Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 438

Archive 435

Archive 436

Archive 437

Archive 438

Archive 439

Archive 440

→

Archive 445

Mobile and desktop views of diff are not the same

I am puzzled and confused by some differences between the mobile and desktop displays of the diff in Tony1's most recent edits to Independence Mall (Philadelphia). I have no issues with the edits themselves.

The mobile diff shows spaces deleted after </ref> and after the word "allée", but the desktop diff does not; and the page itself shows spaces there:

The first block closest to Independence Mall was completed in 1954. The design for the first block was developed by Wheelwright, Stevenson and Langren, a Philadelphia Landscape Architecture Firm. By their design, the block featured a central lawn surrounded by terraces, walkways and a formal allée of trees.[4] The next block featured a central fountain and a square reflecting pool. It was also surrounded by terraces and two brick arcades to mimic the first block.

This is not the only part of the page with these anomalies, just an example. Please, what's going on here?

My mobile device, which I have been using to access all these pages:

• Model: SM-G920V
• Android version 5.1.1
• Baseband v. G920VVRU4BOK7

(Lots more numbers, will provide on request.)

--Thnidu (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The desktop diff system (on my machine at least) does not highlight where number of spaces has changed, although the relevant paragraphs are displayed in the diff. In each of the cases to which you were refer, there were two spaces in the previous version and one space after the edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Thnidu, I do most of my editing on an Android smartphone, but always use the desktop site on my phone, which I consider superior to the mobile site in every way. I have written an essay User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing about this topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: This is a bug in the Mobile Frontend, then. I'll report it on Phabricator.

@Cullen328: Thanks for the advice. I'll read your essay soon.

--Thnidu (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Please let me know if you decide there was an issue with the edit. Thanks. Tony (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphan

Hello, how I like to do everything as well as a template {{Orphan|January 2016}} to hide the template, ie that the article would be arranged? Because Google's search engine on my site where fitted orphan, is the only contact information, more links are available. What to do?--L.ukas lt 13 --TalkLukaslt13

Hello, Lukaslt13. An article is called an "orphan" if there are no other Wikipedia articles that link to it. Looking at your article, which I assume is Ignalina Česlovas Kudaba Progymnasium, click on the link "What links here" under "Tools" on the left hand side. This will give you a list of all the other articles which are linked to this article. In this case, there are no articles; just User pages, project pages and a redirect. In order to remove the Orphan tag, first fix that problem: what other articles should properly link to this one? Edit them to incorporate that link. Once those are in place, the Orphan tag can be removed.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be crystal clear, these are incoming links not outgoing links.--ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Very thank you Gronk Oz, and very thank you Ukexpat.--L.ukas lt 13 --TalkLukaslt13

I found these articles: Wikipedia:Baltic States notice board, Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania, but much I doesn't upload, because I do not want, that you don't exit the reason that I put the most important. Next there image, file search, etc. It is possible to put these two? And write external links yes?--L.ukas lt 13 --TalkLukaslt13

Service awards:Vanguard Editor

I have a quick question on a less serious topic. Looking through the service awards, I noticed that the requirement for a Vanguard Editor includes sixteen years of service. Given that Wikipedia is approaching its fifteenth birthday, I am struggling to see how that is possible. Yet several editors have it on their User pages. Am I missing something, or are they just kidding themselves, and it is really something to aim for in the future... Gronk Oz (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess it's a joke. (I wonder how you would "aim for" it? Maybe give up smoking, drink less, take more exercise?) Maproom (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

In the back of my mind (where the stranger thoughts live), I wondered whether that requirement might be dynamically updated, so it is always one year more than the age of Wikipedia. Or maybe it's only my mind that works like that...--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the phrase "Unobtainium Editor Star" gives it away? - Arjayay (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It's been at 16 years' service for several years now, so unless it gets revised upward it will become at least theoretically attainable in a year or so. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It is currently used on 8 User pages and 2 user talk pages - almost all with less than 200 edits - one user awarded it to themselves with the explanation "The awards below reflect the combined edit history and edit time of multiple accounts" - but they only have 175 edits in 5 years on that account. - Arjayay (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting that while such uses are patently false, they're also basically harmless. Wikipedia:Service awards is explicitly stated to be an unofficial scheme that shouldn't be enforced one way or another. A useful skill in Wikipedia (and possibly in life) is to know which battles aren't worth fighting. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I cannot be bothered to find the discussion, but I know for a fact that this was once brought up when a new editor added it to their userpage, and the consensus definitely was "do nothing." There are some positions, if you will, that you are not permitted to present falsely about; the admin flag is one of them; but there is no penalty for doing so with the service awards, nor should there be. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I was awarded the Invisible Service Award. It's swell! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

to to re-classify a photo as free

I uploaded a photo to a band's wiki page < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blimp_Rock >, but apparently I messed up in answering the questions on the Upload Wizard, as I am now being informed of imminent deletion. I took the photo; I own copyright; I intended the photo to be used on the band's wiki page, for free, under the terms of Creative Commons. But... somehow I got a notice from B-bot saying the picture would be deleted because ... "the image is non-free..." I did not understand the other details in the notice about the image being in other articles. It is not in any other articles. How do I correct this error, and get the image classified as free - which it is... and how do we prevent deletion of the image?Fernleigh-23 (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Mary Malone in London, Canada em: (Redacted) wiki ID : Fernleigh-23 Fernleigh-23 (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Mary, the easiest solution is to ask for this file File:Blimp Rock live in London, Ontario.jpg to be deleted as you have correctly uploaded File:Blimp Rock.jpeg to the Commons and it is currently used in the article Blimp Rock. There isn't any need to have the two identical images. If you want File:Blimp Rock live in London, Ontario.jpg deleted from here let me know. -- GB fan 20:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes Please! If you could delete the superfluous non-free photo of the band, at your end, while leaving in the photo under the band's name, in the info box on the right... that would be great. I had a feeling, as I was fumbling through the process, that it was happening twice -- once with a torturous inquiry process about copyright (which I did not fully understand, and hence answered incorrectly); and again much more quickly (that must have been the Creative Commons-designated one -- which will now stay). Thanks for much for cleaning this up. How will I l know when the B-bot threat has been circumvented?Fernleigh-23 (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

And thanks for redacting the info I (now know...) that I should not have added.Fernleigh-23 (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Mary, the image you uploaded here (under wrong license) is now gone and the one at the Commons is still there and in the article. That should fix everything. You are welcome about the redaction, see it all the time with new editors. -- GB fan 21:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much! This has been fun and instructive, and reminds me why Wiki is a global treasure.Fernleigh-23 (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

My submission keeps getting rejected

Hello! Ive edited my page three or four times now, and though it very much feels and sounds like the other pages on wikipedia, it keeps getting rejected. Can someone please help? I have it sourced and referenced and its accurate. Why is it still not being accepted?

Thanks Fos FoscaF (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi FoscaF - Do we assume you are referring to Draft:Teisseire ?

Hi from me too, Fos. I've had a look at your draft. In my view it should not have been rejected. There is multiple coverage of this company in French newspapers. I'm going to replace some of your references with the ones in the French papers and then move it to article space. Voceditenore (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Way to encourage paid editing bro _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, it's a way to encourage the coverage of a famous French company whose history goes back to 1720 and which has had an article in the French Wikipedia since 2006. And, as a woman editor, I'd appreciate you not referring to me as "bro". Voceditenore (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem sweetheart. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

So is this how Wiki rolls? Woman asks for her sex not to be presumed as male, so in reply she gets a dose of sexism sent her way? Last bastion....?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.50.198 (talk • contribs)

No, it was wholly inappropriate.--ukexpat (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Same name, different people!

Hello, I noticed someone had credited my book , More of Me by Kathryn Evans, to the british stage actress Kathryn Evans page. We are not the same person. I deleted the entry on her page but tried to establish new page to avoid it happening again - unfortunately I have no clue what I'm doing and barely any brain to learn and the new page was declined due to lack of citations - what do i need to do? 217.34.98.165 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edit above is the only current one from that IP address. I have repaired the damage to Kathryn Evans' page - "I deleted the entry on her page" is NOT the way to create your own page. I cannot see whether you have created another page as well, if so, what title did you call it? and what address were you using when you created it? - Arjayay (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Are you aware of just how angry you seem to be coming across at the moment? --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• ... and it was User:SangSorenson who confused the two people, User:Mrsbung only tried to remove the confusion. Dbfirs 19:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, User:Mrsbung,

You were correct to remove the wrongly-attributed material from the actress's page, but you accidentally removed other information at the same time. There is some advice at Draft:Kathryn Evans (writer) given by the reviewer. He advises you to remove the text about confusion between names (we'll deal with that later), and to find some reviews of your book, and perhaps some details of sales to establish that you are notable in the Wikipedia sense. I think you might have to wait until the book is published before you submit the article again. Dbfirs 19:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! The book isn't released until 1st Feb, was amazed to find it here - will leave well alone unless it gets put back up - feel mean when someone has gone to the effort of adding it. Arjayay - I'm not that dense! Mrsbung (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

btw what damage did I do? sorry, just deleted incorrect entry, didn't mean to do no harr guvnorMrsbung (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to write a biography - I just want to stop my books being credited to someone else - think the best thing is delete it when it happens, hope no one shouts at me, and stand well back Mrsbung (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You accidentally removed the infobox (because it then contained wrong information). The correct procedure would have been to revert the mistaken addition by User:SangSorenson, but all is well now, and no permanent harm was done. Dbfirs 19:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see! Thank you User:Dbfirs - can't even work out how to talk to people - very sorry User:SangSorenson - thanks for trying but the books are written by me of www.kathrynevans.ink and though I was an actress, I was not that actress. Sorry for mucking up your lovely page, I'll stick to books!Mrsbung (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Mrsbung to communicate with Dbfirs do what I did if you want the person to read the message here (click on edit to see how) or go to User talk:Dbfirs. Same for SangSorenson.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I added a hidden note to editors saying "British stage actress Kathryn Evans is not the same person as British children's book writer Kathryn Evans" at the top of the article. That should minimize the likelihood of the same mistake happening again. If the notability of Kathryn Evans (writer) becomes great enough to justify a wikipedia article for her, that can be handled by a disambiguation page. Carl Henderson (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much - I shall leave you clever bods to it!Mrsbung (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Jason Mann

I reviewed Draft:Jason Mann, a filmmaker, and declined it because there is already an article on Jason Mann, a filmmaker. I received the following from User: Jasonlmann “Hi - I created the page for a filmmaker named Jason Mann. I see that you pointed me to the Wikipedia page for a different Jason Mann. They are, indeed, two different American filmmakers. For evidence, here are their IMDb pages: The existing Jason Mann: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2643355/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 The other Jason Mann (the page I am trying to create): http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1157607/?ref_=fn_al_nm_2 Also, please note that Google is also confused about this. Their Knowledge graph has a bunch of the biographical info for both men combined, but that is inaccurate.”

On the one hand, I would suggest finding reliable sources to verify that they are definitely two different people (e.g., with different dates of birth and places of birth). I would also suggest disambiguating the existing article and the draft, perhaps by the use of middle names. (If you need advice on renaming, known as moving, it is easier to ask one of us to do it than for us to explain how to do it. In particular, one of us will be glad to create the disambiguation page.) Do other experienced editors have advice on how to deal with two people who are easily confused?

However, I now notice that I apparently rushed through my review and overlooked an issue. It appears that the author is Jason L. Mann. If so, this draft is an autobiography, and the submission of autobiographies is strongly discouraged due to conflict of interest. If the author can persuade other editors that they are notable, they can ask other editors to assist them in developing a neutral draft.

The author has resubmitted, and I have declined again, and have requested a filmography, and a link to a reliable source that states that the two Jason Manns are different people. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This will be kind of difficult until the section is archived, but this refers to this section, which has a duplicate section title. I could fix that if no one minds, until the archiving is done. The two sections will likely go in different archives.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Now archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Submission of a new Article (gulp!) " H. Paul Prigg"

Hello, I am a future contributor and I am having problems with my references. I don't have any editing experience so it has not been easy. The person I am writing about had a record breaking off shore motor boat racing career that began in the 1920's. I have his career documented in an expansive scrap book that he compiled over the years containing actual newspaper, magazine articles for verification of his achievements.

Problem is some of the articles are identified by the name of the publication and or date of the article, not necessarily both. I have not been very sucessful in obtaining archieved copies from a couple of the newspaper companies due to not being in business today, bought out etc. Any suggestions or direction you can provide?

Thank you very much! Nancy RawlsNancyprancy12 (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Unless you can provide more detail, it doesn't look as if your sources are verifiable, so your draft doesn't meet the requirement for a Wikipedia article. Your first step is to fix the garbled way you've presented the references, see WP:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

For attempting to get fuller citations on newspaper articles, try The Library of Congress Newspaper Database (free) or if you want to spend a bit of money, subscribe to Newspapers.com, which has an even more extensive database (including many newspapers still under copyright). Using those sources, you can search either "H Paul Prigg" or—if you want to find a specific article, enter a fairly unique string of text from the article (e.g., "Prigg won the XYZ Racing Cup last night in a stunning come-from-behind victory over John Smith". And definitely, read WP:Referencing for beginners and then go on to some of the pages linked from that. Carl Henderson (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Referencing

one links the same "reference manual" in several places but is gives it a new number every time How can one force it to give same number as on previous usage JP Labuschagne (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi JP Labuschagne
To use the same reference again, it has to be given a name, using the "Ref name" parameter in the citation template, or <ref name=selectedname> if you are doing this manually, instead of <ref>.
You then only need select the name from "Named references" on the cite section of the edit toolbar or type <ref name=selectedname /> to use it again.
Please see WP:REFNAME for a fuller explanation - Arjayay (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

JP Labuschagne, another option is to use shortened citations, which are described at WP:SFN. This format has the advantage of allowing you to use different page number from a single document, without having duplicate citations. If you want an example of the usage, see Mary Docherty, for instance. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

A third option is to use the {{Rp}} template, which appends the page number to footnote superscript, and use a generic citation that doesn't specify page numbers. So I can cite like this.^[99] 71.41.210.146 (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested articles: Computer science, all of the links on article names have been removed

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet

In the requested articles section on computer science all of the links on article names have be removed from the whole section. Making it impossible to know which articles now have links to them. - Dough34 (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I believe that what were removed were redlinks; links still exist where the article exists. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of reformatting your question, so that instead of a url to an edit page (with the link not clearly displayed because it exceeded the available line length) it now shows a wikilink to display the page. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The removal was done with this edit, by AlexTheWhovian using a script. In my view it was a mistake. Redlinks are very useful in a page of Requested Articles: if someone feels like creating an article on AlphaEase FC, a redlink will help them. Maproom (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed - surely the whole point of a list of requested articles is that the links are red? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It was tagged under Category:Wikipedia red link cleanup with {{Cleanup red links}}. I was just cleaning the backlog, not my fault. If you think they should be reinstated, then revert my edit without the cleanup tag. Not that hard. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Language links are unrelated to article

Police district on the English wikipedia has 6 links to other language wikipedias, supposedly about the same thing. However, the French and Italian articles appear to be about a film. How can I fix this? I was going to just remove the fr and it links but I was taken to wikidata.org when I clicked edit and now I'm not sure what to do. If I remove the links from the wikidata page do those articles no longer have a wikidatapage? Please help, I'm having a hard time figuring out what the best course of action is Thanks! Maestroso simplo (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Maestroso simplo. A Wikidata editor incorrectly merged two Wikidata items about the concept of a police district and a French television series called Police District. The Wikidata item has to be split again so the French and Italian articles about the television series are still connected and keep the data about the series at Wikidata. I rarely edit Wikidata and don't know how to best do it. It's complicated by edits since the merge. If nobody replies here within a couple of days then I will post a request at Wikidata and link the request here. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Maestroso simplo:I have posted a request at wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat#Bad merge of Police District. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Thanks! Maestroso simplo (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A question about the use of "actor"

Does Wikipedia style call for using "actor" to refer to both men and women?

My reason for asking is that I recently created an article about Staats Cotsworth, which had two categories that included the word "actor" and two that included "actors." Today I was notified of a revision that added the word "male" to all four of those categories. ("American radio actors" became "American male radio actors," etc.)

The new versions seem redundant unless we are to use "actor" to refer to both men and women, thus eliminating use of "actress." Eddie Blick (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Many female actors object to the use of "actress", but I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on this. Dbfirs 21:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Eddie Blick. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language recommends the use of gender-neutral language where possible and I note that while Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film does not address this issue, it features multiple mentions of the word "actor" but none of "actress". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey Thanks! I appreciate those insights. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey Eddie Blick. I was unable to find any one discussion to point to where all this came to a head, nor could I distill from them any clear rule of thumb without a lot more work, but it seems this issue of differentiation between male and female categorization started at the end of 2012 and there were numerous discussions into 2013. See (in date order, and by no means a complete list but enough for more context), these CfDs: 1 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't realize the topic had been discussed for that long. Eddie Blick (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsigned comments

Is there a way to get a signature to appear on an unsigned comment by another user who it seems forgot to log in e.g. [1]? YuHuw (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, YuHuw. Yes, there is. Take a look at the template {{unsigned}}. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry! :D YuHuw (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Greetings YuHuw} and Cordless Larry – There is an example of unsigned at April 5 Tip of the day. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  20:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, JoeHebda. Is there a reason the tip doesn't tell people to include the timestamp? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Good question Cordless Larry – I see that it is explained at Template:Unsigned. If including the timestamp is important, feel free to edit the tip & include that info. Cheers!  JoeHebda (talk)  21:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully it's not now too complicated. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! YuHuw (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

{{Xsign}} is a convenient wrapper for {{unsigned}} or {{unsigned IP}} that parses input copied and pasted directly from revision history. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Inquiry Regarding Possible Conflicting Editing Commentary

Greetings! I've been working on an article. I have used an accepted article for Chef Jose Garces as a guide for my contribution for Chef Naomi Pomeroy. I have received a couple of rejections for my Pomeroy draft. The first rejection noted that I had established Pomeroy's notability but had used a promotional tone (link to draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Naomi_Pomeroy). I really valued hearing this feedback and removed promotional language (I have also removed the name of Pomeroy's restaurants to avoid promotional tone there). I resubmitted the article with a more neutral tone; I have been rejected again due to my inability to establish Pomeroy's notability with sources. My references are more in number and similar in style/genre/medium to those used for the Jose Garces article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Garces

I feel as if I'm receiving conflicting information from the editing process. Any advice you can give would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know what questions you may have. I thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for the opportunity to be a part of this dynamic community. I wish you the best for a wonderful 2016.MagdalenaKillion (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Just as the commentary says, the subject appears to be notable, but the tone of the draft is promotional and non-neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, yes. However, the second editor indicated that the subject's notability had not been established and the first editor indicated that notability had been established. On the second submission, I made the tone more neutral, and the second editor didn't indicate that tone was an issue. The second editor specifically noted the lack of notability. I appreciate your feedback, and I am grateful for this opportunity to communicate with experienced editors.MagdalenaKillion (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, the problem seems to be that notability criteria have some subjective wiggle room and your subject is right on the more notable end of the grey zone. You have done an incredibly good job on the tone so I believe that issue is dealt with. On the notability front, SwisterTwister is judging using the criteria for creative professionals while Onel5969 used the general criteria. I would tend to agree with Onel5969 but it is borderline. If we go with the general criteria we are just looking at reliable, in depth, third party coverage. You have several sources, but some like the one from her college are not fully independent (they gain advantage from making her look good). There are also some broken links. Again, this is a very borderline case. I think one more quality source would definitely tip the balance for me. I might even lean to accept as is. Hope that at least makes sense. Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, HappySquirrel. I really appreciate the clarifications and guidance. Thank you especially for the note about the broken link. I can definitely find some additional, suitable source. I truly appreciate your time and consideration.MagdalenaKillion (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way to get connected with a foreign language editor?

Hi there! I'm discovering that a lot of the work done in the subject I'm editing was done by Germans. Unfortunately, all I know of German is what Google Translate can do for me. I do know enough about other languages to know that machine translation is fraught with problems. There are a number of articles that exist on the German Wikipedia that do not exist in the English. How could I go about finding someone from the German site who's fluent in English and might be able to assist me in translating pages missing from the English site? Hi-storian (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hi-storian. You may be able to find the information you need at Wikipedia:Translation, Wikipedia:Translators available or Wikipedia:Translation/German/Translation advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much! That's perfect. Hi-storian (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked on commons?

how can I be blocked on commons wiki for having an inappropriate username, when I have the same name on wiki Encyclopedia? doesn't make sense to me.Hot Pork Pie (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, one reason is if a name that is innocent in their own language is offensive in another language. (I've no reason to suppose that is the case here, though it occurs to me that some people might imagine there was a sexual connotation to your name). The more general answer is that they are administered by different people who might make different judgments. I see that you have appealed the block at commons:User Talk:Hot Pork Pie: we'll see what happens. --ColinFine (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@ColinFine: yeah I guess we will. thanks for getting back to me. Hot Pork Pie (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

oh.Mao06840 (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Late understanding

Hi there! I am new here! Previously, I started an article named "Japan Prize Awards", but was deleted instantly. It was because an article about the same topic already existed. I recently dug into the policies of this community. I realized that Wikipedia is the same both outside and inside (I thought logged in users used this as a social source). But it all ended up being a learning source. In addition to my duplicate article, I also did some other unaware edits. But I am pleased that I was given a leeway for turnaround in the interim instead of being blocked. I sincerely apologize for my wrong understanding. I truly did not expect this logical display from me and therefore, I am shocked. I had taken my very first visit in this honorable place as an apology instead of questioning. Cheers! Gabi360 (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to learn, Gabi360. Wikipedia is a huge beast, with a lot of different activities - there's probably nobody who knows about all of it (not even Jimmy Wales!) I spend a lot of time here on the Teahouse and Help Desk, and the Reference Desk; recently I went to a meetup and met several people who are active in governance and training for editors here in the UK, and assumed that they would all be familiar with the Help Desks - but no, they had hardly been here. That was a surprise to me.

So, well done for plunging in, and being willing to be corrected and to learn more. I hope you have a long and fruitful involvement with Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

And you don't need to apologize for making mistakes, Gabi360, as long as you learn from them. We are here to help and don’t get mad unless someone is intentionally disruptive or willfully refuses to learn. —teb728 t c 10:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Henri Hauser

I reviewed Draft:Henri Hauser. I declined it because there is already an article Henri Hauser in mainspace, although the draft is much better. I tried to advise the author, User:Atalante88 to get the crappy stub deleted so that the draft can be moved into mainspace. However, he apparently didn’t understand. His post to my talk page, acknowledging his limited English, seems to imply that he thinks I declined it on notability grounds.

“Dear Robert, I confess I am lost with your comments. First of all, I am a French-speaker and not an English Native speaker. This is certainly where I need some help and certainly in others fields I admit this with no problem. But, the situation is as follow : Henri Hauser was French as well and was a main Economist with a huge influence in France but widely above in UK, England, US, Germany etc.. just before WWI and between WW1 and WW2. I thought that it would bring some values to some English Wiki readers to have some pieces of knowledge about Henri Hauser even if he was a French Economist. He even brought a huge influence to famous English Economists as well such as Willam Beveridge, Edwin F. Gay wich was the Dean of HBS or R.H. Tawney from LSE. He had a long run friendship with those people. Then two researchers such as SA Marin and GH Soutou collects many testimonies from many personalities well known such as Natalie Zemon Davis who can speak and write in French , Paul Gerbod, Paul Claval, Laurent Vissière, Jean-Paul Poussou, Philip Benedict (it is in English in the book), Henri Heller, Herman Van der Wee, Jean-François Bergier, Jean-Marie Mayeur, Christian Morrisson, Eric Bussière, Isabelle Lescent-Giles, Claude Fohlen, John L. Harvey, François Chaubert, Luiz Felipe de Alencastro, Myriam Yardeni. A preface from Professor René Rémond from Académie française and put it in a book called Henri Hauser edited from Sorbon. In my article, I linked nearly all those names to external links to referencial French websites such Sorbon or CNRS in order to get to know those Professors or reseachers ... The Sources as you require for, are mainly written in French but by researchers. The Sources and the link are the BNF (National French Library), (Sorbon edition), Gallica (for old newspapers or documents for France), Leonore database for Legion d'honneur etc...those institutions are Official and known everywhere in the World. So, what can I do if documents are mainly in French or in German and no many in English ? I tried the best I can to link to English link. So, I don't know what to do more as this presentation took much time and if you are not interested by knowing better French Economists just let me know. I can't find all sources written in English if it does not exist. I stay at your disposal in case you would be still interested to provide an overview on Henri Hauser's work as a unique Economist to your English readers. Best regards, Frederique Bailly”

In looking the draft over, it still needs a lot of work, because its English is not good, but I would still like to get into article space because it is better than the stub. What procedure should be used for the purpose? That is, should I tag the stub for speedy deletion as WP:G6, or should I propose the stub for deletion citing that the draft is better? Also, since the author doesn’t understand my comments but is requesting advice in good faith, can someone please explain to him or her or their talk page, in French, what I was saying? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Robert, there's no need to delete the current stub Henri Hauser. All the editor has to do is paste their version into the article as an expansion. As that editor is the only author, it won't require a history merge. Alternatively, you can do that for him and add Template:Copied to Talk:Henri Hauser. Then redirect Draft: Henri Hauser to Henri Hauser and add Template:R from merge to the redirect page. Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It has gotten more complicated. It seems that the author of the draft did try to copy it into the existing stub, and it was reverted as unsourced. What he did copy was unsourced, but was still an improvement, so it seems that an editor does want to maintain the integrity of the stub. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the draft, Robert, I can see that there are big problems with the referencing. There's a massive biography on him published by the Sorbonne, large parts of which are available on Google Books here. Perhaps he could be encouraged to use that to source the material that he wants to add. The stub has no inline citations either, and the only two sources listed are both broken links, a rather poor show. Voceditenore (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've nominated the stub for AFD. Can someone explain to Atalante88 in French on their talk page what we have been saying, since they are working in good faith but don't seem to know enough English? Also, can someone suggest to them in French that they might do better to edit the French Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've just posted a long, friendly and detailed analysis of the situation in French on their talk page. Give that they have 74 edits to fr, I would say they know where it is. I would tend to trust them to become more active on the French side if their English does not improve. Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing has been said about the French references. Someone should have told User:Atalante88 the French sources are all right to use on English Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I did, in French. I can post a full translation of my message if you want to know exactly what I said. Happy Squirrel (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear all, I perfectly got what you all explained about the stub and my draft on Henry Hauser and so, despite my assumed lack of English (!). Actually, I previously expanded this stub but someone rejected it and replaced it by this current stub. So, I rewrote the article in my sandbox. Anyway, I tried to improve Henri Hauser draft by addition of links, references and corrections always despite my supposed "limited English". Thank you Happy Quirrel for your kind message in French :-). I know that the best I have to do is to respect Wiki En Rules. Please would you mind to give your feedback on it ? I could find others reference and I thought to send an email to Severine-Antigone Marin author of the book "Henri Hauser" in order to check it and perhaps give us photos. with regards. Ãtalante88Atalante88 (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia.

Hi everyone, I've worked for a good while trying to get this article up and running. Practically every sentence in it is a fact that's supported by an external reference. Having had the original dismissed while I was still trying to find my feet, it's been a really disheartening experience. Can someone please help me fix this as I'd love to know where I've gone wrong and what's the best way to go about it as I would love to say involved with Wikipedia.

I checked it over with some other wiki editors in the live chat before submitting and they all came back with some helpful tips and even said it was fine to submit. If anyone can help me I'd be extremely grateful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jennings_Motor_Group_(2) Scr81 (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Scr81 Welcome to the Teahouse. You would find many of us quite helpful. I see no issue with references or the article in general, although the content maybe briefed and written more formally.JugniSQ (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have written it as factually as I thought I could. Can you perhaps give me an example of where it might appear to be overly favourable? As I've been looking at it so long I think I may have gone a bit blind to it! Scr81 (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup Advice

Hello, I am a new editor and I would like some advice on the Wiki Cup, I've edited a few articles and created a list but I've never really wrote an article from scratch, and some of the people competing have multiple Featured Articles, it's rather intimidating! Some friendly advice would be welcomed. Zamorakphat (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Zamorakphat: First off, welcome to Wikipedia! Wikicup is just a fun way for Wikipedians to compete against each other and hopefully improve Wikipedia along the way! The way it works is that editors create and improve articles and images then they get points by getting that content through some of the peer review processes on Wikipedia.

You don't need to create the articles from scratch though, you just need to significantly contribute to them and get them through whatever process you choose. I recommend Did you know? as a good starting point. All you need to do is create a new article (or fulfill one of the other requirements) nominate it, and voila it can appear on the main page! The other category I would recommend starting out on are Good Articles. But most importantly, just do what you want to do. If you need help, feel free to ask me on my talk page or here at the Teahouse. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! Zamorakphat (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Charles Perrault - error in calculating his age at retirement

If Perrault died in 1703 and was 75, he was born in 1628. The "Life and Work" section states that he was forced to retire in 1682 at 56. He would have been 54, not 56 unless the retirement date was wrong. 199.128.189.216 (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Address this discrepancy at this talk page, Talk: Charles Perrault. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I edit my own username to start with a lowercase letter rather than a capitalized letter?

My username is nothingimportanthappenedtoday. Can I somehow make it so the first letter ("n") is in lower case?Nothingimportanthappenedtoday (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes you can nothingimportanthappenedtoday: I got my lowercase signature by going to Special:Preferences and entering —[[User:teb728|]] [[User talk:teb728|t]] [[Special:Contributions/teb728|c]] in the Signature textbox and checking “Treat the above as wiki markup.” —teb728 t c 09:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

And I got the titles of my user page and user talk page to display lowercase by adding {{lowercase}} to the wikicode of each. —teb728 t c 09:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

What that doesn't change is that the url bar and the edit history still say Teb728 with an uppercase T. —teb728 t c 10:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems that you can change the way your username displays, as teb728 outlines, but that you can't officially change the username itself to start with a lower-case letter. See Wikipedia:Changing username, which states "Although your username cannot begin with a lowercase letter, try placing {{lowercase}} on your userpage in order to display it that way". Cordless Larry (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your answers, let's see if I can navigate through the suggestions here.Nothingimportanthappenedtoday (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

What to edit?

I like the idea of Wikipedia, in that anyone can edit, but how do people find things to edit? Pages already seem to exist on my favorite topics (and ones I know most about), I haven't been able to find anything to create... Whispered (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Whispered. Yes, we already have five million articles but a very significant percentage of those can be expanded, better referenced and better written. That being said, there are many opportunities to write new articles. State and provincial legislators through history deserve biographies, and you could spend years writing them. Olympic athletes through history. Billboard hit songs of the 1930s and 1940s. There are broad areas that need enormous work. We also have a group of lengthy lists at Wikipedia:Requested articles that are full of ideas. I even have a short list on my user page. Please read Your first article for detailed guidance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Whispered, for your enthusiasm. But please don't assume that "edit" means "create". Only a small fraction of the edits made to Wikipedia are part of the creation process. Most are corrections, expansions, and improvements to existing articles. Article creation may be the most obvious form of editing, but it's also one of the most difficult. Maproom (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

What Maproom said, Whispered. I sometimes get frustrated because new people come and instantly try to create new articles. I always advise people to get some practice improving existing articles first, partly because creating an article that stays is difficult, and partly because we have so many articles which are in need of improvement. I have been an editor for more than ten years, and made 11 thousand edits: looking at my contribution record, I see that I have created 11 articles in that time, and some of them were actually just moving existing articles to a new name. If more people spent time improving existing articles, we would have a higher quality encyclopaedia than if they created new ones. --ColinFine (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Whispered. I agree with the comments above. Creating articles is good, but much editing can be done on existing articles, also. I can't comment on science articles, which your user page indicates is your main area of interest. My main interest is in old-time radio, and I have found many articles that need additional material, additional citations or both. My method is to bookmark such an article in my browser when I see it. When I have time, I search for valid material on that topic and add the information and/or citations where appropriate. Each person has his or her own approach, but that one works for me. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No experience in wiki-coding a formula

I have a draft in my sandbox which includes the use of a formula. I've never formatted anything mathematical before and need some assistance. Thank you ahead of time for all your help. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Barbara (WVS). I can't help with the formula; hopefully somebody else can do that. But I am concerned that your article duplicates part of an article that already exists, Polyamory. Did you consider merging any new material into that article, rather than creating a new article with so much overlap?--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and the time it took you to review my sandbox, Gronk Oz. I've read the article on polyamory and it is quite different than the non-subjective, quantitative measures of multiple sex partners. There is not a way to measure polyamory and it is a term not used by clinicians, statisticians and most importantly HIV epidemiologists. Multiple sex partners is a term (phrase, really) that represents a measure and a reproducible case study method of measuring disease incidence. Polyamory is not a measure of sexual activity. Defining a person's number of multiple sexual partners is a number that is critically linked to defining the risk of sexual behavior-subjective and without some moral judgement attached. Polyamory can not provide such information since it largely defined by the persons who do and often does not even involve sexual activity. But your comments are quite helpful. The article is still in the sandbox with lots more content to add and reference. Best Regards,

ceBarbara (WVS) (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I went and LaTeXed the formula. I hope that helps. Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

how can my article will be approved?

Please check if I have made the right choice of content to be posted. I have been asked by the person to create a wiki page for him. I have now put up all the available references as per my knowledge. Please help me out.11:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShahnshahGupta (talk • contribs) 11:12, 9 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It is always useful if you tell us which page is worrying you; in this case I guess it might be Draft:Praveen Nischol? What you need to do is to read the feedback which you have received in a number of messages on your user talk page, and also in the feedback box on your draft. The words in blue are wikilinks to pages with more detail to help you. In this case particularly you need to read Help:Footnotes and Help:Referencing for beginners. On a formatting matter, you also need to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ShahnshahGupta. If you have been asked by Nischol to create the page (which should be an article about him, not a page for him) then you should carefully read Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest; and if you are in any way being paid to do this you must declare this fact. --ColinFine (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine Thanks For reply, First I am not getting paid for it. I went through some of the articles about how to create a page. I have been trying to collect enough resources to make this article work for him. I do not find much news and refrence material about him on the net. can you suggest me how else I can put up the refrence and verify his article? ShahnshahGupta (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

What does it mean when another user "reviews" your user page?

I got a notice that reads: "The page User:Nothingimportanthappenedtoday was reviewed by White Arabian Filly". What does this mean and why does it happen?—nothingimportanthappenedtoday t c 17:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The patrol feature on Wikipedia is used when a page is created: unpatrolled pages are put on a list for people to review. A human editor (other than the creator) needs to come along and click a button at the bottom of the page ("[Mark this page as patrolled]") that marks it as "patrolled", just to check that it's not vandalism or spam or inappropriate material (for "articles"—which doesn't include your userpage—there are more strict criteria pages have to pass). It's nothing to worry about. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! --—nothingimportanthappenedtoday t c 19:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove photos

How do I remove incorect uploaded photos (watermarked) Help files useless and user unfriendly.JP Labuschagne (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi @JP Labuschagne: Welcome to the Teahouse! Since you've uploaded photos to the Wikimedia Commons, I assume you are talking about one of your images that you uploaded there. If you'd like to upload a new version of the file without your watermark, you can simply overwrite the file by going to the 'File history' section of the file and clicking the "Upload a new version of this file" link. Alternatively, you can request the speedy deletion of files you upload as long as you do so within 7 days - see the Commons' criteria for speedy deletion for more details. To request speedy deletion, you would use the following template: {{speedydelete|<INSERT REASON FOR DELETION HERE>}}. I would not request the deletion of the file unless you replace it with a version without the watermark. Even if you do not have the file without a watermark, another editor may edit it out at some point. A file with a watermark is better than no file at all. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

How does one start a sock-puppet investigation?

I have noticed some things about a few users and IPs and would like to know how one submits suspected sock-puppets for investigation? Also is there such a thing as a meatpuppet investigation? :) YuHuw (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi @YuHuw: Welcome to the Teahouse! Sockpuppet investigations can be opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Instructions are available there for how to do it. Make sure evidence is available, and the evidence is made clear and clearly linked. If it's your first time dealing with sockpuppetry, I recommend giving Wikipedia:Sock puppetry a read to have a better understanding of sockpuppetry and how Wikipedia deals with sockpuppets. As for meatpuppets, there isn't a designated page for meatpuppet investigations, but we do have ways to deal with meatpuppetry. Check out WP:MTPPT for more information. If meatpuppetry is suspected in a discussion, meatpuppet comments are often disregarded when establishing consensus. If action should be taken, meatpuppetry can also be discussed in various forums, such as the administrator's noticeboard of incidents. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Guidance regarding conflict of interest

I work for Eastman Kodak Company and am new to Wikipedia. I tried recently to add constructive, factual information to pages about movies and was blocked. I apologize for over-stepping but I was unaware of the protocols for conflict of interest, which I now have researched further on your site and understand. I’d like to work with the community of Wikipedia editors to find an appropriate way to add factual information to articles using credible, well-sourced third-party citations. I believe that the information provided will be valuable to Wikipedia users. Thank you for reading. I look forward to your reply.165.170.128.65 (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Follow the usual procedures on requesting unblock, rather than editing from an IP address when blocked, which is a form of sock-puppetry. Is an administrator watching this page? If so, can they block this sockpuppet? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Robert - to put it into context, the only edit from this IP address in the past three months has been to ask this question. 165.170.128.65 - the process for appealing your block can be found at Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblocking. Good luck, and I hope you enjoy your time here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)