Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 365

Archive 360

←

Archive 363

Archive 364

Archive 365

Archive 366

Archive 367

→

Archive 370

Article on Wikipedia is pending

Hi . This is Sonam R Thakur, Crew member of DS Creations Entertainment Private Limited. We had submitted an article on renowned Casting Director Dinesh Soi on whom quite sufficient information is already there on Google, many a websites, newspapers and journals. The article is still pending since July 9th, 2015. Despite our all efforts of giving references, external links, citation and refname, we guess still there is something lacking. What is that, please guide us.. How can we get the article published at the earliest as it is already too late Sonam R Thakur (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Sonam R Thakur hello and welcome to The Teahouse. You have a conflict of interest and really shouldn't be writing about Dinesh Soi. However, if you have provided sufficient independent reliable sources and have written the article with a neutral point of view, an article from someone connected with the subject can be acceptable. Please disclose your conflict of interest on your user page.

If you are saying "it is already too late", this tells me you are trying to promote Mr. Soi. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia, and articles should not be written to promote. Actually, for us, there is no deadline.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Now that I have looked at Draft:Dinesh Soi (2), I see several obvious problems. Nearly all the references show Dinesh Soi as the author. Before your submission is accepted, you must provide references independent of Mr. Soi, such as newspapers and magazines that have written extensively about him and show he is notable. Your submission was rejected for not establishing notability. He may very well be notable, but it is up to you to establish this. imdb is not usually acceptable as a reference, and Wikipedia definitely cannot be a reference because it is not considered reliable. If you can find the original source of the information in the Wikipedia article you used, that should be your reference.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Huggle feed missing

A few weeks ago I clicked on the button to remove the feed to see what it did. And frankly, I'm not too happy with the result at all. I work on two computers so it isn't too much of a concern, however I would honestly really like to have this feature back. I have looked everywhere (preferences included) but I'm sure it's probably somewhere so blatantly obvious that it's actually hard to find. Help would be greatly appreciated. -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 14:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No one responded, PotatoNinja, so the best thing to do would be to post at WP:VPT or possibly WP:VPR.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Should I delete a source if it no longer exists (404 error)

If there is an article with 1 source and the website no longer exists, should I delete the source and leave the info or should I keep the source and leave it how it is. Or something else I should do. 70.29.122.21 (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Check with The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine to see if they have a back-up copy of that source, and add that to the citation as an archive link. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, person with an IP address and welcome to The Teahouse. A Google search might also be a good idea, though in this situation the results tend to be Wikipedia or its mirrors. And sometimes the web site has made a change but the same information can be found at a revised URL.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't delete the source. See Wikipedia:Link rot for options. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Unblock

How to unblock a Wikipedia user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Article.adder.kerala (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't. Only an administrator can. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

See more at Wikipedia:Blocking policy. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Avoiding redirects on subpages used to create new articles

I'm currently working on a number of new entries, some interrelated, on subpages of my user sandbox. I already foresee that if I proceed as I am, I will be creating a series of subpages with redirects. Is this a problem? If so, is there a way to avoid it? Some of these are BLP's and, therefore, I am reluctant to move them to the main namespace until all citations are in order and other editors have had a chance to review them. But I suppose others could be developed in user space but moved before any links are created. Would that avoid a redirect? I welcome any advice you might offer.Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Malcom Gregory Scott I'm not sure I've correctly understood - so sorry if I've guessed wrong. Were you thinking of actually linking your sub-pages and thus when moved the links would go via redirects from your user area? If so then the correct thing to do is just link to what would be the correct main-space page names so link to Stephen John Smith not to Stephen John Smith (i.e. User:Malcom Gregory Scott/Stephen John Smith). Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I may not be explaining the problem correctly, or you may have answered my question and I have misunderstood. Permit me to explain the problem another way. Last year, I created the page for Michael Petrelis in a user sandbox that I designated /Michael Petrelis. After the article was moved to main-space, I thought I could simply rename that page by removing the /Michael Petrelis designation and have a blank user sandbox. But in fact, as you will probably have guessed, I now have a redirect sitting on that subpage, which I suppose I might just as well re-deisgnate as /Michael Petrelis. So, as I create several more articles, each on subpages designated by the future page title, I'm concerned about this series of redirects and this stack of permanent subpages I'm creating. Is this the best way to do this? Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Malcom Gregory Scott, I see what you mean now. Firstly you can just delete the redirect from your sandbox - obviously when you first go to it, it will redirect to Michael Petrelis but then if you look at the top you will see "Redirected from User:Malcom Gregory Scott/sandbox" where you can click back and not be redirected (this adds a "&redirect=no" to the url to stop redirecting - i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Malcom_Gregory_Scott/sandbox&redirect=no. You can then edit and delete the #REDIRECT [[Michael Petrelis]] . Secondly for sub pages you do not want to keep (i.e. the new ones) you can change the redirect left after the moves to a {{Db-blanked}} to ask the the page stub is deleted by an admin. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That's very helpful. Thank you so much.Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Malcom. There is also no need to use the interface-created, on-the-nose name of "sandbox". You can create any number of sandboxes you'd like simply by making a red link to your user namespace or user talk namespace followed by a forward slash and an intuitive name. For example, if you wanted to work up a draft on the subject of Flarp, you can create that page at User:Malcom Gregory Scott/Flarp. You can save such a red link at your user page and once you place content there it will turn blue and you will have easy access to it (when placed and saved in your userspace, you can take the shortcut of just typing [[/Flarp]] and it will automatically link to User:NAME/Flarp). Note also that you can create pages in the draft namespace, e.g., at Draft:Flarp. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Need some help with pictures

I'm trying to have four small pictures in the infobox of this article in the same way as this article. I can't figure it out and need some help doing that. See the page's edit history. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi DangerousJXD. Infobox templates have different image code and aren't always compatible with advanced image features like {{image array}}. Experimentation shows that {{Infobox video game}} currently works if you assign values to | alt1 = | alt2 = | alt3 = | alt4 = . Anything non-empty would probably work but see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images for recommendations regarding alt text. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: Add the parameters to {{image array}} like I did in [1], but please make more meaningful descriptions for somebody who doesn't see the images. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Backlash from New Page Patrolling

I'm having a problem, and I would just like some advice. Today I decided to start New Page Patrolling for the first time because there was a backlog, and I wanted to help. The problem is, that I marked a couple pages for Speedy Deletion (as many do), and now the creators of these pages are coming to my talk page to complain about it. One of them (Serdik) was very cordial about it, and it ended up being a mistake that I fixed. The other, (Volmar) just commented "For what "variety of reasons"?" in response to my nomination of deletion for his article (Adalbert of Moersberg). I just want to know whether this is common for people who patrol new pages, or if this is unusual. I personally would like for my user talk page to be for discussions about my mainspace edits, not for complaints about my patrolling decisions. Any ideas? Rswallis10 (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Rswallis10 and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that this sort of thing is not uncommon. Moreover, it is, in principle, proper. When a person whose article has been tagged for speedy deletion disagrees, or doesn't understand, there is really nowhere better for them to ask than the editor who tagged it, or possibly the admin who deleted it. (I get a fair number of such comments in response to Category:CSD patrol. Moreover, it is not uncommon for an article to be tagged incorrectly by NPP. I find that I decline almost have of the pages I check on CSD patrol. Other admins are perhaps not so picky, but most I have talked with decline 20% or more of the pages tagged. If yoiu aren't willing to accept such complaints and try hard to be civil and helpful in response, don't do NPP. That doesn't mean you need to accept abuse, but many people do not understand the various reasons why a new article might not comply with Wikipedia policies, and also not understand that even a "deleted" page is still available on the servers, and so think that hours of work have been blown away, and that someone is picking on them. As a new page patroller, you are in part an ambassador from Wikipedia to new editors, and you should ideally try to respond so as to explain the policies, guidelines and practices without making the feel unwelcome and unlikely to keep editing. This is much easier said than done. I am talking about good-faith misguided contributors, of course, not blatant vandals. But you need to keep WP:AGF and WP:BITE firmly in mind, even more than in usual talk page encounters, i think. That is what I try to do, anyway. Not all NPPers or admins seem to do so, of course. DES ^(talk) 00:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! I was only curious because in the Speedy Deletion template, it specifically calls for the creators to contest the deletion on the article's talk page. I have no problem with explaining my actions to these people, just wasn't sure that going to MY talk page was allowed. Your answer was quite helpful, and I feel a lot better now. Thanks again! Rswallis10 (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, Rswallis10, please be careful with your speedy tags (and other tags also) if you are going to do NPP. I just looked at Adalbert of Moersberg, which another admin has already declined to speedy delete. You tagged it with noi less than 5 CSD templates. I think even when multiple reasons apply, using more than 2 is poor practice. It can feel like piling on, and doesn't help the reviewing admin. Let's look at the tags you applied here one by one, just as a possibly helpful example for the future:

1. a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. See CSD A1.

   A1 is for cases where a would be editor honestly can't figure out what the subject is or where or how to find out more about it. "Joe is a wonderful guy, he likes to cut down trees" is a classic example. There is no way to determine which "Joe" is meant. But here the title "Count of Moersberg" plus the (linked at that) names of the monasteries he was associated with provide all the context anyone could need.

2. article about a real person, ... that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. See CSD A7.

   A7 and A9 are probably the most mis-used CSDs. Please read Credible Claim of Significance A claim need not be sourced, nor need it establish notability. A hint of notability is enough. Here "Count of Moersberg" plus "about 1070" should be enough. While not all real counts are notable, there is enough chance of it that an A7 is not appropriate.

3. as a page that is patent nonsense, consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, vandalism and hoaxes (G3), material not in English, badly translated material, etc. See CSD G1.

   G1 is for random gibberish, like "shdwidowcdfesncfesnjc" or for test so incoherent it isn't even English (or any other known language). This is a perfectly grammatical sentence if a slightly run on one. Please read WP:PN

4. an article that contains no content whatsoever ... (A3)

   A3 is for truly empty articles, or skeletons with nothing at all filled in. If there is even one sentance of prose, it isn't A3. Any by the way if there is context enough to avoid A1, A3 will also not apply. I don't think there is ever a good reason to use both A1 and A3 on the same article.

5. as an article about a musical recording that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject...(A9)

   What made you think that this was about a musical recording? In fact I can't see how A7 and A9 could ever validly apply to t same article.

I'm sorry but you will need to do better than this. DES ^(talk) 00:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

In response to your comment above, the main reason why the creator is advised to contest on the article talk page is so that the reviewing admin can see and consider the contest, but commenting to the user who signed the notification template is a very natural response. Thanks for your reply. DES ^(talk) 00:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I even came here Rswallis10 (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, not meaning to pile on here, but this may help another Teahouse reader as well. I notice you used WP:Page Curation tool to nominate these articles for deletion. If you look at your contributions history, you will see that each time a notice was sent to the article creator's talk page to notify them. In that automatic message, there is an invitation: "You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions". This explains why they are asking at your page. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 01:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone has renamed an article I've created

I originally created an article with the name Common skink (New Zealand) following the naming convention I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna) This name follows the common name for this skink as listed in information I cited from the New Zealand Conservation Department as well as the common name given by Te Papa, the national museum of New Zealand. The article is now entitled https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligosoma_polychroma but on attempting to revert the edit I get the following message "The edit appears to have already been undone. You may have attempted to undo a pagemove or protection action; these cannot be undone this way. Any autoconfirmed user can move the page back to its previous location, and any administrator can modify or remove protection." How to I undo the incorrect renaming of this article. Ambrosia10 (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually as per the article linked I think it would be appropriate to name the page with respect to the scientific name instead because another species with that vernacular name already exists (on wikipedia.) It honestly sounds a bit awkward when you place "New Zealand" after a species' common name, as brackets are usually used to identify the subject in terms of what it is. (that's terribly explained, I know.) For example if there were two pages titled Foog and one was a book, you would simply follow the title up with "book" in brackets. This is also shown on the "Naming Conventions" page where it states that "Drosophila melanogaster has no common name other than "fruit fly", which it shares with other species." -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 11:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. Will leave as is. I appreciate the help.Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a disambiguous page set up? possibly two? Skink and Common skink? Although Common skink (disambigous) probably should redirect to Skink (disambigous) whick would then redirect Common garden skink ((I notice no Latin name)) or to Common skink (New Zealand)

I know of few normal people who memorize the genus specific names but the above mentioned rename seems to be requiring New Zealanders to learn Latin. and the cited "Naming Conventions" page seems to insinuate all vegitation needs to be renamed to the Latin name

--- Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a Latin tutor Qazwiz (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

articled deleted becuase read more like an advertisement but evertying pulled from 3rd party sources

Hi Teahouse.

I was so careful in writing the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:LifeAID_Beverage_Company) and made sure that all the info came from 3rd party news and they were cited (referenced).

i didn't or make claims. i just gave facts.

can you help a bit?

thanks! Doug Dougoinsf (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I see a few problems with the draft. For example, the external links, or at least some of them, may be redundant. Also, the draft does read to some extent like an announcement from the company, something like a press release. I'm not sure if this might help, but you could refer to the article on Coca-Cola. Perhaps the tone needs to be a bit more neutral. Present the numbers clearly. Just a little rewriting will be needed. Also, there are empty sections which need to be dealt with. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

My IP has been blocked?

I decided to switch to chrome for the time being to edit some pages, however as soon as I tried to use VisualEditor to edit the Major Lazer discography page, it stated that my IP had been blocked by DeltaQuad because it was believed to be a web host. From my basic understanding of such terms, I have absolutely no idea what that means, however I'm 100% sure that that wasn't my IP address. I then quit chrome, reloaded the page and then tried to edit the same page again, however this time it claimed that I had the IP 128.199.0.0/16, which was certainly different from last time. The admin who blocked me was Elockid. What I find strange about this is that my IP is 192.168.0.44, and using safari and firefox works absolutely fine. I am also using a school laptop so I doubt I would be able to perform such acts with much ease. -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 05:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

192.168.0.4 is only your local address; it's only valid within the network. Your IP address will be different to the Internet at large. (Check out network address translation network address translation if you're curious what that means.) As for the block itself, well, it's not stopping you from editing while logged in, so I guess it shouldn't really be a problem; you probably just got inadvertently logged out at some point. School networks are frequently vandal hotspots, and so they get blocked a lot; just the cost of doing business, I'm afraid. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The main problem I had with this was that I wasn't even able to log in while I was logged in, at least while using VisualEditor. Also by school laptop I meant a computer provided by the school for personal use. -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 05:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for feedback on declined article

Hi Wiki Editors,

My article for creation submission "Experteer" has been declined again, I have really tried to make sure any line which sounds promotional has been deleted. I have taken articles which has been referenced and has good 3rd party sources.

If i am being critical ,I think the problem may be under company information where I had to describe what the company does or do you want me to add a criticism section too?

Could you please help me understand which lines sound promotional and about the general article too,thanks. Richard Falkner (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Richard Falkner and welcome to the Teahouse. Really the whole thing reads like a marketing brochure. The one-line paragraphs that have the tone of list bullet items, not flowing prose. (This seems especially true in the "history" section.) The use of unexpanded abbreviations B2BH and B2C, assuming that any reader knows what these are and is probably in the job market one way or another. Think of this article as being directed to someone who is not and will not be in the market for the services of this firm, but is casually interested in what it does and why it is important. The Services section should either be expanded into a paragraph describing each service in neutral terms, or removed. Also, please include additional metadata for each reference. For a book include the publisher, date, and page number. For a magazine article, list the actual author (don't list the organization as author, list them as publisher or possibly under work if that is the title of the publication or site. Some of the cited references are primarily interviews and others seem to be reworking press releases. Please include a "reactions" or "reception" section where you can report the cited opinions of independent reliable sources on the company and its service, including both positive and negative views in proper proportion to their occurrence among those who have published comments. Try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs. All tese are o nly my own veiws, of course, perhaps others will give their views. DES ^(talk) 11:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Accessing Talk page for article within a Project

Trying to add a comment on article 9 (number) but as it's part of a project need to join and cannot work out how. Am new. Dlgw666 (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dlgw666. You don't need to be a member of WikiProject Numbers to leave a comment - just click on the Edit tab at Talk:9 (number) and add your comments at the bottom of the page (or at he bottom of the correct thread, if you're replying to something that's already there). For what it's worth, you can ask to join WikiProject Numbers by signing here, but the project itself is largely inactive. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dlgw666, welcome to the Teahouse. Membership of a WikiProject is never required to edit or discuss articles. Just post to the talk page by clicking the "New section" tab or clicking "edit" at one of the existing section headings. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk or Sandbox

Do I draft an article in "Talk" or "Sandbox?"

I drafted an article in sandbox and saved the page. I logged out and when I logged back in, my draft was gone.

Do you know why that happened? Am I supposed to draft an article in "Talk" instead?

Thanks!

Morganmann2012 (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This edit, to ask this question, is the only edit you have made from this account. You probably drafted the article in sandbox while logged out. Creating a draft article in sandbox is permitted. Have you tried logging out and looking for the article in the sandbox of your IP address? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Also note the difference between a user sandbox and the general sandbox - the latter gets swept out periodically, the former does not.--ukexpat (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Morganmann2012 as the others have pointed out you have only made one edit (see here) so if it was in a sandbox it was either another account or when not logged in. Assuming it was when not logged in you can check the history of the main general sandbox by looking here and if you know when you edited you should be able to recover your work and copy it to your own user sandbox User:Morganmann2012/sandbox. As for the other part to your question, yes you should create article in your sandbox (or any other user area subpage, alternatively you can use the draft namespace, but no you shouldn't use a Talk page. For more information see Wikipedia:Your first article. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for the help.

I'm not sure what happened to my previous draft. I'm assuming I typed it in Sandbox when I was logged out because I can't find it in my history.

Morganmann2012 (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Morganmann2012. Did you click the "Sandbox" link to the right of your username and "Talk"? That is the right link to use but nothing was saved there. If you started by clicking that link then it should have been saved at User:Morganmann2012/sandbox. New users often incorrectly think they have saved a page when they have only clicked "Show preview", or they have clicked "Save page" but not noticed a message that the edit could not be saved or they had to fill in a CAPTCHA. Try copying your text to another program like a text editor before saving. After saving, click "Contributions" at the top right to see whether your edit is listed. If it isn't then it wasn't saved. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Prime Hunter.

I do recall getting a message in red saying the edit couldn't be saved after I showed it as a preview.

I misunderstood this message and thought that maybe the edit would still be in my account somehow.

Thanks for the answers from everyone!

Morganmann2012 (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

How to do something quickly

Is there a time saving way to remove all the inline external links on List of radio stations in Greece, along with the website and listen live columns in the tables, as this all appears promotional? Thanks, Rubbish computer 14:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A fairly simple way would be to use VisualEditor... and I've heard that AWB might be able to do something similar. -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 15:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Or if they were all added in one edit, it may be possible to revert that single edit.--ukexpat (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@PotatoNinja: @Ukexpat: Thanks but I do not know how to enable VisualEditor as WP:VisualEditor does not explain this. Rubbish computer 16:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Visual editor can be enabled under the Beta tab at the top of your screen between Preferences and Watchlist - but I have no idea if it does what you want - I only tried it once and abandoned it almost immediately. - Arjayay (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Arjayay: Thanks, I think I'll try it manually. Rubbish computer 17:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Depending upon your skillz and how laborious manually for a big table, sometimes table work can be facilitated by copying the content externally to a spreadsheet program, doing a find || and replace all with ||^ , do a text to columns using the ^ , delete the offending webaddress column, and then paste back into Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@The Red Pen of Doom: Thanks. Rubbish computer 01:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done manually. Rubbish computer 13:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Saving an article for viewing by Teahouse advisors

I recently placed a question (13th July) on the help desk under the heading 'Complete Replacement of Article' and it was suggested that I present the articles I was referring to for viewing. I have since navigated my way around the sandbox and am putting the finishing edit to my article. However, I am not sure what to do to make this viewable for the advisor. Do they get it from my sandbox or do I need to save it somewhere else? I am also interested in hearing from others who can advise me on my original question once I have the materials available. Thank you. 202.74.185.90 (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello 202.74.185.90. I'd like to ask a few questions first:

Is User:Brightfire4/sandbox the article you've been working on (since that is the only sandbox you have edited using your current IP address)?

Are you by any chance User:Brightfire4, since you have edited that user's sandbox?

Finally, is the other article that you mentioned at the Help Desk currently titled "Cass Identity Model"? CabbagePotato (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes to all your questions. I have completed my article, which is saved in the Brightfire4 sandbox and I wish this to completely replace that under the heading Cass Identity Model. I also have one other request. I would like to restrict editing of my article, once it is published on Wikipedia, to the area headed 'Critique of theory' for obvious reasons. ie, when a theorist says 'this is an account of my theory' then it is not possible for someone else to change this. I greatly appreciate your interest.

Brightfire4 (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Brightfire4: I'm a little concerned about this comment that you made: "I would like to restrict editing of my article, once it is published on Wikipedia". Your referring to your sandbox article as "my article" and wanting to restrict the editing of it seems a little bit like ownership to me. You might want to read Wikipedia:Ownership of content to see what I mean by this. Wikipedia, after all, is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (even "anonymous" IPs can, too!), and articles should only be protected if there is sufficient rationale for doing so (such as repeated vandalism or edit-warring on that article).

By the way, I'm not very experienced at this, so I'm hoping that somebody more experienced will come along to answer your questions. Good luck, CabbagePotato (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Brightfire4. Wikipedia policy is clear, and CabbagePotato is correct above. On every edit screen it says "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL" This means that all contributions are free for anyone to edit here, and for anyone to copy and reproduce, changed or unchanged, anywhere in the world. No article here is ever "restricted" to be edited only by one person or a small group of people. If a theorist wants to publish an account of his or her theory, as s/he defines it, then that should be done in an appropriate journal, or on a personal website, or in some other venue. That publication could then perhaps be cited here. A Wikipedia article should be based on what others have published about a topic. In the case of a theory, if it gains any acceptance, others beside the original theorist will adopt it and modify it, to greater or lesser degree, in almost every case. If no one else adopts it, it probably shouldn't have an article here at all, unless its critics write quite a lot about it, and in that case the article would be largely devoted to the critics. DES ^(talk) 02:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Also User:Brightfire4/sandbox as it now stands is almost completely uncited. It has exactly one inline citation. It has a long list of References, many of them to the work of Cass, whose theory it is about, but many others as well. However it is generally unclear which reference supports (or is alleged to support) what statement or statements in the article. There are some inline cites of the form "(Cass, 1985, 1996, 1999)", but without page number references in any case, and many sections and paragraphs have no citations of this form either. In my view, if this were to be published as a Wikipedia article, it would be promptly deleted. it is an improvement on the current article in sourcing, but that is not saying much. It also seem to me rather promotional in tone. This isn't anywhere near ready. DES ^(talk) 03:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me respond to your comments. I am a new user so am very happy to receive advice but some of the information offered does not seem to follow logically to me. But, firstly, I have been advised about the referencing (am a new user and was actually using the parenthetical referencing style which I had read is acceptable on Wiki although the inline style is preferred) and have begun to make changes to the inline style - hence so far only one correction - and I had not realized you can all see my draft ??). Secondly, I find the comments about being able to change an established theory on Wikipaedia very odd. This would mean that anyone could go into an article on Einstein's theory of relativity or Darwin's theory and change these at whim. Seriously? I have checked on Wikipaedia a number of psychological theories that I am familiar with and they are all presented exactly as the theorist wrote them. A theorist is in fact the owner of the content of their theory, just as the patent design is owned by the inventor. Wikipaedia actually strongly acknowledges copyright law, so clearly there needs to be a distinction made between article content that is copyrighted to someone and that which can be edited without breaking copyright. Ok, so I was well-meaning in my efforts to get the article up but perhaps there is some truth in the comment that I seem to have the wrong idea about Wikipaedia. A number of people globally had asked me to offer a correct version of the theory and I had thought I was doing the right thing by making it available, especially when there are people who cannot access many of the relevant articles because of censorship etc. As for the concern that I am being promotional, I have wrestled with the style of writing aiming to provide as objective a stance as possible. I don't want to self-promote (and don't need to). I have shown the draft to others in my field and asked them to check for this and all have stated that everything that has been said can be verified factually. My understanding of reading the material on submitting an article was that Wikipaedia encouraged boldness and stated that rules were not fixed. I thought my request might be an example of these qualities. So, while well-meaning, I will find another way to offer the article to those who wish it. Thanks for taking the time to offer feedback.

Brightfire4 (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

That is your decision. Meanwhile, if you, or any of your colleagues, are aware of errors in the article Cass Identity Model, we would be grateful if they would point them out at that article's talk page, preferably giving supporting references. Wikipedia does have many errors; also, many editors who like to put things right.

I should also point out that, although you have now blanked your draft article, all its previous states are accessible to anyone who knows where to look. If you don't want that, I believe that you can apply to an administrator to have it redacted. Maproom (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Brightfire4! I just wanted to make a comment -- you pointed out that all other psych articles you'd checked had presented those psychologists' theories correctly. This is true even though anyone can edit Wikipedia. That's kind of the beauty of Wikipedia -- if something is wrong on it, eventually someone will come along, realize it's wrong, and fix it. So if you write an article here on Wikipedia, you don't have to worry that someone will come along and rewrite it incorrectly. That is, they might...but then you or some other editor will see what they did and revert. When you write an article, you've automatically added that article to your 'watchlist' -- that means that every time anyone does ANYTHING to that article, you get a notification in your watchlist, and can even set it up so that these notifications drop into your email box. That's how we keep all those other articles correct once we get them correct -- any number of people will have that article in their watchlist, too, and when someone comes along and changes something, often multiple editors will go check it out to make sure it's not something that introduces anything incorrect into the article or something unsourced. valereee (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Changing user page to article

Dear member,

Could you please tell me how I can change to “User page to Article” on my Wikipedia Account? (Guillaume Birindwa (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Guillaume Birindwa, please cut paste the content from your user page to Sandbox and do all the editing in the sandbox, once you feel its ready and within the Wikipedia guidelines, you can submit the same. Enjoy editing! Peppy Paneer (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Peppy Paneer! (Guillaume Birindwa (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's better to move it, which I will do for you now.--ukexpat (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hm, did that but it didn't work properly so I undid it and will leave it alone...--ukexpat (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that PotatoNinja has moved it to Draft:Guillaume Birindwa Lunja, which is a good place for it. However, Guillaume Birindwa, please be aware that writing autobiography is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, because it is difficult to write a neutral piece about oneself. You should also look at WP:42 and your first article if you haven't already read them. --ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Running JavaScript

How do I run any JavaScript of widgets stated by user on Wikipedia to facilitate the editing process. KatyRat (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, KatyRat, welcome to the Teahouse! You can run these scripts by adding them to your personal Javascript pages. The most important one is the common.js page, located here. You install scripts by adding the names of their pages to this page, within an importScript statement. So, if you wanted to install a script, say my inline diff script which is located at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/commonHistory.js for example, you would add the line:

importScript("User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/commonHistory.js");

...to your common.js page, then bypass your cache, and it should start working. If you wanted to add another script, you could just add another importScript line, replacing the stuff in the quotation marks with the location of your desired scripts. You can take a look at my common.js page if you want to see what it might look like with many scripts added. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for feedback on article

Hello!

I have created an article for submission, but I would like to request feedback before submitting it live. How do I go about having someone review my draft?

I do have some pictures to submit with it as well; should I submit the article first, then add the pictures after acceptance?

Any help would be greatly appreciated! The page is located at Biowriter818/Maralou Gray.

Thank you! Biowriter818 BioWriter818 (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi BioWriter818 - you request a review by submitting it for a review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

...which you can do by clicking on the blue button near the top of the page. However, in its current state, it will be failed - the style of writing is too discursive to be neutral (see WP:TONE for tips on encyclopedic writing) and vast swathes of the content are completely unsourced (per WP:Verifiability and WP:BLP, all statements that could potentially be contested need to have a citation to a reliable source). That's just from a five second glance at the content; I daresay a full review will uncover more areas for improvement. Needless to say, this will not pass review at present. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question about pictures, BioWriter818: if the pictures are free (public domain or explicitly released by the copyright owner) then you may add them to the article in draft; but my suggestion would be that you spend the time getting the article up to standard with references and writing, and leave decorations like pictures for a later stage. If the pictures you have are not free of copyright, and you are planning to use them as 'fair use' images, our rules on fair use don't allow them to be used in drafts anyway. --ColinFine (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui Thank you so much for your feedback and help, it is greatly appreciated!!!

BioWriter818 (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine - Thank you for the advice on the pictures! I agree the article needs to get up to standard first before proceeding to the next stage.

BioWriter818 (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Creating a Artical

Can I create a Artical about myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissa Tayoan (talk • contribs) 06:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Marissa Tayoan. Can you create an article about yourself? Yes you can, but it is almost certainly a bad idea. Is it likely that such an article will be deleted? I estimate the chances as greater than 99%. Do you have the skills and the ability and experience to realistically evaluate your own notability, as Wikipedia defines that term? Do you have the almost superhuman ability to write in a truly neutral fashion about yourself? If you did, you probably would not be asking this question at the Teahouse. You would be writing an article that no one could detect was an autobiography. And you would spell "article" properly, for sure. Please do not go there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, I know this is the umpteen millionth time that question has been answered here in the Teahouse, but I'm guessing it's that individual user's first time asking. Answering her with sarcasm and belittling her for a spelling error just makes her never want to come back to the Teahouse again to ask a question, and if any other relative-newbie who made it here saw your answer, they might think twice about asking their own question that might expose them to ridicule. I really can't think of any worse place to WP:BITE. valereee (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This was the editor's only edit, to ask if she could prepare an article about herself. It would have been more appropriate to provide her with basic information and simply to say that that is very strongly discouraged. She probably really didn't know why it is discouraged. This was the sort of answer that would be a little harsh at the Help Desk, let alone the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to apologize to you, Marissa Tayoan. I was trying to advise you against writing an autobiography on Wikipedia, and now I see that I phrased things too strongly. There are many wonderful contributions you can make to the encyclopedia. I hope that you will continue learning to edit, and also that you will accept my apology. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You're a class act, Cullen328. valereee (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

How to properly cite the information

The site I created is on behalf of the organization being discussed, Alico, and the information came directly from them. How do I properly cite the information in this case, should I use the organization as the resource?

BascomLLC (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You cannot cite the organisation itself to demonstrate its alleged notability. Notability is evidenced by significant coverage in independent, third-party sources. See WP:CORP and WP:RS.--ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, per the terms of use, you are required to disclose your status as a paid editor, preferably on your user page.--ukexpat (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

While it is true that cites to the organization itself, its officers or employees, its websites or publications, will not count towards notability, the organization's website or publications can be cited for basic noncontroversial facts about it, or for its expressed opinions, such as a quoted mission statement. If information came orally or by email or in other unpublished form, it should not be used at all, unless a published reliable source can be cited. DES ^(talk) 22:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Search engine picture results

Hi!

I'm working on the Anthony Bailey (author) page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Bailey_(author))

My problem is that in a Google search, a picture of someone else shows up in the box on the right-hand side and links to a different Anthony Bailey's LinkedIn page. How do I go about changing the picture that shows up on the search engine?

Thank you!

Jbibby11 (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jbibby11, welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for clearly saying you saw the problem in a Google search. Most posters don't say they saw it at Google. Here is our standard reply to them:

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter, thank you so much! I've given the feedback to Google saying the picture is not the correct Anthony Bailey. If there's anything else I can do in addition to just waiting to hear back, please let me know! And thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbibby11 (talk • contribs)

@Jbibby11: I don't have any knowledge of how Google processes feedback. Google results can depend on your location and possibly other factors. In Denmark I actually see File:Anthony Bailey OBE GCSS (2012).png in the Google Knowledge Graph (and no LinkedIn page), so I cannot make another feedback saying the image is wrong. It's just speculation but feedback from others may increase the chance they remove or change a field. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Creating new topic

Hi Friends,

I lake to create a new page regarding Nileshwar Railway Statiom. How Can i do that?

Regards AshwinAshwin.appus (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ashwin.appus. We have many articles about railway stations, so I recommend that you read those that are well-developed and well-referenced for ideas. Also, read and follow the advice in the essay called Your first article, paying special attention to the need to build your article by summarizing what reliable sources say about the topic. If you are new to writing articles, I suggest that you use the Articles for creation process. It is slower, but experienced editors will review your draft and give you advice before your article goes "live". This can help reduce the chances that your article will be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Social networking website in EL section

Hi, I found the link to social networking website in the 2nd EL of Kurar article. Is it advisable ? Peppy Paneer (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Typically we permit only one "official" internet presence, on the basis that the "official" webpage will contain links to Facebook, Twitter etc. So the Facebook link should be removed. If the Facebook link was the only "official" link listed it would be OK.--ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The policy to quote in your edit summary is WP:ELMINOFFICIAL - as his official website has direct links to facebook, twitter, instagram & vimeo - Arjayay (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ukexpat and Arjayay Peppy Paneer (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

creating an article for my page

HI, I would like to ask about creating an article for my page. Can I not out anything about myself? I asked a friend of mine and he said maybe someone needs to create an article for you. My question is can i do it or i need to ask someone to create it?

thanksJoey Bonifacio (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

For reference, I see you have created a draft article about yourself at Draft:Joey Bonifacio. —teb728 t c 05:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Joey Bonifacio. Writing an Autobiography is strongly discouraged here. We accept articles about people that are notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. That means that reliable, independent sources have written extensively about the person. Your draft article includes no citations to coverage in reliable sources. This is contrary to policy, and unreferenced biographies of living people are subject to deletion. It is very difficult for most people to write objectively about themselves, but our articles must be written from the neutral point of view. For example, you describe your wife as "awesome". It is wonderful that you want to praise your wife, and I commend you for it. But that type of language is not appropriate for a neutrally written encyclopedia.

If you truly believe you are notable as Wikipedia defines that term, then please provide a few links to independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to you and your life. We can then give you advice on how best to have an article written about you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

In addition to Cullen’s reply: I see your draft has been tagged for deletion as promotional. If your purpose in writing is to promote yourself, your ministry, and your books, I’m afraid you will be disappointed, for Wikipedia does not allow promotion. —teb728 t c 06:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I will research first and read more about creating page before I proceed.

Really grateful for this forum. JoeyJoey Bonifacio (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It has been six days since i created my Wiki account but it keep saying "Your account has not become confirmed yet." What should i do?

iI has been six days sicne i created my Wiki account but it keep saying "Your account has not become confirmed yet." What should i do?Henok.yisakal (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Henok.yisakal. The autoconfirmatiom threshold is four days of editing and ten edits. You've made three, so whatever action you're trying to take that requires you to be autoconfirmed will continue to be prohibited resulling in that message until you've made seven more. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't find the correct place to edit a caption on an image.

I read all the documentaiton on editing a caption but I can't find it for this particular page:

I.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_bone

I want to edit the caption for the image of the pelvis bones, in the markup it is:

{{Pelvis image|right}}

And links to this image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_bone#/media/File:Skeletal_pelvis-pubis.svg

I want to edit this caption:

The skeleton of the human pelvis: 2–4. Hip bone/(os coxae) 1. Sacrum, (os sacrum) 2. Ilium, (os ilium) 3. Ischium, (os ischii) 4. Pubic bone os pubis (4a. corpus, 4b. ramus superior , 4c ramus inferior, 4d tuberculum pubicum) 5. Pubic symphysis, 6. Acetabulum (of the hip joint), 7. Foramen obturatum, 8.Coccyx - tailbone, (os coccygis) Dotted. Linea terminalis of the pelvic brim

But I can't find where?

213.128.188.180 (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi 213.128.188.180. It looks like the caption you wish to edit is part of Template:Pelvis image. However, I strongly suggest you discuss the changes you wish to make at Template talk:Pelvis image and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy before making them because this template is used in many articles. Changing templates like this affects all the articles where the template is used, so if you should accidentally mess up the template's code while making your edits it will impact how the image is displayed in all of the articles. Although editors are encouraged to be bold when editing, I think you need to be really careful when it comes to templates and probably should not edit them unless you are absolutely positive doing so will not create any problems. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I understand, I only wish to provide the Wikipedia links to the respective bone's for "(4a. corpus, 4b. ramus superior , 4c ramus inferior, 4d tuberculum pubicum)" where it hasn't been provided though the other's have.

Popularity of Wikipedia in different languages

We know after English, Swedish Wikipedia has maximum number of articles. Then comes German, Dutch and French. As we have top 25 Wikipedia pages according to view count, I want to know which Wikipedia has top view count after English. There are more Mandarin and Spanish speakers than Swedish and Dutch. 112.79.35.187 (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi 112.79.35.187, the quick answer is in "Views per hour" the order is currently English, Spanish, German, Japanese (but all quite close) then Russian. If your interested in this type of data just take a look at https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm - you can then order by Participation, Usage , Content etc. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Also http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/ shows you graphically (in the second graph) and you can more easily see how the next few languages keep swapping order on a month by month basis. KylieTastic (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hacked account??

I recently joined Wiki and im loving it. However i have some privacy concerns. My boyfriend swears he is not a hacker and i beg to differ! Im just a good ole country girl hoping i can get a little help from my fellow wikipediars :) Please someone help, if there is anyway you can tell by looking at a certain section of my page .... pls inform me. The cache, the cookies? I think he sees everything i do, and i dont do anything againest him. Hes ruining our relationship with this and making me a parnoid wreck! Thank yall so much. Wildflower30 (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This edit has been your only edit, so that your account has not been hacked. I don't know what you are saying is your problem with your boyfriend. We do not give relationship advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wildflower30: I am completely guessing here but keeping in mind that this is your only edit to Wikipedia (not wiki) – at least logged in under the account you used to post the above message – is the issue that your boyfriend was able to follow what pages here you had visited after the fact? If that is the case it may be that you can avoid this simply by learning how to thoroughly scrub your browser's history (yes cookies, cache and more). It depends on the type of browser but searching Google for clear everything [insert name of your browser] should allow you to follow pretty straightforward directions. It may be as simple as this but of course there is the possibility of sophisticated spying going on, like a program running in the background recording actions.

The other possibility that comes to mind is that you've been editing by a relatively static IP address assigned to your connection while not logged in, and even though your browsing history is scrubbed, your boyfriend is looking at the contribution history here of the IP address. That's simple to avoid. Just don't make any more edits here while not logged in.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, a feature of Wikipedia is that, regardless of whether you are editing as a registered user or whether you are editing logged out from an IP address, you have a contribution history. There is no way to hide your contribution history (the contribution history of a registered account, or the contribution history of an IP address) from the world. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

That is some great information! Ty so much and yes was my first post. Ok, he has mentioned something about static ip addresses before. Funny huh. :) Sooo, how do i find out if i have one and how to delete the history, also avoiding that will be great too lol. Thank yall so very much :) Wildflower30 (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wildflower30, the only way to assure your own privacy is to not tell your boyfriend your Wikipedia username, not let your browser fill in forms for you, and always log out and clear your browser history when finished editing. (And that's not enough if he's installed some sort of keystroke recorder on your computer; it sounds like you think he's capable of that kind of thing. If he has, you'd likely need to take it to an expert, as they can be hidden.) Once anyone knows your username, they can see every word you type on Wikipedia; there's no easy way to delete anything. If he already knows it, you'd have to stop using it and create a new one, and this time protect yourself so he doesn't learn it again. valereee (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

how to publish a page which seems as draft

hi friends

I have created a page. bt till nw it seems as draft.. how it will publish.. what should i do for that???

regards AshwinAshwin.appus (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Ashwin.appus, just post {{subst:submit}} at the top of your article to submit for review. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Honestly the draft as it stands is unlikely to be accepted into the article mainspace. You're going to need more than one reference, let alone one that's unaffiliated. Just ask if you need any help. -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 12:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)