Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 364

Archive 360

←

Archive 362

Archive 363

Archive 364

Archive 365

Archive 366

→

Archive 370

adopter

please could you tell me where I how I could become an adopterJamie-Burk (talk) @Jamie-Burk (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie-Burk (talk • contribs)

Hey Jamie-Burk. If you are talking about our program for experienced users to adopt less experienced users, see Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. See also the Wikipedia:Co-op. However, and to the extent this is what you meant, I feel constrained to tell you that the very fact that you're asking this question (and also noting you've made only 108 edits to Wikipedia) strongly indicates to me you lack sufficient experience to be an adopter. Wikipedia is vast and complicated and giving pertinent advice really does require significant experience. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S. were you possibly asking about being adopted? (If so, you would be the adoptee.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jamie-Burk: I agree with @Fuhghettaboutit:, you're just too inexperienced to adopt other users, however if you instead are looking for someone to adopt you, then the links are above. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh I seeeeee!!! so you base my edits on what lack of intelligence???Jamie-Burk (talk) @Jamie-Burk (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie-Burk (talk • contribs)

You have only been editing Wikipedia for a week and have made 108 edits. You seem to be taking the response, which is not meant to be personal, very personally as an attack of what you may think we see as a "lack of intelligence". The problem that I see with the way that you asked the question is that it isn't properly capitalized and punctuated, and proper capitalization and punctuation are very important in article space, and your command of grammar, capitalization, and punctuation in Wikipedia space is an indication of how well you are likely to do in article space. It isn't a "lack of intelligence", but experience does count, and punctuation does count. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Jamie: I genuinely thought you might have meant adoptee, because you are so new you could not possibly be competent to be an adoptor. That observation has nothing to do with intelligence but with experience. Do you know intimately the differences between the various methods of deletion and each of their highly specific ins and outs and which to apply during new pages patrol or when maintenance tags should be added instead and where to find them and the result of past discussion about drive by tagging, and what one should recommend be done as due diligence before taking an article to AfD, and where to nominate deletion if a page is outside the mainspace, and whether an image qualifies as fair use image to be used in X, and how to turn page curation back on if the toolbar is no longer showing? Are you familiar enough with the numerous essays that might be applicable to a particular situation so you could point a relevant one out to someone, like Wikipedia:No angry mastodons?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jamie-Burk. No one is picking on you here. The simple truth is, Wikipedia is anything but user friendly. An editor that either does not know how to, or fails to see the importance of, signing their posts on this page is much more suited to being adopted than adopting, and I encourage you to take advantage of one of the mentoring programs lusted above. Good luck. John from Idegon (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Note not corresponding to info in Reference

Hello,

Was looking at the Superior colliculus page and the first citation has the wrong date on it. I went to edit it but it just refers to the references:

==Notes==
{{Reflist|colwidth=20em}}

Thing is, the reference list is correct, but it has a different date than that shown in the note.

I don't know how to edit it :)

Note 1 says, Wallace et al., 2005 - but the actual reference says 1998.

How do I change the appearance of this note so as to reflect the real date of the article cited?

Thanks for your time! TrishApps (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• TrishApps, corrected! You would have done this through the editing tab on the top of the article and then correcting the same by finding where it was cited. Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If you had VisualEditor enabled then you wouldn't even have to look at the source and coding. All you would need to do would be to edit the page and click the faulty in-line citation. Enable this feature by going to your preferences and ticking the checkbox in the beta features tab. Just a tip though, so you just do your thing. -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 06:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi TrishApps, you may visit WP:ASL and  Thanks PotatoNinja the VisualEditor is nice, I just enabled it. Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

semi-automated edits

Hi, what are semi-automated edits ? I have seen at few of the user page. Thanks! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Any edit performed by the user but assisted by a program. So for example if you had rollback rights and downloaded huggle, you would be able to revert edits and issue warnings at the click of a button. This also goes for programs like igloo, autowikibrowser, hotcat, and twinkle. I'm not too sure about AFCH but I'm sure it would fall in a similar category. -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 07:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

AFCH does count. Yes, a "semi-automated edit" is just any edit that wasn't performed by manually pressing edit, making your changes and pressing "Save page". Twinkle is the most common semi-automated tool, which can speed up anything from reverting vandalism to nominating articles for deletion, by opening various dialog boxes that simplify processes. To give another example, STiki speeds up editing by presenting you with diffs that it thinks might be vandalism, and giving you options to allow the edit to pass through or to revert it and warn the user. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 07:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thank You PotatoNinja & Bilorv. Got it. I have not used them. That's why it was showing 0 semi-automated edits in my edit summary. Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

How to assess an article

I recently received page reviewer rights (not pending changes) and started to review articles at AFC, as well as patrol and tag new pages at the respective new pages feed. I would just like to know how to give an article a quality grade without having to review it in the AFC process. At the moment the only people who I see with the ability to do so are admins, but I have a feeling it has something to do with talk pages and a bot that tags a page for you. -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 06:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi PotatoNinja. If you're referring to the quality scale (shown on the article's talkpage) then this is generally allocated by members of the relevant WikiProject, rather than by administrators. If you're a member of, say, WikiProject China, then you are perfectly entitled to make quality assessments of articles relating to China. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

So essentially I just place the relevant template on a page's talk page? And how do I become a part of a wikiproject? Do I just have to contribute regularly in these areas? -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 08:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any of the WikiProjects have entry requirements - if it's an area you're interested in, just add your name to the list of participants. They function primarily as places where like-minded contributors (or at least those with shared interests...) can discuss the specific topic area, establish topic-specific style guidelines, and identify areas within the topic that need work. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

censcorship on macroevolution page

Dear Wiki,

Recently, a book on macroevolution was published that contains chapters of leading scholars within the field, including “founding fathers” such as niles eldredge, stanley salthe, and leading figures including bernard wood, alycia stigall, and folmer bokma. Twice now, I added a reference to the book on the wiki page on macroevolution, and it has now twice been removed by the page’s administrator. I have also twice now, corrected the opening sentence, because it is merely one view. Some people think macroevolution and microevolution is the same and reducible to a genetic level, some disagree and include abiotic, non-genetic factors as relevant to evolution. Twice now, he has removed the correction, and twice now, he defends his own personal, distorted and opinioned view. He defines macroevolution in terms of genetics, while leading scholars in macroevolution define it in terms of abiotic (non-genetic) and genetic factors. He is censoring the page, and he has not only done this to me, he has been doing this to others as well. This violates the spirit of wikipedia. Censorship is against the spirit of wiki that is about sharing information freely on the web. The file is short and one sighted, distorted and everyone who tried to make it better, he deletes from the page. Please do something about this great dictator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oxfordwang I have notified my complaint here, as such: The beauty of wiki is that it is for everyone, not just for you alone. You have absolutely no right whatsoever to delete add ons by other people, and your behavior is not only despicable, it is territorial. Most of what is on the page is controversial and not representative for what an entry on macroevolution should be. If you are yourself unfamiliar enough with the subject, you should stay clear of it. Wiki is not a blog where you merely display what is to your likings, what you do on this cite, and what I find out from the comments from other people above me, is nothing less than censorship. we live in a free world and in a democracy. If you can't handle that and just want to use it for propaganda, you should open a blog. Wiki is not the space for you. Wiki is about people being freely able to share information on subjects they have knowledge on and that they want to share with other people all over the world. what happened in this case is that you provide a narrow shortsighted vision of what macroevolution is, you use it to your advantage to give a distorded, single-sided and narrow view, and you use nothing less but censorship. I added a book that has contributions by leading scholars in the field of macroevolution, and just who in the hell are you to think you have the right to eliminate reference to these expert scholars? Shame on you, shame on you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.149.197 (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sincerely, 89.180.149.197 (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Note the two edits that he has made to the page, one of which was removed by User:Vsmith as promotional, and one of which was simply blanking the page. OxfordWang (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

In looking over your edit history, I think that you are lucky that you are still able to edit. This post is uncivil and is too long, difficult to read, but I see that, among other things, you blanked the page on macroevolution, and blanking a page in protest is normally considered vandalism. You also posted multiple messages to the page of another editor that have the quality of personal attacks. I suggest that you read Wikipedia policies and guidelines and learn what is proper behavior in Wikipedia before making any other edits that are likely to get you blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added info onto wiki pages before, but I don't recall having posted on the page of another editor, or attacking other editors. I blanked the page because my edits were censored. I suppose there is a fine line between "vandalism" and "censorship", and if there is no place on wiki to make reference to leading scholar's work, because it is "promotional", well, then we should all think about the purpose of wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.149.197 (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"I blanked the page because my edits were censored" is viewed by other editors as "I disrupted Wikipedia to make a point." If you think changes need to be made to the article, and your changes were rejected, your next step should be to discuss the situation on the talk page (in this case, Talk:Macroevolution) too see what the problem is and if there's a way to include the material that addresses those concerns. —C.Fred (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are acting in good faith and you want to discuss a content dispute, read the dispute resolution policy. It will tell you first to discuss on the talk page. If that fails, then try one of the procedures listed there, such as requesting a third opinion. However, since you deny having posted to the talk page of Oxfordwang, and your hostile edits, calling them a dictator, are right there, you may not be acting in good faith. I advise you to read in depth about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before doing any more editing that just has the effect of disrupting. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't deny posting on the page of oxford wang, and I must certainly do not deny calling him a dictator, that is what this post was about to begin with. I just don't have recollection of the other editor you refer to when you criticize and say "You also posted multiple messages to the page of another editor that have the quality of personal attacks" and I think you have me confused here. But so I realize this is indeed a content dispute, and I will act accordingly. Thank you all for the good advice. I must say though, Rober McClenon, that I also think it is something to introspect about if disputes over content are judged based upon lengths of messages, the ease of reading, and that they are taken as behaviors of ill faith, or as acts of disrupting, while add ons are apparently so difficult to make. Here too, I thought the whole idea of wiki was to make add ons, and having to defend that, or being tapped on the fingers for trying to, well, not good. And wiki and its editors should be able to constructively deal with criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.149.197 (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

When I referred to another editor, I did mean Oxfordwang. He is another editor. As to length of posts, think about whether, if you were reading rather than writing a post, you would understand quickly what it was about. Some experienced editors have found that when an editor habitually posts very long posts, he or she is typically an angry editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If you really want to discuss a content issue, read the dispute resolution policy. Then discuss on the article talk page. Be civil and concise; comment on content, not on contributors. Commenting on contributors rather than on content tends to be ignored, unless it reaches the level of personal attacks, in which case it results in blocks. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well thank you very much for this, I've said my peace here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macroevolution . I'm sure Oxfordwang has done great efforts in the editing, but also on this page, I saw that many people's edits have been deleted, and that they too wrote angry letters like me. So with no ill intent whatsoever, but with genuine concern, I would like to ask the wiki editor community to make sure their guidelines to editors (which i'm sure also exist) are followed, because it is also discouraging to those who want to help improve to see that their comments are not taken into account, and their efforts too have been deleted.

I will say this here as well as on your talk page. First, it is not uncommon for inexperienced editors to yell "censorship" in order to "win" a content dispute. However, it does not work. The removal of content that is not properly sourced or is promotional is not censorship; it is neutral point of view. Yelling "censorship" either has no effect or makes other editors conclude that you are being disruptive. The policy that Wikipedia is not censored is more narrow than many edit warriors think it is. We do not remove material because it may be offensive if it is verifiable, but we do remove material that is not verifiable, not neutral, or is promotional. Second, insulting another editor, such as calling him a "dictator", does not work. It is either ignored or results in a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

So, in sum, an academic anthology that contains chapters of leading scholars on the subject of a wiki page, and that was edited with the purpose to familiarize interesting readers with the subject, is considered "non verifiable, not neutral, and promotional" by you editors, and it cannot be added inside texts or inside "further reading" areas. And you "almighty editors" feel you can judge on what can stay and what can become removed, because you guys saw the light and know "the neutral point of view". As an academic, you know what I see, randomness, no scientific standard whatsoever, and no valid means to judge. Sure, go right ahead in calling me a "vandalist", an "angry editor", with "inexperience" (though I've edited 6 academic volumes by now), and throw in some other words that you apparently have been evolving in what seems to have become a territorial and defensive cyber subculture. Regardless of this particular reference being erased or not, the way these things have been handled, and the way not only mine but also other's edits have been handled, it saddens me to say that I just became yet another academic that will from now on discourage students to go to wiki. And all you editors should reflect deeply upon that. And sure, erase and block me from editing because this post in negative, it will be the easiest way to ignore the critique, and I will for sure not be doing this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.148.109 (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this appropriate for Wikipedia?

I have been asked to created a Wikipedia entry for a Society I do administrative work for. I am not sure this is appropriate for Wikipedia. Can someone help me please. Thanks Nicky 129.180.47.210 (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If you work for them, then you have a conflict of interest, and most editors would tell you not to make or edit an article. If you are being paid to work for them, then we especially do not want you to do anything relating to an article about the society. If you do so, stick to the article's talk page, and make it clear that you are being paid to edit there (either by creating an account that announces such on your user page or noting that in each message if you choose not to make an account).

For there to be a Wikipedia article about the society, we require multiple professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject, independent of the subject, and independent of each other. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help.129.180.47.210 (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe there are pages where you can request an article be created if the subject is in fact notable (covered substantially in reliable independent sources such as books, articles, newspapers and scholarly journalys). NotAnOmbudsman (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean Requested Articles and it's subdivisions. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

How do articles that someone is fixing get marked as OK?

General question: Suppose you see an article that is marked as needing cleanup and you start cleaning it up. How does the mark get removed? Does this vary by whether the needed cleanup is specific (e.g. missing a citation) or general (e.g. "lacks clarity")?

Specifically, I am working on cleaning the article logistic regression. What happens to the articles marks and ratings as I clean it up? How do I know when it is good enough? PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi PeterLFlomPhD - It's a matter of opinion, specifically yours. If you believe you have adequately addressed the problem you may remove the tag. If you're not sure you can ask the person who placed the tag for their opinion. I've taken a look at the page but as my knowledge of the topic is basically non-existent I cannot express a competetent opinion, thus another option is to ask for opinions at relevant wikiprojects, in this case WikiProject Statistics or WikiProject Mathematics. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiki-worthy?

I am writing an article on the 1st business woman in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Any pointers?

Hazem Alnajar (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Do reliable, secondary sources exist that are entirely independent of her and write about her in detail (in any language)? If yes, gather those sources, digest what they say, and write the article based upon them but in your own words, citing them as you go for everything you write. If no, don't write the article, as the subject is not notable (at least yet) in the sense we use that word here to mean the world taking note of a topic by people unconnected to the topic writing about it substantively. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

my article was not accepted

I have trimmed parts of it, added some cites to her persoanl biography, and feel my 3rd party links are strong along with her cross references for artists here on wikipedia. Any help or suggestions is greatly appreciated. thanks so much for your input, mary Paulhus15 (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see the comments by User:TimTrent (Fiddle Faddle) at the top of your draft. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI this relates to Draft:Tamara Champlin.--ukexpat (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Can "further reading" lists be annotated?

Many articles have lists for "further reading". I haven't seen any that have annotations, but it seems to me that annotations could be very useful (e.g. "this is a good book for beginners"). PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi PeterLFlomPhD - to quote Wikipedia:Further reading:-

When an article lists a large number of sources or materials for Further reading, it may be helpful to add brief notes about the sources (e.g., beginner, advanced, detailed, survey, historically important, etc.), like this:

• J. Smith, Introduction to Linear Programming, Acme Press, 2010. An introductory text.
• D. Jones, Linear Programming Theory, Excelsior Press, 2008. A rigorous theoretical text for advanced readers.

- Arjayay (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

As long as the annotations are neutral, do not introduce a conflict of interest, or offer up original research. Nthep (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Transport

What references can we mention on India villages pages about transport section. Especially about roads, where it lies and which roads pass through it?--Vin09 (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable published source for the information, then cite it. If you can't, then the information shouldn't be in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Mmmm - An official map is a "reliable published source", so if this shows a road, this is no more WP:OR than giving a location its co-ordinates, which will have been taken from a map as well.
Many Indian/sub-continent articles have (over) long lists of "roads", and "nearby villages", which IMHO need to be trimmed to just the "notable" ones, a Wikipedia article being the simplest test of notability.
In many cases, being where the road between X and Y crosses that between P and Q, is the reason the town was established and/or has flourished, so that is important. Unfortunately many people add their (non-notable) road and or nearby village as a way of promoting and/or getting them mentioned in Wikipedia at all, which contravenes WP:NOTDIR and should be trimmed. - Arjayay (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

And "transport" sections are frequently part of a "Transportation is quick and easy! Tourists please come Visit!" attempts for towns to use Wikipedia as a tourist guide promotional vector. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

edit suggestion?

This morning, (7/21/15) I read an article on psychotherapy in the NYtimes. The psychiatrist discusses the decline of psychotherapy, etc. To get to my point, he mentions exposure therapy with PTSD patients and how it is now known that patients with PTSD do not really respond to exposure therapy. The tone of his article felt like this has been a known fact for some time. However, when I looked it up (because I didn't know what it was), the description for exposure therapy says that it is a proven method to treat patients with PTSD. I am not an expert by any means. I just wanted to raise a suggestion. Is this possible? Here is the article I referenced. http://nyti.ms/1Vc9kNW Midagedbrain (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Midagedbrain. I removed the {{reflist talk}} from your question: this is only needed if the text includes a reference between <ref> and </ref>. The place to ask this question is on the talk page Talk:Exposure therapy, where you are more likely to find people with knowledge and interest in it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

the {reflist talk} was my doing as I was trying to figure out why the whole page formatting was off [1] and correct it with a quick fix. the {reflist talk} didnt accomplish that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Display Name

Greetings, could you tell me how I can edit the Display Title name on an article. Thank You. Caperescientiam (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Caperescientiam You won't be able to. If you need to change a title, and I'm assuming that's what this is about, you would have to move the article (and talk page over ). If it's an article you wrote, you can request it be moved, if it's not, you'll need to request that it be done on the talk page of that article, and state reasons for the move. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, KoshVorlon who wrote the article is of no consequence. What matters is whether the move is likely to be controversial or not. If an article is obviously misnamed (for example, has a spelling error), then anybody may move it. Having said that, Caperescientiam, you only created your account a few hours ago, so you will not be able to move articles until you become autoconfirmed, which will happen after four days. So for the moment, you should edit the article to put the template {{subst:RMassist|old page name|requested name|reason= reason for move}} at the top. --ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon and ColinFine I am autoconfirmed and was able to move the page I needed to, thank you for your help. Caperescientiam (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

ColinFine Yeah, I messed up there. What I meant to say was, "If the article is in Draft Space or your own User space..." my bad, and you're correct, it doesn't matter who wrote it. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 17:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The 'Wikipedia Culture'

Full disclosure; I'm a classical liberal. The concept of a publicly moderated global encyclopedia leaves me inappropriately excited and I'm simply curious as to what it's frequent users consider to be it's core princples.

Cheers Everyone!.

Also, what is with the non-article four tildes!?

Ungreat scott (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ungreat scott, welcome to Wikipedia! The fundamental principles are summarised in the Five Pillars. The Four tildes is simply how a comment by a user is signed and timestamped. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well I can't speak for anyone else but I think the things that interest me most are the concept of a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (written on the Main Page) and the idea of the entire world having "free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (from a Slashdot interview with founder Jimmy Wales: see Wikipedia:Prime objective). But Wikipedia's 'official' principles can be found at Wikipedia:Five pillars — it's a neutral encyclopedia with a free license, a place (ideally) free from incivility and has rules which can change over time.

As for the four tildes? Well, it's just a signature to put at the end of your post. It is required because otherwise people don't know who they're talking to or when posts were written, and automatic signing by bots is in place but only as a backup, because software can struggle to work out where to sign certain types of edits. There's a plan to eventually move to a new system called "Flow", but for now all users have to write ~~~~ at the end of every message they write. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Ungreat scott, I've put one of the standard welcomes on your talk page so you have a set of useful starting links. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

While those are the "official" principles, the on-the-ground principles tend to be more WP:CRUSH and DRAMAHZ. although, I am always given hope by the fact that Yasser Arafat was able to be brought to featured article status.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

strange issues on draft page

I recently stumbled upon an article of a singer earlier today and the main problem that immediately arose was the tone of the article, which was written using christian morals and metaphors etc. and didn't seem encyclopedic. This also made the text rather difficult to understand for the uninitiated reader. Another issue that soon became evident was that the user really wanted the article to get accepted. So as soon as I declined it, he removed all of the maintenance and AFC templates — including a copyright notice — from the page and moved the draft to the mainspace.

questions:

• What would my rationale look like upon reviewing the article (I would recommend viewing my own; I didn't really know what to do)
• Would I issue a warning to the user?
• What would I do with the page?

Thanks! -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 17:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The creator of the article has moved it to mainspace where I have tagged it for G11 speedy deletion. Even if he is notable, it needs to be redone from scratch.--ukexpat (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

And Kwamevaughan has then removed the speedy deletion tag from it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Added back and user warned. Need some help with their other contributions - I have tagged two others for G11 speedy and attempted to despam and depuff a third but needs more eyes. I am sure the user is well intentioned, but these are just way over the top.--ukexpat (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted all you tagged under G11, but also as copyright violations. For the completed article at Nayaah there was enough there to clean it rather than delete it (see its talk page and edit history), but I had to remove most of the prose, leaving it pretty bare. I don't have time right now to warn the user but will later tonight (as a final warning as to copyright) if no one else does.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Article Creation

I recently created an article that was immediately declined. It says that my subject is not notable enough. I have plenty of sources that prove she is. What makes her not notable enough? Stepharnold37 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Draft:Stephanie Arnold. It was rejected by Sulfurboy with the comment of "Notability hinges on the incident leading to the book. Which in my view is WP:ONEEVENT I don't see this person being notable, but the book might be." The page to read here is Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. We usually don't have pages on people who are only notable for one specific event unless the event is very significant (see also: WP:BLP1E). You might also want to contact Sulfurboy if you have any further queries (you can write to them on User talk:Sulfurboy). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Editors badly needed on this page

Hey guys.

I came across this page a few minutes ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festival_of_the_Sun

As you can see, this needs editing badly. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to spare right now. Considering the awful, awful quality of the page, I thought maybe someone here might want to clean house. Ratha K (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the recent vandalism - removed some puffery and an advertising link - it is still poorly referenced, but semi-sensible now - Arjayay (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Arjayay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratha K (talk • contribs) 20:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

In general, if an article looks terrible, it is a good idea to check the history for recent vandalism. But it is also reasonable to mention it here or at the Help Desk where other editors can check whether there is vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

How to mover from a stub to a start article

My article for creation was recently accepted as a stub - Ronald Rand - and I would like to move it to a Start article - it says: "The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant." I have placed 30 references to the stub's significance. I will continue working on it to add more references - how would I then be able to get it re-evaluated? Ron Jay (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello there! The transition from stub to start class is not a very significant stage in an article's development, from my experience, and there is no need to request for Start-Class. Simply change the status yourself, of course notability needs to be established, but with 30 references it should already be well into Start-class, that's nowhere near a stub. In general, Start-class doesn't need a request or a peer review by an experienced user, that's more for B-class onwards. I'm pretty sure you can just change the talk-page status yourself after you are sure it meets the very basic criteria. I never requested a change from stub to start, and in fact I make sure most of my articles are Start-class on creation. You should be just fine, just change it. Be bold, and the best, Coderenius (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and rmvd the templates from the article and updated the talk page project boxes. There are some items that need wikification. All play titles should be in italics. To do that you just need to edit them like this ''The Dresser'' which then looks like this The Dresser after you save the edit. MarnetteD|Talk 22:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Coderenius I added a link to the article in Ron's post above so that any of us could get there without having to search for it :-). MarnetteD|Talk 22:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD Thank you, that was appreciated. I'll go take a look at it.

Adding Celebrities Pictures!

How do i add pictures of celebrities in the Bio boxes? CorrectionLab 3000 (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, CorrectionLab 3000, and welcome to the Teahouse. You first need to get a freely licensed picture. That means either one you took yourself, or one where the photographer has released it, in writing, for use by anyone for any purpose at all. (see a list of such licenses at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses.) This is the most important part. Wikipedia does not accept copyrighted images of living people under Fair use. (Do not simply copy a picture found on the web, or scan a picture from a published work such as a book or magazine!) Then you can upload it using the Commons upload wizard. this will place it on the Wikimedia commons for use by any Wikimedia project, including all the various Wikipedias. Then you insert its file name into the infobox, following the specific instructions for the particular infobox, as not all boxes do it the same way. I hope this helps. DES ^(talk) 23:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK queue

Hello there. I am not actually a new editor at this point, but I do have a question that I would like someone experienced to be able to resolve. About a week ago, on July 13, I nominated an article for DYK (here) that was reviewed 3 days later as needing some improvement for DYK eligibility. It was then promoted to a maybe and then, after all the improvements were made, it was finally approved for Did you know on July 17. It should have been added to the queue by now, but it hasn't yet, even though it was still an eligible date at the time. Now it is well into the red zone, and it's a bit unusual, or even unfair. At this point, I feel as though it won't be picked up by a bot or another user for DYK and will go by unnoticed after all that hard work. Should I add it to the queue myself, or should an alternative approach be taken to getting this article on the main page? I am not being impatient, but I found it a bit strange that newer nominations that were approved immediately would make it to the main page just a day or a few days later. If there is an anomaly here in fact, please let me know. Thank you very much, and the best, Coderenius (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Coderenius: I'm not incredibly experienced with DYK, but I wouldn't worry too much. You nomination is still on the nominations page, the slowness and order is just one of the quarks of DYK, it will appear on the main page eventually. By the way, you have a very pretty user page. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Winner 42: Why, thank you! And also, thanks for the reassurance, that's what I've been thinking all along, but I asked to make sure that if anyone knows for sure that's not the case, that they can let me know. The best, Coderenius (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I think my submission on The Interpersonal Gap was rejected becasue of a lack of references but I included three and they are not showing in the version you rejected

..and then I got rejected again for duplicating the submission when I edited and uploaded the change. Sigh. How do I include the references?

Dadquixote

Dadquixote (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The reference issues were caused by excessive <ref> and </ref> tags—references should be formatted like this: <ref>reference text here</ref>. I think I have fixed the problem for you. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dadquixote: to establish "notability" as far as Wikipedia cares requires that multiple reliably published sources unrelated to the subject have discussed the specific subject of the article in a significant manner. Since one the the sources you added was 1) unpublished and 2)by the subject of the article, that doesn't count for anything towards establishing notability. The Fight Flee Freeze book doesnt appear to mention Wallen at all, let alone in a significant manner [2] so that doesnt do anything to establish notability. The the work by A. CHINMAYA, A., & VARGO, J.W. is the only one that seems suitable. But given that the only thing you quote from there is that Wallen never published, well there are LOTS of people who never published, that is not anything worth noting. The rest of the article is entirely what wikipedia calls "original research" - analysis and commentary strung together by a wikipedia editor rather than representing what reliable sources and scholars have specifically said about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This [3] appears to have some background about Wallen, but again, it doesnt seem to identify anything that he did that was worth noting, only that he tried to do something at black mountain college but was unsuccessful and gave up. but it doesnt seem to clarify what that something was he was trying to accomplish. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

this [4] apparently discusses Wallen's work, but it appears that the actual meaning is on the not-shown page 190, and without that, the rest of it comes off to me as pure word salad jargon nonsense. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

2 edit questions

Hello Teahouse, Please could you tell me on my Talk-Page where it says ""The last person to edit this page"" why it says template and is highlighted in red. could you also tell me how I could edit User-Page to unable me to change the background colour. Thank-You.Mr-roland-rat (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Mr-roland-rat: - what is your relationship to User:Jamie-Burk? It is odd that someone, particularly a new user, would have found the page of someone who hadn't edited and placed that template on the page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

And please remove the fair-use image from your user-page, that is not an acceptable use of such an image - Arjayay (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Teahouse, you where inquiring about my relationship with User:-JamieBurk??? JamieBurk is in fact cousin of mine. Could I please ask the reason for this inquiry???Mr-roland-rat (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason was explained in the request - it is a very odd thing for a new user such as User:Jamie-Burk to make an edit to create a user talk page for another editor (you) who has not even edited yet, particularly using a complex broken template such as the one placed on your page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mr-roland-rat: The page history [5] shows Jamie-Burk created your talk page with this broken content. I don't know why he did it. If he is your cousin then you are in a better position to find out than us. You can just remove it by clicking the "Edit" tab at top of User talk:Mr-roland-rat. The code {{Mr-roland-rat}} is supposed to "transclude" (display) the contents of a page called Template:Mr-roland-rat, but there is no such page and our software instead displays the page name in red to indicate this. It's the same for the other red template names. I don't know why Jamie-Burk posted the meaningless code but he was probably trying to do something else. There is no reason to create any of the template pages with red names. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, who is Jimbojunior and Cottycrimge in relation to you? One of our editors have asked this question but haven't received an answer.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I've posted at all 4 of their talk pages. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I need help to add uploaded phtos to a page. I am not auto confirmed.

I tried to log in to Live-Chat IRC for help, but it wont let me. I keep getting a request from "File Picker" asking me to load some files?

Liber8tor (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Disregard. I found the answer. I had the syntax wrong. My bad. Liber8tor (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

problems with columns

Why appears | style="text-align: left; vertical-align: top; " | in these columns?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaccaria_%28company%29#Digital_pinball_machines

--Tochni (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Tochni, it was because you were mixing different ways of generating columns. In your case you just didn't need the {{col-break}}. See Template:Div_col#Column-generating_template_families for the list of different column template families. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the article Rejection

10:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)10:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)~Hi just before hour ago my article got rejected from wiki saying it was more of advertising content.Will you please help me out how should i write an article so that people can get awareness of the company which i am running and wishing to be included in wiki.How the article should be and what all should be added to it ??10:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)10:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)10:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)~~

Wikipedia articles should be neutral: phrases like "we are best in .Net Training" are bad for two reasons. Firstly, that's not anywhere close to objective fact; it's promotional material; secondly, the "we" implies that Wikipedia has some affiliation with the company in question, which is untrue. Please read our conflict of interest guidelines if you run the company. All topics in Wikipedia have to be notable—take a look at our company notability guidelines. If your company hasn't been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources", Wikipedia will not be able to have an article on it. If your company has been the subject of significant coverage, please add reliable, independent secondary sources to the draft. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Futhermore, your username User:Bestdotnettraining contravenes our username policy - please change your name as explained on your talkpage - Arjayay (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, to sign your post you just need to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end. And finally, "wiki" is a type of website which features collaborative editing, and is not an abbreviation for Wikipedia. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 11:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bestdotnettraining. You ask: "how should i write an article so that people can get awareness of the company which i am running". I am afraid that the answer is "write it somewhere that isn't Wikipedia". Giving people awareness of something is called "promotion" or "advertising", and is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is interested only in subjects which independent sources have already thought it worth writing about. --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong with a user box?

At my home page I am trying to add a user box that says "This user is an intermediate SAS programmer". I thought I copied the user box syntax correctly, but I seem to have made an error. Then I tried to fix it and it got worse. What should I put? PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi PeterLFlomPhD I cant see any such edits so I guess you were just previewing, so maybe if you link to which userbox you were trying to add someone can help easier. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The user box that I want to use is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_programming-!2

thanks! PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi PeterLFlomPhD then it should just be {{User programming-!2|SAS}} to add it. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is my resubmitted, edited article not being reviewed?

I have edited the article now and added references, however it has been more than a week since I resubmitted and nothing has happened yet. I also did not get a reply when I asked for more advice on the discussions page. Please can you help? I do need to get this information out in the public domain soon.

Rads sing (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rads sing. Everything is done by volunteers here, so there may be a backlog of articles to review. You will have to be patient. I do not see why there is such urgency.Charles (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as Charles says everyone here is a volunteer and a week to wait at Articles for Creation is barely anything. Just recently there was a huge backlog with 4-week old submissions that had not been reviewed. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, so please be patient. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rads sing: One of the best ways to annoy folk here is to whine. I may even take a look at your draft. Fiddle Faddle 09:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

 Declined for multiple reasons, stated on the draft. Fiddle Faddle 09:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys,

thanks for the explanation- and the last thing I wanted to do was to sound like I was whining - sorry if it felt that way. I was genuinely curious as to how it came through so quickly the first time and then took so long the next time.

Fiddle Faddle- thanks for looking at the article and commenting - I will edit once again and resubmit.

Rads sing (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Rads sing. For your information, those volunteers who review submissions in the Articles for Creation project choose which ones to review. While some of them try to work on the oldest submissions first, some simply chose whatever title looks interesting to them or is in a subject area that they know something about. So a draft may get picked quickly one time, and wait rather longer another time. It is just the luck of the draw. DES ^(talk) 13:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Restoring Deleted Pages - Double Crossover Merging Interchange

Hello,

I created a page on the Double Crossover Merging Interchange (DCMI) November 2011. I create the page based on a presentation I had seen and the inventor's website. In 2013 it was moved to the Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) page, as the DCMI has some of the characteristics of a DDI. Since then, it appears the the section describing the Double Crossover Merging Interchange has been removed from the DDI page? At the time the DCMI was moved to the DDI page, the consensus was that the "subject fails to meet the GNG and would probably fail RS". Since then there several Secondary Sources have become available.

I am very unexperienced with Wikipedia and most of what I have done has been from bumping around trying to figure out how to proceed in what seems like a disorienting maze...LOL! I really need some assistance and clarity on how exactly to proceed. I think I have two alternatives that I can pursue: 1. Request for the original DCMI page to be un-delete. 2.reqest for the delete section the was delete from the DDI page to be restored. I have already requested the undeletion of the original page, and I was referred to the merging of the DCMI to the DDI page (see below)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Double_Crossover_Merging_Interchange

Should I provide more information on the secondary sources I mentioned and request the original page be restored. So this leaves alternative 2. Request the DCMI section that was moved from the original DCMI page to the DDI page, and then subsequently deleted from the DDI page, be restored.

I tried to figure out how to do this, but I have been unsuccessful. I thought the Talk page would be where I should discuss this, but I can not find any text that suggested the deletion of the DCMI from the DDI page? How can I request the DCMI be put back on the DDI or restored to it's own original page? Any suggestions or assistance is greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

CliffCliff Shaffer (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: see also Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Double Crossover Merging Interchange 2

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cliff Shaffer. This matter has been discussed in section #14 of Talk:Diverging diamond interchange. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, directions, and suggestions. Cliff Shaffer (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

How do I make my article sound more neutral if the amount of information available on the topic is limited?

Hello,

I am trying to create an article about the Autumn Glory apple variety (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Autumn_Glory_Apples). My submission was declined in one day for sounding "more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." This is an apple variety that is trademarked, patented, marketed and grown by one company in one region of North America exclusively. Other apples like the SweeTango similarly have exclusive rights to be grown -- but they have Wikipedia pages (that also cite trade press and/or press releases).

The Autumn Glory variety was just introduced in 2011, so there isn't much information available on it, but I used five different published sources that aren't related to the marketer/grower of the apples themselves.

I don't understand how my page is declined when similar exclusively-grown apples like the Pacific Rose (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Rose) have even less information and sources, one of which is the grower itself, possess approved articles.

Can you please help me with this question as soon as possible? Mackenzie Mennucci (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mackenzie Mennucci. Where you say the apple variety is known for being crunchy etc. you will need to find reliable independent sources that say this, or remove it. Otherwise the article seems to be developing nicely.Charles (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Charles, How do I resubmit my page once I make all the corrections I wanted? This is what it looks like right now and I can't find the resubmit button that others have talked about: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Autumn_Glory_Apples&redirect=no

Mackenzie Mennucci (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Found out how to resubmit! Thank you for your help.

Mackenzie Mennucci (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Article is under deletion discussion

Dear, An article is under deletion discussion. I want to know people wanted to keep that article. How I can stop discussion? User055 (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't stop a deletion discussion unless you started it and withdraw the request. I assume that the article in question is Trishneet Arora. The discussion is running in the direction of Keep. Just let the discussion run for seven days. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can't stop the discussion, you can join the discussion and explain why you think the article should be kept. Assuming you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trishneet Arora (2nd nomination) the actions of another editor (deleting comments they disagree with, and canvassing editors who supported their view in the last discussion) are very disruptive - keep cool and do not lower yourself to their level. - Arjayay (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The closing administrator will take the disruptive editing into account. As Arjayay says, do not panic. Occasionally disruption of an AFD gets to the point where it has to be reported to WP:ANI. This does not appear to be such a case. The consensus is running toward Keep. I suggest that you read the Articles for Deletion policy and related policies and guidelines for more background information. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually it was reported at 13.06 this afternoon. Please see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing during an AfD. - Arjayay (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Merging a draft with an existing article

While reviewing some articles I came across a draft, Draft:Uppi 2, and decided to do a quick search before assessing the article. However it turns out that a mainspace article with that name already exists, so I proposed a merge. Does this even work? The tag at the tog off the page has "Uppi 2" in bold so I'm assuming that it isn't standard to merge a draft and a mainspace article. -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 15:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Depends upon stuff, but you can ask an admin to do a WP:HISTORYMERGE and grab bits from both versions from the history. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

How do I show the article needs references

I came across an article with 1 refernce and it just came to a website with a 404 error which if you don't know means there is not a website with that adress, I am new to wikipedia, how do i show at the top of the page that it needs references? Jasala1 (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You add the {{Unreferenced}} template at the top; or, if it's a bio of a living person, {{blp unsourced}}.--ukexpat (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You can add {{Refimprove}} if the article does have references already, but needs more. If the reference leads to a dead link, you might still be able to access it on an archive website (e.g. the Wayback Machine). See WP:DEADLINK. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You can add {{BLP sources}} if the bio of a living person article does have references already, but needs more. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)