the 2018 annual report, which I cited. A couple of the sources are dead and there was no archive snapshot, so new sources should be found. The article text could use some updating from the annual report and progress on things like the pollution lawsuit. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Appropriate way to warn user replacing sourced content with original research?

User:Notfakenews63 has three times now replaced referenced content in article Air Ambulance Northern Ireland with original research. What is an appropriate template to place on a user's talk page to warn about such behaviour? It sort of is vandalism, but I'm not experienced enough to know. Advise here for me and perhaps additional advice placed on that user's talk page might be useful. Thanks in advance. --2A00:23C6:FA02:EC00:F84A:9707:1890:C775 (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I would start with {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}, moving up the numbers if it continues. (the full list is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you --2A00:23C6:FA02:EC00:F84A:9707:1890:C775 (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The templates {{Uw-nor1}}, {{Uw-nor2}}, {{Uw-nor3}} and {{Uw-nor4}} are specific to this situation too. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Ajax draft

Ajax draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by REDMAN 2019 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Herllo, REDMAN 2019, welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia that we can help with? (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm sorry to ask this but. could somebody please review my draft? it is the 1971-72 AFC Ajax season and it has been "pending" for nearly 11 weeks I know that some have been waiting longer but I would really appreciate it if someone reviewed it.

REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2019 (GMT)

I notice that, since the draft was declined for lack of sources, you have added just one source (worldfootball.net). I don't know whether this will be considered adequate, but it might be a good idea to add other WP:Reliable sources before the draft come to its second review. Dbfirs 11:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do that REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2019 (GMT)

Thanks for the info Dbfirs I have added several sources and another reference. hopefully the draft will be accepted this time! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2019 (GMT)

I'm not a reveiwer, but I hope your draft will be accepted this time. As I expect you know, there is a long backlog of drafts awaiting review, and any volunteer looking at a draft once declined for lack of references will look for good references that have been added since the last review. Dbfirs 11:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

AfC review says eight weeks, but almost a third have been awaiting a review longer than that, a few as much as five months. David notMD (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

You still have time to read WP:Referencing for beginners, and to make all the references in-line. Should "Retiard" be "retired"? It doesn't say in the reference. You might change "there" to "their" in a couple of places. Reveiwers might decline a badly-written article. Dbfirs 18:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

A Study in Afrikaans about Opera Librettos

I am busy with a study (it is written in Afrikaans) about the phenomena of intertextuality and intermediality as illustrated in the opera librettos and a few important arias. I was wondering if you would be interested. Dr Anna-Marie le Roux, Windhoek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.182.79.173 (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Dr Anna-Marie le Roux! It's not clear what you mean; interested in what exactly? This is a place for new editors to seek help with problems they come across while trying to edit Wikipedia. Are you interested in adding results of the study to any of our articles? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi 41.182.79.173 and welcome to the Teahouse. You might like to read WP:Original research for guidance. When you have published your study in a WP:Reliable source it might make a good source. Dbfirs 19:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I need help

Hello guys, I need help develop one article. I'm trying update all the information in Loukas Yorkas article and every time I make an edit is undone or reverted. Theere many wrong links etc things on the article and some have to delete or update to the right one. At first I move the article to Loukas Yorkas from Loukas Giorkas because this is the correct name and I want to delete Loukas Giorkas article. Can you help me?Theodorosyiorkas (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodorosyiorkas (talk • contribs)

@Theodorosyiorkas: Because you have stated that you are a relative of Loukas Yorkas [1], you have a conflict of interest and should not edit the article directly. Please don't repeatedly re-add the material to the article after you've been told that it's inappropriate. Such behaviour is called edit warring; it is considered disruptive and can lead to sanctions. Instead, please suggest edits on the article talk page (Talk:Loukas Yorkas) and back them up with links to reliable sources.

The content of an article is not owned or controlled by the article's subject or anyone else who represents them. Wikipedia is not interested in what a person wants to say about themselves or how they wish to be portrayed. Article content is a neutrally worded, paraphrased summary of what independent writers have chosen to publish about them. If there is disagreement about content, a discussion should be started on the article's talk page, where you and other editors should try to arrive at a consensus. If that fails, there are other mechanisms available to resolve disputes. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Any search on Loukas Giorkas is now redirected to Loukas Yorkas. David notMD (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

AccessDate

If I visit an old external link on a page, is it better to leave the |accessdate= alone in the citation so we can see how long it's been there, or should I update it to show that it's still valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canute (talk • contribs) 2019-09-23T21:39:04 (UTC)

Hello, Canute. Good question. I would say: if you are willing to take the time to check that the link still works and still verifies the information for which it is cited, then it is well worth updating the accessdate. If you are not willing to make that check, then leave it. If the link is valid, but no longer verifies the information, then see LINKROT for what to do. --ColinFine (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Walewijn ( Walewyn ) van der Veen

Hi could someone have a look at the article I have created? Walewijn ( Walewyn ) van der Veen. It was declined and I wonder if some of you have a few suggestions. I have in the meantime made a few changes.

Thanks!

Gabby 20:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Walewijn van der Veen.   Maproom (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Help - protecting a page

Hello, I am looking for assistance in protecting a page. I represent a Grammy Award-winning singer-songwriter who has recently passed away in a fatal car accident. His family would like to protect his page from future edits for people outside his family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojo Pada (talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jojo Pada: You need to declare your conflict of interest, which I will leave further instructions on on your user talk page. Sorry for your loss, but individuals do not own articles here, the community does. It is not "his" page, it is the community's page about him.

Also, our conflict of interest guidelines rather require that the page be edited by people outside his family (and employment). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jojo Pada: We are sorry to learn of your loss. Media coverage of the death of notable people obviously attracts a lot of newspaper coverage, as in the recent case of LaShawn Daniels, who I suspect you may well be referring to. That reporting is often then used by editors here to add content to Wikipedia. Now, if it appears that malicious and unsubstantiated/unverifiable content has been added to an article about such a person, then it is OK for anyone - including you - to delete it immediately, per our policy about biographies of living or recently deceased persons. But only if it is clearly maliciously false and not supported by any reliable, published source (such as quality news outlets or books/magazines). Plain and simple censorship by anyone connected with that person just because they don't like seeing a well-cited story emerging in the press is not acceptable, I'm afraid, as has been suggested above.

However, you may be assured that many people monitor these pages and swiftly remove obviously false or bad faith edits. If they don't, then please come back and tell us. We even have a special place to report issues relating to articles about living and recently deceased persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard), should there be an issue that can't be simply resolved. More commonly, we do temporarily protect articles if they come under sustained vandalism by multiple people, though we never do this preemptively, or if only one user is causing problems. Then we simply block them from editing completely! We do have other mechanisms I won't bore you with. I hope this gives you and their family, some reassurance that Wikipedians here take very seriously any interference with articles, especially of living or recently deceased persons, and always want to protect their interests if unsubstantiated content is inserted without good cause.

It might be worth me taking the opportunity to mention that there is potentially an opportunity for a friend, family member or, indeed, business colleague to upload a photograph of that person, should their article not have a photo of them already. It would need to be a photo that they, as photographer, personally own the rights to, and are wiling and able to freely release into the public domain, but this can sometimes be one way that someone close to a deceased person with a page about them on Wikipedia can help provide a suitable image which may forever be a part of that independent memorial to their legacy of achievements. We can offer advice on how that is best done, should you ever require assistance. I do hope I have not spoken insensitively on this matter. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)  

Inappropriate Categories?

I've started to notice many pages with categories which are suspicious. I could not find any official statements about the appropriateness of categorization. Do we not care? Several instances where categories are essentially stating things about a person or subject which are:

• Not contained in the article text
• not supported by article sources
• introduce non-neutral, biased, and controversial elements to an article

Essentially people are using categories to label articles in a dishonest or manipulative manner - unsupported by the text. Could someone please direct me to guiding policy here? Or let me off the hook and I'll just try to ignore the cats. Thanks!

(This is simultaneously posted the the support desk (and was vandalized-yay))--Luke Kindred (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The short summary is at Wikipedia:Categorization dos and don'ts. You've described Don't add pages to non-neutral or unverifiable categories, so I'd remove them in the circumstances. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much! This is exactly what I was missing and now I see that I have a pile of mis-categorization to clean up woohoo (I like work) --Luke Kindred (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Purple prose

On my Edit pages, much of the type has turned purple. How do I turn it back to the way it was before? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi BeenAroundAWhile. I replied at Wikipedia:Help desk#Weird purple type. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Sharing of facts available but not included

Preface:I am an incident investigator and HSE Systems Lead in the Oil & Gas Industry. As such, I spend considerable time and effort taking second (or third) looks at "disasters" (not always the word we use because of its pejorative connotations) in various industries - O&G and otherwise. Often we find that what happened and how it happened are not accurately reported in the media - which is where much of the citations in Wikipedia come from, especially with regard to industry disasters.

Question: Is discussing the facts discovered in these post-investigation reviews and how these should be cited best held on the talk page of an event's wiki? GrantAdamCole (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, GrantAdamCole, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, an article's talk page is the best place to discuss this (please don't refer to an article as a "wiki": The whole of Wikipedia is one of the many thousands of wikis on the internet!). However, please have a look at the core principle of verifiability. Wikipedia is consciously and intentionally based on reliably published information: unpublished information has no place in it. Unfortunately this does sometimes mean that somebody knows that information in an article is inaccurate, but cannot get it changed because that's what the reliable sources say. In order to challenge such information, you would have to get the different information published by a reputable publisher - and even then, it would be up to a consensus of editors to decide how to handle the disagreement between sources. Often the best you could do would be for the article to say that sources A, B, and C say XYZ while source D says PQR. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Howdy ColinFine, You shared some specific information with me. I found it most helpful. You have my gratitude. I read and re-read verifiability and reliable source. I think that these articles - apologies for using the common vernacular of wiki initially - answered my question in full. Your last sentence regarding compare/contrast was also a salient and useful piece of information. I shall trudge onto the breach armed with these tidbits. --GrantAdamCole (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi GrantAdamCole. It's not really Wikipedia's purpose to correct content reported by the media (see WP:RGW), but it can cover retractions or corrections made by media about events such as a "disaster". Wikipedia isn't really intended to be up-to-the minute like news which is why editors are generally encouraged to wait a bit until the dust somewhat settles before creating articles about certain things (see WP:RECENTISM). However, when something happens and there's a fair amount of significant coverage about it, some editors want to get it on Wikipedia asap. This isn't necessarily a bad thing per se because a Wikipedia article is always pretty much a work-in-progress and issues generally get sorted out when there are a number of editors working on a "hot topic". It's also likely that new information will be made available after much more time has passed which can be used to "correct" things originally added. Basically, it's going to depend upon whether you're going to be able to provide reliable secondary sources in support of the changes you wish to make that are not WP:UNDUE. If you're simple going to rely on your personal knowledge of events or what "official" investigative reports have to say, then you're probably going to have a bit of hard time per WP:NOR,WP:PRIMARY and WP:VNT. Finally, even if the "real" cause of a "disaster" was subsequently reported upon by reliable sources at a later date, removal of the older "incorrect" content might not be as preferred as tweaking it in some way to which not only incorporates the new content but also shows that mistakes in determining the cause were initially made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Howdy Marchjuly, perhaps I was not clear in expressing intent. There is very little that is up-to-the-minute about the information our investigations and investigation reviews reveal. We are normally conducting these 5-7 years after a fact. For example, Captain Francesco Schettino of the Costa Concordia is thought to have left 300 passengers on board the vessel when he pre-maturely departed it. This is a verifiably inaccurate statement for many reasons. When Schettino departed the Costa Concordia, he was the only person left on the starboard evacuation deck (verified by CCTV video of the evac deck) and he only departed the vessel because the last lifeboat which had been overloaded with ~300 passengers was stuck between the Costa Concordia - which had listed 55 degrees to starboard by that time - and the lifeboat davits. Schettino identified these hazards and notified the Italian Coast Guard that he was leaving the Concordia b/c there were 300 passengers stuck in a lifeboat that was in danger of being crushed by the Concordia. This fact is why he only got one year in prison for abandoning ship before all passengers were evac'd. After this occurred, Italian Coast Guard and Army helicopters only recorded removing 87 more passengers from the port evac deck, to include the first mate and engineer who were on the port side evacuating personnel on the Schettino's orders. The intention is to obtain the proper citation information for the documents and videos that contain this information. The question was if the talk page of an article the proper place to discuss theses issues and present citations before editing the article and figuratively pissing in the Wheaties of the editors who worked hard to enter the information currently in an article. --GrantAdamCole (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

If the findings of any subsequent investigation were things covered by secondary reliable sources, then it should be OK to update the relevant article's to reflect such information. Whether that means that older information should be removed, however, isn't so clear and it might be possible to incorporate both the old and new. However, if you simply want to update the information based upon primary sources such as investigative reports or other documentation, even official stuff, then care probably needs to be taken. Editors are not really supposed to be adding their own interpretations to sources cited in the article and presenting such content in Wikipedia's voice per WP:NOR and WP:SYS; moreover, primary sources can be somewhat tricky to use, particularly when it involves claims about living persons per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS. Even what you posted above about the ship's captain might seem a bit suspect per WP:BLP unless it's what secondary reliable sources are reporting. For reference, WP:BLP applies to all Wikipedia pages, including talk pages and noticeboads. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason the vandalism warning tag should have a level one setting?

Vandals, by definition know what they are doing is wrong and having a 'kid-glove' warning level just seems sort of pointless. HalfShadow 20:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@HalfShadow: Level 1 warning is usually for new editors, for "unconstructive" edits, to help get them on the right path. You don't need to start at level 1. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism for options for responding. RudolfRed (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Oh no, I always start with level two, it just seems under the circumstances a level one warning is just ... there. I can't think of anyone who ever uses it. Even the bots don't. HalfShadow 21:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey HalfShadow. I mostly use level one warnings for...well...users who are fairly obviously children, and I mean that literally. Inserting "Hi Wikipedia!" into an article probably deserves a level one. They're probably kids, and they're probably just testing to see if they can really edit. We don't really want to scare them away. We actually kindof want them to stay and figure out how to contribute productively, but we don't want them to keep doing what they're doing. GMG^talk 23:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@HalfShadow: I agree with GreenMeansGo and I, for one, always start with a level 1 warning for the same reason. Put simply: that's where they should normally start. So add me to your list of people you might think of who do use Level 1 warnings! And you should probably also add Clue Bot NG, too, to your list. Just look at its last 500 edits - 200 of of which were Level 1 warnings! So your statement about bots was quite wrong. As I generally feel no need to be unnecessarily obnoxious to other people from the off, I normally only start with a level two warning if an editor is particularly nasty or clearly offensive and has involved some thought and intent in their vandalism, or made multiple successive bad edits in a short space of time. Most vandals are just silly children or immature teenagers, maybe testing out whether they can change stuff about their school or hated football team. Us acting like storm-troopers towards them right from the start seems unnecessarily harsh and genuinely offputting, and may just serve to encourage them more in their bad ways. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

How can I get the status of an article I published?

After publishing an article about Cassie Premo Steele today I noticed that the article appears to be live on Wikipedia. However, I did not receive a notice saying that the article was being reviewed by editors. Can you provide information on the status of the article? Thank you. ITLRosanna (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Cassie Premo Steele is one of over 5000 articles awaiting review by WP:NPP, which means that it is currently NOINDEXed and not visible in search engines such as Google, but it is indeed a live article in Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting - I had a completely different answer! I tried to say: Welcome to the Teahouse, ITLRosanna. If you visit Cassie premio steele, you will see that you placed a deletion request on the article. At the time of this reply, it has not yet been deleted, but may be very soon. At a quick glance, it looks like you did not submit it to Articles for Creation, but created it directly into mainspace. As you've requested deletion as the sole editor of the new page, it won't get anyone reviewing it, or 'new page patrolling' it. But you should get a notification when it has been deleted. I then realised you'd made two articles with very similar names! I'm glad David beat me to a reply. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to add a reference and keep getting the error that <ref> has too many names

This is the page where I've been trying to edit a birth date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Clark_Davis#Personal_history Roland Clark Davis, according to the City of Cambridge Registered Births was born on 30 Dec, not 20 Dec. This is the reference "Massachusetts Births, 1841-1915," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FXHJ-3BT : 10 March 2018), Robert Clark Davis, 30 Dec 1902, Cambridge, Massachusetts; citing reference ID #p345 ln1376, Massachusetts Archives, Boston; FHL microfilm 2,057,388. Whatever I'm doing, I'm doing it wrong. I've read the directions, and just don't understand what I'm doing wrong. Thank you for any help you might be able to give. 47.151.179.232 (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Tricia

I have fixed the message for now. see what has changed. The error was that it must be <ref name="someName">content</ref>, not <ref name="someName" content</ref>. I've filed the ref with the content you gave Above. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Schmidt mobil (talk • contribs) 05:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Editor Only Information

How can I give information to editors only with this coding (I don't know the exact so here's the known one to me) -

I also need a page to be semi-protected so help me in that too.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaryangupta23 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't really understand your first question, but a page is protected only where absolutely necessary - there would have to be a significant amount of disruption to warrant protection. I can't say if it is appropriate without seeing the article in question, but if you think it is then you can ask for page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec)Aaryangupta23, see MOS:COMMENT for details on editor-only comments. Follow instructions at WP:RFPP to request protection for a page. Cheers!
P.S. I edited your post to make it fully visible, hope you don't mind. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Aaryangupta23 If you wish to amend or clarify your question, please ask a follow up question in this same section instead of removing your question and its reply. Questions are kept for the benefit of all, including other new users who might have the same question. Regarding your first question, there is no way to communicate with 'editors only'; any user of Wikipedia can see any question or comment. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Protection on Page

I need a page to be semi-protected so help me in that. The page is regularly experiencing vandalism and want that to be protected.

Page Name - Doraemon in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaryangupta23 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Two replies to your original question explained that the place to request protection is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Is there something about those replies which you don't understand? It isn't obvious that there has been regular vandalism at Doraemon in India so you would need to give evidence. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Replies are understandable...Thank You! Aaryangupta23 (talk) 08:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Correction of page about All Aboard, John Denver's last page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Aboard!_(John_Denver_album)

Apologies for not creating an account - looking at all the talk here means that I don't think I have any hope of editing a page succesfully.

On the page in question several references ar mad, but none of them show the track listing as it appears in the article. Track 1 should be Jenny Dreamed Of Trains. The listed track 1 is actually track two, and all others move down one. The final (15th) track is Jessie Dreamed Of Trains (and is a bonus track.) This can be verified at the Discogs reference , the Amazon link . The World cat link has the first 14 correct but misses track 15. Regards 203.219.44.129 (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)PeterB

References

There can be multiple editions of an album, with variation in which songs appear and in what order. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

How to add references to information provided by me

How I can add references to paragraph written by me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kundan Ravindra Dhayade (talk • contribs) 10:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Kundan Ravindra Dhayade and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm glad you recognise the importance of adding references to support all content that you might add. We have what is meant to be a helpful page for beginners called Help:Referencing for beginners (or shortcut: WP:REFBEGIN). I find this a little confusingly written, so you may wish to read these notes of mine about how to use the 'Cite' button in the editing tool you're using. You add the reference right after the factual statement you've added (i.e. 'inline), and these citations almost magically appear in the References section at the bottom of the page. You don't actually add the references to the bottom of the page. Let us know how you get on. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

clarification

am new to wikipedia and i have been hearing about wikipedia monuments but has no idea as to what it is. there is also one of them which is wikipedia commons. can someone please explain to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fibrinogen Gh (talk • contribs) 10:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fibrinogen Gh and welcome to the Teahouse. You might like to read Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Monuments and Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons. Ask again here if these links don't answer your questions. Dbfirs 10:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Re Paul kelly afl player for sydney swans,

Paul Kelly (Australian rules footballer)

In the general text his place of birth is recorded as wagga wagga, however in his summary box his place of birth is recoprded as west wyalong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiejack57delly (talk • contribs) 10:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Katiejack57delly. Good spot! West Wyalong was added in 2011, without any citation, in this edit. Wagga wagga had been cited as his birthplace since the beginning. Assuming these two place are completely different, I suggest you remove the location given in the infobox and replace it with Wagga Wagga, and give a brief explanatory edit summary why you're doing that. But it's first probably well worth doing a bit of online research to look for other biographical sources to help you determine correct information. If in doubt, just leave your concerns on the article's Talk page for other editors to address. Hoping this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for inviting me to the the teahouse. What can i do to help wikipedia?

Thanks for wanting to help, you can do whatever piques your interest! There are articles that need updating, typos that need fixing, just about anything you can think of. Start by checking out the tutorial and online interactive learning game at WP:TUTORIAL and WP:ADVENTURE. If you have any questions, come on back and ask away. RudolfRed (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Aside from what User talk:RudolfRed posted above, I also suggest that you do some minor changes or copyediting first. That is how I started. Back then, I was not yet familiar with the interface, format, style, and referencing requirements, among others. Doing small changes will not only allow you to start improving articles with less chance of making mistakes but also help you get a feel of how things are done. You can take a look at these pages needing copy edit. Good luck! Darwin Naz (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia - Need help

The only thing I've used Wikipedia for is to edit things.

I now need to enter citations and change the photograph but I really don't have a clue as every time I try the help part, it sends me all over the place and then it's not a need.

Is there an easier guide on how to attach citations and photographs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapper1 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Allow me: User:Yunshui/References for beginners, User:Yunshui/Images for beginners. Simplified versions of the simplified versions... Yunshui ^雲_水 12:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)