Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1021

Archive 1015

←

Archive 1019

Archive 1020

Archive 1021

Archive 1022

Archive 1023

→

Archive 1025

Are my sources too "hidden" as inline citations? + 2nd Q.

Hello, friends,

I'm navigating my first submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:1MedTech1/sandbox) about an author, academic and entrepreneur and have two questions.

1 -- I included several citations (TV profiles, news releases from various organizations that awarded the subject high-profile prizes, links to books he has published) and wonder if, because these did not appear in footnotes, they hurt the article's chances of acceptance.

2 -- Also, because the subject is a renowned expert in his field, I included a long list of academic citations simply to prove my claim that he has published more than 170 peer-reviewed papers, dozens of book chapters and the like. Is it preferable to make the claims without providing evidence, since adding the bibliography draws attention to the number of self-referencing citations?

Many thanks for your thoughts and expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1MedTech1 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Understand the purpose of footnotes: so that others can directly review what the article asserts. The more direct people can get to your sources the better that others can move further in that area of knowledge. If you want to thwart knowledge, cite that you found it in book "X". Who in their right mind is going to read through a whole book to verify what someone said. There use to be a time when that type of "footnote" was acceptable. But we all do not have the time to use up our time to verify what it took so much time to establish. And quantity does not automatically make someone significant for WP. WP is not what People magazine fulfills. WP is not a Who's Who of "X". An extensive list of writings doers not maker a person notable according to WP standards. Work realized through and supported only by self promotion is suspect.

Now understand that WP is not merely to post that Person "X" exists and they have done "X" work and accomplishments. WP wants people of significance to be shown by how others view that person's value to the world. A person can do great things but those great things have to be substantiated as great by others otherwise someone can explore and write on a subject that is very narrow and nothing beyond that work results from that work. WP sets that inclusion in WP is based on universally credible sources saying that the work is significant. Someone can make and understand what makes a great meatloaf but if all that the story is the person has created a great meatloaf is not enough for inclusion in WP. But if others (organizations, etc) say what others of stature have said that this meatloaf changed the world in these additional ways then it might be then this article just might be more qualified to be included in WP than if it did not encompass this.2605:E000:9149:8300:5122:9DB4:82AC:5FE2 (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @1MedTech1: You put a lot of time into this, but there are numerous formatting and syntax issues. More importantly, you should have first focused on identifying media coverage of Dr. Davidson. I can only find this [[1]], which might be a press release. Based on media coverage, he fails notability WP:GNG. Alternatively, there are also academic notability guidelines that you should read: Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria. I'm not an academic, but it seems the best chance you have is to show that he has had a big impact in his field, not just that he has written and published numerous papers. I'm pinging another editor DGG, who has a lot of experience studying how much someone's work has been cited by others in their field, as a measure of notability. (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.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I deleted all mention of his publications except books. Wikipedia's concept of notability is based on what people have published about the person, not what the person has written. Obviously, exceptions - authors get books listed, musicians get albums listed, actors get movies listed, but articles on academics do not list their journal articles. David notMD (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly--if notability is under the usual provision of WP:PROF for influence in their field, for academics and other researchers in the humanities and related fields, books are what matter; for scientific researchers, it is peer-reviewed periodical article-- books in these fields are usually but not always secondary.

In this particular instance, his primary notability is as a biomedical researcher, and this depends on his peer-reviewed articles. The usual way of handling this is to not include all his articles, but his 4 or 5 most cited, together with the citation numbers from Google Scholar of Scopus or WoS. In biomedicine, the usual level (not necessarily my personal level, but the usual consensus at AfD) is at least 1 but preferably 2 or more articles in major journals with 100 or more citations to each. For notability under this procedure of WP:Prof, it is not necessary to have secondary sources for notability , just RS that the criteria are met (which is best shown by the publication & citation data from GS etc) , and RS for the basic biographic data (the university site is a sufficiently RS for that). He has written books--the books are in the nature of major textbooks in his field, and books in his field for a lay audience. They would probably be enough to show him notable under WP:PROF as a writer of major textbooks, and possible under WP:AUTHOR for his works for his general audience. To show either, appropriate citations to secondary sources for those points are needed, but should be easy enough. Andthere is one key facor, which is by itself a qualification under WP:PROF--editor in chief of a major journal. He also has other activities, to some extent he might conceivably be notable as a public figure, or as an entrepreneur. These require the usual RS for notability. But even if he is not notable for this, they could still be acceptable content.

The problems with the article that probably attracted attention are some of those characteristic of COI articles. (1) The inclusion of minor maters such as minor awards and charities. (2) A somewhat personal writing style. (3) the inclusion of his commercial enterprise. In the past, it has sometimes been the case that the impetus for an article is the start of a commercial enterprise.

It does need rewriting to match our style.

There is a question to what extent we should as volunteers rewrite articles on notable people written by coi editors, especially paid editors. (There's a rather strong feeling, which I share, on being reluctant to do work for which other people are being paid. Since I in the past did sometimes get paid for writing elsewhere, I feel this all the more strongly. I work here as a volunteer, with the intent of helping other volunteers. ) It's of course open to any one individual editor here to choose to do this or not. Myself, I will do this in two cases (a)to the extent I can, subjects in my primary fields of interest that I think unquestionably notable--especially subfields that I think are under-covered, such as academics in the humanities. (b) Sometimes, any other article that really fills a serious gap in our coverage where I have the necessary competence. But I will not do it if the coi editor is uncooperative, and especially if they insist on including promotional material. And I will almost never do it for an undeclared paid editor who refuses to fully declare.

For this particular article, I shall first, move it to draft space; second, accept it, and third , fix it.

Thee have been far too many notable WP:PROF bios declined at AfC because they do not meet the GNG. WP:PROF does not depend on the GNG. It's one of our few rational criteria--criteria that have some direct relationship to the real world meaning of "notability" . At WP:AfD, people who understand will defend them, but at AfC they are insufficiently visible DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Friends, thank you for your thoughtful responses.

To the editor who kindly offered to improve the draft: You'll find some citations hidden in live URLs within the copy. I will be glad to assist in moving these to numbered footnotes if that would help.

It's valuable to learn that citation of a published paper by at least 100 other papers can help validate a researcher's standing in the field. (The number of citations for the subject's top five articles ranges from 3898 to 915.)

Also, please note that the charities mentioned are not minor ones. In particular, the one founded by the subject grew to the largest free clinic in California.

Thank you, everyone, for your feedback and help. I am very grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1MedTech1 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Just want to point out an error. (Can't figure out editing.)

Is this where I'm supposed to write?

I happened, in looking up an anatomical term, to peruse a Wiki article called "Anatomical Terms of Location". I noticed a minor error and wanted to correct it, but I am from the 1950s (b.'46) and only have a PhD, so I can't understand the editing instructions. Learning computerese continues to be gruelling (Canadian spelling) and I have other things to do, so I thought maybe I could just point out what I believe to be an error in the hope that some computer-/Wiki-literate person could correct it.

In the second illustration in this article a 4-legged animal is referred to as a "quadriped", and although I was certain it should have been "quadruped", I did my due diligence or whatever you call it and consulted numerous dictionaries of high repute: this endeavour supported my strong suspicion that there is no such word as "quadriped". Thass all, folks. Thanks for whatever you can do to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyroob (talk • contribs) 03:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zephyroob. You can be WP:BOLD and correct the error yourself. You can also be WP:CAUTIOUS and point out the error on the article's talk page and see what others think. You don't need to be an WP:EXPERT in order to edit the article, but you should at least make sure to leave an edit summary explaining why you made the change if you do decide to be BOLD. This will let others know why you're making the change. If, by chance, another editor disagrees with the change and WP:REVERTs it, just follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and discuss things on the article talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zephyroob, and welcome to the Teahouse. The error is in the illustration, not in the text. Latin is a different language, but the only example I can find of the spelling to which you object is in an ancient document where it might be a misprint. Wikitionary does have an entry for wikt:quadripedal, perhaps because a few modern authors mis-use the word, but it seems to be a very marginal variant. We need to contact the uploader of the image, or change it ourselves. Thank you for pointing out the error. Dbfirs 07:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

... later note ... The illustration was from a text book by Tom (LT) who is a prolific expert editor here and who has kindly contributed the illustrations from his own book. Thus I was hesitant to make any changes, and I hope I haven't offended him by uploading a temporary modification of the image. I am quite happy if he deletes my version and updates to the modern standard spelling himself. Dbfirs 07:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the wonderful compliments! I just want to clarify @Dbfirs, I haven't written any books and therefore would be happy whatever happens here :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you not upload the pictures from a text book claiming own work? Perhaps the text book is an old one and out of copyright? That would explain the strange spelling. Dbfirs 06:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how Tom (L.T.) got brought into this. I don't see his name as a contributor to that image. It is from an OpenStax text book and is quite new. But any source can have occasional typos. --Khajidha (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that's what it says now. I'm baffled! Anyway, all's well now. Dbfirs 06:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I need advice (suitable place) for editing a template

I want to find a better place about whether doing some changes in Template:Aristocratic family trees. The talk page of it seldom has new discussions, so I want to seek a better place - is this Teahouse too general to get such advice? (I know English, but I don't know how to seek help in English wiki, other than editing articles...) - George6VI (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi George6VI. The best place to discuss a page is generally on it's corresponding talk page. It makes it easier for others to participate in the discussion and easier for other to find a record of the discussion later on if necessary. What you can do is start a discussion on the template's talk page and then use a template like Template:Please see to let others (for example relevant WikiProjects) know about the discussion. I've added two WikiProject banners to the talk page of that particular template which seem relevant, but some of the talk pages of articles where the template is being used most likely would be a good place to check for other WikiProjects. There's no way of knowing how much of a response you'll get, but it doesn't hurt to try.

Another possibility would be for you to just be WP:BOLD and change the template yourself; you just need to make sure that you don't accidentally damage the syntax or cause other problems when you do. Many templates are protected because they are used so widely and a single change/mistake can suddenly cause problems on lots of pages; this template, however, is not protected and can be edited. If, by chance, you create a problem by changing something, you can always go back and self-revert. At the same time, if you make a change that someone else reverts, you can then follow WP:BRD and discuss things on the template's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Span calls

I get calls area code 597 with differents numbers, how to block calls from this code — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F25B:FE00:1558:1A61:517F:EA95 (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This page is for asking questions about using Wikipedia. You will need to talk to your phone company about how to block calls. RudolfRed (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

But you might like to note that calls don't necessarily come from where they appear to come from. See our article Caller ID spoofing. --ColinFine (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

my first article - a bibliography

Hi!!

Nice to meet you (o: I am so happy to become a member of wikipedia! I am hoping to post an article which lists recent publications in the newer academic approach to communication called integrationism (integrational linguistics). There is already an article on integrationism on wiki (I did not author it). I have made a provisory list as a draft article but wondering if I can submit the draft before I enter more references, so that I can get feedback on the idea and layout of the draft? Would that be ok?

Integrationism is a scholarly approach to communication and language that has widespread consequences to diverse fields of inquiry. Integrationism centrally states that signs are not readymades, but are made in situations by living beings with a purpose. This entails fx that language and other cultural products of communication can not be regarded as codes, but as symptoms and possibly artifacts in a different process than hitherto thought. The claim has profound implications for fields such as linguistics, semiotics, philosophy, logic etc. For this reason it would be good to have a public bibliography as globally available as possible.

Kind regards, Charlotte Conrad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotteconrad (talk • contribs) 12:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Without references a draft would be certain to be declined if you were to submit it. If the "Sources" column in Draft:Integrationism - A Bibliography is intended to contain references, you need to read Help:Referencing for beginners. Although not an AFC reviewer myself, my suspicion is that even if properly referenced there might well be a question as to whether this should be a separate article or whether it would more reasonably be a section in the existing article. It would probably make sense to raise the question on the talk page of the existing article, and in your question you could point readers at your draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

RETIRED-ALS

I’m no longer editing, per notice on my page --GeeBee60 (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, GeeBee60. Thank you for you message about retiring from Wikipedia editing. I visited your userpage, which forms a lovely summary of your life, interests and achievements here. I am sorry to learn of your declining health which has forced this situation upon you. It cannot be easy for you, in so many ways, and you have my best wishes. Since you joined us in 2013, you have made over 1,700 edits. So, whilst I can't really speak on behalf of anyone else, I would nevertheless like to offer a big 'thank you' from Wikipedia, its community of editors and all of its users around the world for your contributions that have helped this encyclopaedia continue to grow and become such an amazing, free resource of knowledge. With the kindest of regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Is my article/pagein the process of being reviewed

I submitted a page for review on 9.11.2019, and it's still coming up as Draft/Talk: Jeffery C. Becton. Would someone please give me an update, or guidance on how/when it might go live? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSDRUID (talk • contribs) 16:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Jeffery C. Becton has not yet been submitted for review. When you are ready to submit it, you can use the button that says: "Submit your draft for review!". --David Biddulph (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@MSDRUID: I strongly suggest you not submit the article yet. It needs to be fleshed out with more sourcing and the info should be separated into sections. Include links to the references if you have them. Once you are rejected, it will be harder to get it approved later. Take a look at WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE and integrate info from these sources: [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] (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.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Also read Help:Referencing for beginners TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Editta Braun ‎

Hi, my article Draft:Editta Braun has been declined. How can I prove the notability of a living artist? I added many sources (press articles, texts in books) and I could add much more, but I am not sure what is necessary Lagardet (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Lagardet, the draft was declined because of the quality of the sources cited, not the quantity. Please DO NOT add "much more". Try to find a few good independent articles that discuss the subject, add those, and consider removing many of the sources which Theroadislong considered inadequate. (I can't tell you why they were considered inadequate, I know very little German.) Maproom (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Maproom. This helps.Lagardet (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Disagreements on political contents

To whomever can help with this, I was trying to edit a the Wikipedia page about the 2019 Italian political crisis because the existing depicted things from the perspectives of an outsider that did not take into consideration actual events happening in Italy at that time; however, my edit was reverted because (and I have no objections here) from one (Italian source) only. The user who reverted it did it on the pretence it was right-wing polarized. I am not here to do politics, because this is an encyclopedia, but the contents of the reverted version are considerably left-wing socialist.

My question is how can an agreement be reached so that the contents of the page actually mirror the events in Italy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giulioseal (talk • contribs) 19:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Giulioseal: Welcome to Wikipedia. Discuss it on the article's talk page. If you can't reach consensus, follow the guidance at WP:DR. RudolfRed (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Need assistance uploading a licensed picture of Amy J Berg on her Wiki Page

Hello Wiki World,

I am a coding illiterate assistant who is trying to upload my boss Amy J Berg's picture on her wiki page. Can anyone help with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1405:C200:F40E:465C:6C8:3B73 (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Quick question: Did you take the photo yourself? i.e. Do you own the images rights, or does somebody else? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to take the photograph yourself, then you can release copyright under the appropriate licence. See Commons:Contributing your own work. Please note that a publicity picture taken by an agency might be copyright and not eligible to be used. Before you can upload a picture, you need to WP:Create an account, make ten edits and wait four days. Dbfirs 20:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Uploading images gets into some tricky territory as Wikipedia requires that images uploaded be either in the public domain, uploaded under one of the free licenses acceptable to Wikipedia and/or the Wikimedia Commons, or have a specific permission for that image to be used on file and approved with the Wikimedia Commons via the Open-source Ticket Request System.

Images can also be uploaded to Wikipedia, but not Wikimedia Commons, as Fair Use images, but that's quite tricky and not something I would recommend for a new editor. Additionally, as stated in WP:UPIMAGE, "Only logged in users with autoconfirmed accounts can upload images (meaning that the account must be at least four days old, and the user must have made at least ten edits). If you do not have an account, or you have not been autoconfirmed yet, please see Wikipedia:Files for upload."

Another complication in the case you have described is the question of whether Amy J Berg owns the rights to the image she wants to use. If it is a publicity image that was taken of her, and paid for by her as a work-for-hire, then the answer is "yes". If it was an image that you or another employee took for her as part of your job duties, then the answer is probably "yes", too. If the image is from another source, then she very likely does not have the rights to upload it here.

If Berg does have an image she can contribute upload, and is willing to allow it to be uploaded under a Wikipedia-acceptible Creative Commons license (please read the license; it is irrevocable) then I would suggest she make an account on WP, identify herself on her Talk page, and post a request to have the photo uploaded on Wikipedia:Files for upload.

For more information, check out WP:UPIMAGE for more information on what images can and can't be uploaded, and MOS:IMAGES for detailed instructions on how to add an image to an article. I am sorry the process is so involved. Carl Henderson (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

My article has delete twice

Following article has written by me:

Article

{{Use Indian English|date=September 2019}} {{Use dmy dates|date=September 2019}} {{Infobox comedian | name = Raktim Dey Chatterjee | birth_name = Riki | caption = Raktim Dey Chatterjee During an Event | birth_date = {{Birth date and age|df=yes|1987|03|18}} | birth_place = [[Asansol]], [[West Bengal]], [[India]] | yearsactive = 2000–present | nationality = Indian | genre = Businessman | website = {{URL|www.raktimdeychatterjee.com}} }} '''Raktim Dey Chatterjee''' is a upgrowing Businessman and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_work Social Worker]. ==Early life== Raktim dey Chatterjee was born in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asansol Asansol],[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bengal West Bengal],and grew up in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkata Kolkata], where his father was an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist journalist]. He wanted to become a Cricket Player, however neither it nor business was considered financially viable career option by his father, thus ended up studying Electronics engineering at the [http://www.brevityedu.com I.I.M.T], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore BANGALORE], where he studied for the next four years. He is also an Masters In Busness Administration ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Business_Administration MBA]) of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manipal_Academy_of_Higher_Education Manipal University]. ==Career== He started his career in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate real estate] business at the age of 18, later He started another company Nexus Business Solution Pvt. Ltd. in 2019 with his family. Seba Sebak Charitable Hospital is his joint venture company with his family & others. He is the Founder & CEO of one of the Intetnational [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmetics Cosmetics] Companies in India ([https://auradew.in/about-director/ Auradew]). '''Nexuse business Solutions''' partner with exceptional entrepreneurs in the US and India. Our team comprises ex-entrepreneurs who are strong “bottom-up” thinkers and “sleeves rolled up” operators. With decades of experience in building and funding globally leading companies, we manage USD 1.5 billion across funds. Our footprint in world’s two leading markets positions us uniquely with global insights and ability to serve entrepreneurs. He Started '''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc0i4r7rIwg Seba Sebak charitable Hospital]''' in 2018 to provides the services for the wealfare [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_Poverty_Line BPL] people, in around [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balasore Balasore], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odisha Orrissa]/ Fulia West Bengal/ Sodepur, Kolkata. Here they stared online free treatment facilities for BPL people also. == References == {{reflist|2}} [https://www.tofler.in/raktim-dey/director/08049991 Raktim Dey is registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs with a DIN (Director Identification Number) of 08049991, and is currently associated with 2 companies.] [https://www.tofler.in/seba-sebak-hospital-private-limited/company/U74999WB2018PTC225520 Sebasebak Charitable Hospital] [https://www.zaubacorp.com/company/SEBA-SEBAK-HOSPITAL-PRIVATE-LIMITED/U74999WB2018PTC225520 Zauba Corp] [https://www.tofler.in/seba-sebak-hospital-private-limited/company/U74999WB2018PTC225520 Tofler] ==External links== *{{IMDb name|1555152}} {{Authority control}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RaktimDeyChatterjee (talk • contribs) 20:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide me a link to the article? There should be a reason for its deletion. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 20:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a draft. All you need to do is give a wikilink to User:RaktimDeyChatterjee/sandbox. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It was pointless for you to submit the draft for review in that state. There are no references and there are many misplaced external links. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You also need to read the advice against autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi RaktimDeyChatterjee. It's generally not a good idea to try and create a Wikipedia article about yourself as explained in Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends. It can also sometimes turn out to be a bad thing as explained in Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. A Wikipedia article should only be written about subjects which are Wikipedia notable as explained in Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything; so, if you meet the criteria given in Wikipedia:Notability (people), then perhaps someone else will write an article about you. If you currently don't meet the criteria, then perhaps someday you will and then an article will be written. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Changes to the Page Title of a large group of pages

There is a group of Wikipedia pages which really should be changed generically, both in the TITLE as well as the page CONTENT. How and to whom should I suggest this change (which is quite important within the subject matter) Seadog (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Seadog (editor)

Hi Seadog, welcome to the Teahouse. Which change to which pages? We need at least an example to guide you. It might be discussed at a relevant WikiProject, e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter. The relevant group of pages have the generic title: List of ship launches in xxxx [year]. The pages are indexed at Category:Lists of ship launches. Seadog (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Seadog

@Seadog: That certainly sounds like a matter for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. You could also make a giant Wikipedia:Requested moves where every page is tagged with a link to the discussion, but I suggest you first test the waters at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. The page histories of recent lists show the main contributor is HenSti so you could also start at User talk:HenSti. If you don't then invite them to the discussion. Considering the number of pages, don't move any of them or make mass content changes without discussion. By the way, those lists need a common entry point in mainspace. With the current titles it would be List of ship launches or Lists of ship launches with one redirecting to the other. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again PrimeHunter. I would not dare to change or move a large collection of pages for the key reason that I have no idea how to do that. So, in any case, I like the idea of discussing this with others, especially the contributor you suggest, who probably knows the mechanics of editing multiple pages as well as the maritime content itself. I appreciate your good advice. Seadog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Biden Article (Misleading Portion)

Ladies/Gentlemen, I am new to editing Wikipedia. I have read the Wikipedia article on Hunter Biden, and believe the following statement to be very misleading: "President Donald Trump claimed that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect Hunter Biden and Burisma Holdings, although extensive press reporting and the Ukrainian government have found no evidence to support the claim." In fact, there is evidence that supports the claim that Joe Biden did interfere to have the prosecutor fired, as Joe Biden himself made that very claim on national television, which has been reported on September 24, 2019, by "The Federalist", as follows: "in a 2018 speech at an event for the publication Foreign Affairs. In this speech, Biden boasts his threat to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loans from Ukraine if they did not agree to fire the prosecutor who happened to be investigating the company giving his son a cushy sinecure." Unfortunately, I cannot find an "edit" button for this article. Can someone help me find the "edit" button on the "Hunter Biden" article to make this change? Thank you! Respectfully, Fred Bledsoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by AZCat49 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi AZCat49. The article Hunter Biden has been protected by an administrator because of some recent disruptive editing. When the subject of a Wikipedia article finds themselves in the middle of some ongoing news story/media coverage, there tend can be rush of people not familiar with Wikipedia and its various policies and guideline (particularly Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) trying to edit the article to "set the record straight". Many people mean well but many others don't, but when this happens it usually causes problems that are happening too quickly and too often to be resolved through normal editing; so, the page is protected to slow things down and prevent any further problems. Long story short, the thing for you to do know is to propose the changes you think should be made on the article's talk page by making an edit request. Another editor who is able to edit the article will review the request and see if it meets relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If it does, it will likely be made; if not, it won't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

But, AzCat49, please first read the discussions already on the talk page, especially Talk:Hunter Biden#sept 2019 trump scandal news. If you have something to add, edit the existing discussion to add it, rather than starting a new section. But note that you are unlikely to change the consensus unless you adduce reliable published sources which address the issues already discussed. --ColinFine (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Help Creating a new topic page (CPPAX in Massachusetts)

(Internal Q To EDITORS) I am drafting/writing a new topic - but hope a host can review it before it is posted live. The topic is "Citizens for Participation in Political Action (CPPAX), 1962-1999" There is a lot of potential material (re presidential politics, Massachusetts electoral campaigns, etc) I have 1 3-page initial draft but welcome feedback and edits before anything goes live. Goal is to get something up soon, and then expand and perfect as your descriptions encourage. (Note I was the Director/staff leader from 1968-1989 but want it to be factual history, not personal promotion. I can SEND A DRAFT if anyone is in a position to give feedback or advice. If you can assist contact me - an email version will go to your Help page. Thank you! Richard Cauchi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racauchi (talk • contribs) 21:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Racauchi: Welcome to Wikipedia. The best way forward is to follow the guidance at WP:YFA on creating an article and then using the wizard there to submit a draft for review. RudolfRed (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Racauchi: Like RR said, do take careful note of all of WP:YFA, even though it's admittedly kind of long. Even an article that is well-written and suitable for publication in magazines, newspapers, or even journals, needs some work to become a suitable Wikipedia article. For example, inline citation of reliable sources and adherence to our Manual of Style are important issues that will save some edit cycles. Thanks for helping Wikipedia! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Racauch. If you were Director of the organisation, then you need to be aware of how Wikipedia treats conflict of interest: start by declarating your relationship. One of the reasons that writing with a COI is hard is that it is even easier than in the general case to make the mistake of writing what you know rather than what the sources say. Every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be derived from a reliable published source; and nearly all of them should be from sources wholly unconnected with the subject. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what the subject of an article says about themselves (including in interviews and press releases): it is only interested in what independent commentators have chosen to publish about the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

hi

is great wolf lodge a yes or no for el paso texas!!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.113.3 (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@184.60.113.3: What do you mean exactly? The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 22:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I mean like is great wolf lodge planned for el paso texas because I saw it in consideration and it had been like that for 2 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.113.3 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Great Wolf Resorts article, where El Paso is mentioned as a location under consideration? I could try to do research on it myself, but anyone (including you) can update the information in any Wikipedia article. That's one of the reasons I think Wikipedia is so cool - information can be updated much faster than a paper encyclopedia. I'd reccomend checking out this guide to reliable sources, as it's an important part of making sure articles have verifiable and accurate information. Clovermoss (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

yes I see it under consideration for el paso's great wolf lodge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.113.3 (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The most recent news coverage I could find (from 2019) is this: https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/2019/01/18/texas-tax-rebates-in-doubt-for-great-wolf-el-paso-resort-project/2594937002/, which might be useful in improving the article. Does this answer your question? If there's any other questions you have about editing Wikipedia, I'll try my best to help. Clovermoss (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

not really because I am still not sure if it is coming for a proposal great wolf lodge in el paso texas I will be enraged if great wolf lodge does not come to el paso texas I really wanted a great wolf lodge in el paso texas throughout the years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.113.3 (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

bot notifications ?

Hi, I've turned off bots for my watchlist, which works fine on my laptop and my tablet in desktop mode. But, but when I check the watchlist on my phone, it's cluttered with bot notifications. Is there any way to turn off bots on my phone as well, other than turning it to desktop mode? Nthanks, ,--Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: AFAIK no, and I would like to note that bots can disable the tagging of actions as B for specific actions. (That is used, for instance, when bots leave talkpage messages, because the use of the bot flag would stop notifications from being send). Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, to answer you properly, we'll need to know how you accessed your watchlist on your phone. I use my phone for almost all my edits. I do not use the app, and I request the desktop version on any pages I access, including my Watchlist. John from Idegon (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, all I do is use Safari on iPhone and enter Wikipedia. When I check my watchlist, it shows the most recent entries. I'm getting a lot of entries from MonkBot. It uses the mobile as the default, not the desktop version. I prefer the mobile versionbecause the mobile version displays better on my iPhone screen. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, and welcome to the Teahouse! I also edit with advanced mobile view (sometimes) and the inability to organize/filter my watch list is one of the reasons I don't use it as often as I might like to. Unfortunately, there is no current way to filter out bot changes using mobile view, although after posting to mediawiki, I found out that it is one of the most priotized tasks. Here's the phabricator ticket: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T225127, if you're interested in checking it out. Clovermoss (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Clovermoss. Glad to know it's not just me hat has this problem. The MonkBot is particularly intrusive. Will wait and see if the media wiki buffing can do anything. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Pay taxes

Hello, I am a 68 years old. In 2008 I became 100% Disabled. I get 100% rating from VA. Do I need to pay any Taxes at all if not working? I do get SS each month. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:7280:10:27D0:45FB:71A1:567E:CD40 (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the Wikipedia Encyclopedia help desk. We can't answer questions about your taxes. RudolfRed (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Folks at the reference desk are good with finding answers to questions like yours. Just follow the link and post your question there. Someone might help you move this very question to there, if you'd like. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The Reference Desk Does Not Give Legal Advice. Requests may be deleted. —Tamfang (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

literature

what's the story of Jane Eyre and in what way does it influence your knowledge of the human, socio,political and economic status in the mid 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.23.99 (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

We don't answer homework questions. He have the article on Jane Eyre, and if you have a general question about literature, you can ask it at WP:RDH RudolfRed (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi 105.112.23.99, and welcome to the Teahouse! This project does focus on helping new editors with editing Wikipedia, so if you have any future questions like this, the reference desk is a valuable resource to check out. A question like yours would likely be categorized under humanities, since Jane Eyre is a work of fiction. There are guidelines to keep in mind when asking a question there, but it's still a great place to visit if you're unsure of where to find the information you're looking for. Clovermoss (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The Reference Desk also takes a dim view of schoolwork questions. —Tamfang (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

pakistan

How do you make your own wikepidia page about somthing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uthman Ishfaq (talk • contribs) 07:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Uthman Ishfaq and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a web host for storing your own page about something, but if you would like to create an article, then please read WP:Your first article. Wikipedia already has an article Guinea pig, and you will see that the content of the page is encyclopaedic, not a "how to" manual. Articles in Wikipedia need to be based on what has already been written in WP:Reliable sources. (Later note: Draft now deleted.) Dbfirs 08:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

We already have multiple articles relating to Pakistan. —Tamfang (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit war and sabotage of articles

How do I report and edit war and the sabataging of articles? Specifically Managed Intensive Rotational Grazing— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redddbaron (talk • contribs) 05:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Redddbaron. There appears to be a disagreement over content, etc. at Managed intensive rotational grazing, but there also appears to be some editors discussing this on the article's talk page; so, I'm not sure what happening would be considered "edit warring" or "sabotage" per se. Perhaps further discussion will resolve things. If things get really out of hand then you can file a report at WP:AN3, but I don't think doing so now will lead to anything other than administrator basically telling the same as what I posted above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought when an edit gets reverted, then the revert reverted, then the reverted revert reverted, it defines an edit war. My apologiesRedddbaron (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Has rudeness become acceptable between editors on Wikipedia?

An editor called Theroadislong recently referred to my editing as 'unsourced trumpery' and 'ridiculous.' I had to look up 'trumpery' on Google and Definition sites say it means, "worthless nonsense, garish, vulgar, tasteless, gaudy, showy etc." I have been an occasional editor on Wikipedia for over 10 years and people never used to talk to each other like this. Is this the new normal? Do women editors receive more rudeness?Agnesgerlach (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Agnesgerlach: Unfortunately, it happens sometimes. I don't think it is normal, nor targeted at specific subsets of editors. RudolfRed (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I referred to the content of your edits as trumpery, as I understand it, this means "of little or no value" you have repeatedly added content which is NOT supported by the sources given, hence it has no value. You are a single purpose account and do not seem to understand how Wikipedia works as regards to reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Agnesgerlach: Nope, rudeness between editors is not acceptable here, though sadly it happens all too frequently. There is, however, currently a bit of a sea change happening on English Wikipedia, where some of the 'old guard' of experienced editors (aka 'unblockables') are being challenged in some of the ways they conduct themselves and speak to other editors. And, sadly, a few editors aren't respectful to female editors, and that's not acceptable either. We do actually have a forum where complaints can be made against editors who act inappropriately. We have a shortcut link to it (called WP:ANI), where both sides of any complaint will be investigated in depth. But I would advise against it in this case. In my view, we should all behave like the stereotypical British policeman (polite, respectful, but firm in stopping people doing bad stuff, and helping good people on their way), so there should be no need for anyone to go to the Adminstrators' Noticeboard if they respect and take the time to understand how an encyclopaedia of nearly 6 million articles needs to operate. The editor you mention is one on of our skilled gatekeepers, with much experience of identifying promotional articles, and reviewing draft pages that have been submitted by users, so for them to use those words against you personally seems most out of character, and well worth investigating.

To me, 'trumpery' means puffed-up, empty and meaningless, whilst 'ridiculous' means it makes me scoff, or laugh at it. I looked at the edit to the page you created (pIvan Lindsay) where Theroadislong used both those words to describe, not you, but the contents of your edit that they had deleted. It's this one. Honestly, it really did make me laugh when I investigated it further. In fact - and I don't mean this offensively - it's really rather a masterclass in how a completely unreliable source can be used to 'big up' a subject. You wrote: " Lindsay is invited to lecture and teach on the subject of stolen art and this book is considered the most definitive on the subject and has been reviewed as, "a fascinating reference book," and, "this book is an absolute treasure and a delight to read," and, "Lindsay's book is supported by extensive research material form archives and contemporary sources, providing both factual information and exciting anecdotes about each period." In that edit, I'm afraid you cite no independent or reliable source (just this) to support or verify anything from reliable sources. You would be sorely mistaken if you were to think any competent editor would permit an Amazon sales page and a couple of 'buyer reviews' to be used on Wikipedia in this way.

So, those words of yours (but not you personally, madam) are indeed puffery and trumpery in my book, and to attempt to cite two random reviewers who happened to buy the book and leave a nice comment on the Amazon seller's page is, quite frankly, laughable. (You do it elsewhere, too, I'm afraid). I have not looked at all the other 42 two edits you have occasionally made here over the ten years you mention above, though I do note that every single one all but two of them relates to this sole individual whose article you created. Whilst you are indeed welcome to edit on such a narrow topic if you are so single-minded to do so (providing you don't have an undeclared Conflict of Interest in the subject), you are however required to follow our policies on Reliability, Verifiability and Notability. The first two of those clearly weren't met in that edit, and the latter is currently up for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Lindsay, which is a common procedure, even for pages that have remained here for years, as this one seems to have done until now. Yes, trumpery and ridiculous is, I'm sorry to say, a perfectly adequate and quite apt description to use, not only for deleting that edit, but also for much of what you appear to have added in the last week. (see diff). There's barely one verifiable citation in there, just lots of links to websites that don't mention Ivan Lindsay at all, or only in passing. If you say that someone taught Jungle Warfare for four years in Brunei, you have to prove it, and not simply give a link to a Jungle Warfare homepage which makes no mention of him. "If in doubt, leave it out" would be my motto here. I'm sorry if you find all this a harsh truth, but, honestly, there's no rudeness intended from me or from TheRoadIaLong. And lest anyone doubts my conclusion, I would point to this diff where you support a Guardian article written by Ivan Lindsay by citing a "contemporary review" suggesting it was "a masterclass". In fact, you quote and link to a one sentence (spam?) blog comment on Lindsay's own website. It is indeed a masterclass. Are you connected with the subject in any way, might I ask? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, unfortunately such language is now pretty mild for WP. Last week I was called a c*nt by an admin. Because we've allowed this, and a couple of editors were particularly "vocal" in justifying it, we now seem to have abandoned any attempt at controlling language. I see this as a great loss. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I'm hoping you've not missed my point. I have just taken the last two hours working through that article and reviewing those edits. The words used in an edit summary to delete one paragraph were, in my view, completely valid and justifiable and there was absolutely no rudeness present in that action. That's not to say that rudeness isn't any everyday issue, and especially unpleasant if directed towards women editors. But I find none in the action taken to delete one puffery-laden edit. It is unfortunate if an editor has interpreted this as such. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I deleted some inappropriate content from the article, but also left Delete at the AfD. I would also like Agnesgerlach to explain what - if any - personal connection to Lindsay — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs)

@Agnesgerlach and Theroadislong:I'vee given TRIL a courtesy ping since I have mentioned them. I am a new editor, it's been a year. I am still learning the ropes,and while I have sympathy for your complaint as there are over bearing, privileged, senior editors who make assumptions and provide sloppy, facetious and even farcial edit summaries. I will tell you this. Theroadislong is not one of those. He reviewed,and reviewed and reviewed my first article, had me pulling my hair out in frustration. I thought that he was WP:HOUNDing me (before I knew what WP:HOUND was. But all came to good, that article is now published and it is a good article, thanks to his constant critic and unwillingness to accept trumpery, unreliable sources, etc. And I know that if I try to publish an article in the future he will be as critical the second time around, and he should be. As regards the advicee of User:Nick Moyes above, the man is a gent, and patient and I would most certainly take his suggestion and criticism at heart. So take a breath, sit back and follow the guidance you have been offered.

By the way, one complaint that I have is that some editors use the template that your submission does not meet the standards of WP, without taking the time, at least in the comments to explain why. If they can't explain why something is inadequate or wrong, it can't be corrected, but that is a template and a lazy editor problem. .Oldperson (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Best way to disambiguate this...

I want to create an entry on a significant documentary about the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. The documentary was called Sea of Oil. Problem: Someone created a FORWARD at Sea of Oil, which forwards to "Stingray (1964 TV Series)," because Sea of Oil was apparently an episode in the TV series.

The documentary I'm writing about is referenced in another entry, titled "List of POV (TV Series) episodes," because the Sea of Oil documentary was broadcast as part that TV series' fourth season.

I'm still really new at this, but based on my understanding, that forward would ideally be replaced with some kind of disambiguation.

Do I just create my article, call it Sea of Oil, then add a hatnote sending to the other usage? Or because they forwarded it first, do I create a stub for the other Sea of Oil usage first to be polite? What's my next step? Sonyasen (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sonyasen. You can find out more about this in Wikipedia:Disambiguation, but I believe that when multiple article subjects share the same name that the first thing to do is determine which one of them is the primary topic, and then disambiguate the others based on that. Determining the "primary topic" doesn't necessary mean figuring out which article was created first, and in some cases there may not even be one or even need to be one. There is no article yet written about Sea of Oil, so you could possibly create one without doing something like Sea of Oil (XXXX film); however, the redirect (i.e. forwarded page) for "Sea of Oil" was at one time actually an article that someone created, but which was then subsequently redirected to the other article (most likely because the episode didn't warrant it's own article). So, that means the older page history will either need to be deleted or otherwise dealt with. Which one is done depends upon whether you think item 9 of WP:R#DELETE or item 7 of WP:R#KEEP is most applicable. Only an administrator can delete the history of page; you shouldn't overwrite the redirect with new content until what to do with the page's history has been resolved. The safest thing to do might be to work on a draft as Draft:Sea of Oil for the article about the movie (assuming you feel it satisfies WP:NFILM) and when you think it's ready, submit it for review to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If the draft is ultimately accepted, the AfC reviewer or an administrator will most likely then figure out how to deal with the redirect. If the new article needs to be disambiguated instead, the AfC reviewer will figure out the best way to do that as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Marchjuly. I really like your suggestion to just write and submit it (ie., let the admin figure it out). :) The more I got into it, the more I was realizing just how much else it was going to affect just to do this little change. (I need to get better at understanding the history of past edits, though. And I really appreciate you taking a look and giving me your input!) Basic question: When you mention writing a draft, you mean to create one in a personal sandbox, right? Sonyasen (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

There are two types of drafts: a userspace draft and regular draft. They are essentially the same with the only real difference being the namespace where they are located. Both can be used to create drafts for future articles, but the preferred location for drafts which are ultimately headed for an AfC review is the draft namespace. Content on any Wikipedia page can technically be edited by anyone at anytime (unless the page has been protected for some reason), but most experienced editors will refrain from editing the pages in another user's userspace, except when asked to or when there is some serious policy or guideline problem that needs to be taken care of. The draft namespace on the other hand is seen more as a community namespace and many experienced editors seem less hesitant about trying to improve things and help (if possible) bring the draft more inline with relevant policies and guidelines. The draft namespace also is really only intended to be used for new article creation and not really for working on improvements to existing articles. Although there are no deadlines for creating a new article, you tend to have a little more freedom time-wise with respect to a userspace draft than a regular draft. You can pretty much work at your own pace in both cases, but regular drafts which go unedited for six months are eligible for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion G13. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Sandpit

Hi again

Can someone please provide a succinct instruction on where I find my ‘workspace’ to create a page?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redbaron370 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Redbaron370 and welcome back to the Teahouse. You can continue to edit in your Sandbox at User:Redbaron370/sandbox where you will need to add WP:Reliable sources before submitting for publication. I assume that you have read WP:Your first article. If you are starting an article on a different topic, then you can create a new sandbox at User:Redbaron370/sandbox2 (just click and start typing). Dbfirs 07:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Redbaron370: Also note that there is a link to your sandbox that appears in the header at the top of all Wikipedia pages when you are logged in (Talk Sandbox Preferences Beta Watchlist Contributions Log out). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)