Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 661

Archive 655

←

Archive 659

Archive 660

Archive 661

Archive 662

Archive 663

→

Archive 665

Query about a post rejected for "self published" references

Hey all,

I am trying to write Wikipedia articles about prominent theologians but I have fallen at the first hurdle.

I developed a page about Brian Brock, a Christian ethicist at the University of Aberdeen, who has published widely in a number of fields with some very significant papers and books. I am sure he passes the "Notability" test as he is a significant figure in British academic theology.

But I have received a rejection because: "Sources appear to be self-published. Please add independent sources."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brian_Brock?

I mostly linked to Brock's published output from notable publishing houses like Eerdmans and top ranked peer-reviewed journals like Studies in Christian Ethics. Can anyone offer me advice on what an "independent source" would be? There was a special journal edition dedicated to just discussing one of his books - would that suffice? Or should I link to videos of more popular, less academic events he has spoken at?

Any advice would be much appreciated! Many thanks. Tillydroner (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Tillydroner, and welcome to the Teahouse. Independent sources mean independent from Brock, i.e. not written by himself or his employer. Articles about Brock written by other academicians are the best kind of sources here.

You also seem to misapply sources. For everything you say, you must be able to present a reliable source that says the same thing. For instance, when you say that Brock has supervised the PhD for Andrew Draycott, you seem to link to a university page about Draycott, but this page contains no mention of Brock supervising him. References are not convenience links; they are used to verify that what you say has been said somewhere outside of Wikipedia before you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tillydroner. The relevant notability guideline is WP:ACADEMIC, which some reviewers do not understand well. To simplify, what counts is not how many books and papers he has published but rather how often his published work is cited by other scholars. The journal edition covering one of his books is good evidence of notability, assuming that it is a respected, peer reviewed journal. Each individual article discussing his book can be cited separately. Videos rarely demonstrate notability and often present copyright problems, so be very cautious there. Speaking at some random event is not evidence of notability. Quality is much more important than quantity when it comes to references. If a reviewer looks at a representative sample of your references, and sees mediocre ones, there is a natural tendency to decline the draft. And anything that the subject of this biography wrote himself is inherently weak, since it is not independent. Rely on independent sources to the extent possible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

90% of wiki page was removed because of one link

First time editor. I've been edited The_Warning_(Mexican_band) since July, and arose this morning to find that almost 100% of my work has been removed, apparently for one vimeo link that was on a banned list. The link in question was the second part of an interview that was created in 2015 as part of a GoFundMe campaign that ended in the same year. The interview itself was purely informational, and did not contain a donation request. It was used as an introduction to the young band who needed money to attend Berklee College of Music for professional training. From what I can tell (still researching) the interview was original hosted on thewarningband.com while the GoFundMe was active, but was moved to Vimeo later. The website thewarningband.com was itself created as a donation to the GoFundMe. If there are no other problems, I can change the direct link to a citation, but I'm unsure what to do at this point to recover my lost work.TWwiki-1 (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey TWwiki-1. It's good that you're trying to be bold and make what you feel are improvements to the article. Sometimes other editors disagree, and when they do, you should go to the article's talk page and try to reach some kind of compromise with them over how the article should eventually look. You're edits aren't lost. They're stored in the article's history. So it's all still available in case it can be reworked or reused in some way. So it's not a crisis; it just means it's time to talk things out. TimothyJosephWood 14:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the article's history, I think that you are mistaken in thinking that the material was removed because of a single Vimeo link, TWwiki-1. You might want to check some other articles on bands to get an idea of an acceptable article style. See Wikipedia:Featured articles#Music biographies for some good ones. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've blocked OP and TWwikiGuy because the "TW" in their names obviously means "The Warning". Given that TWwiki-1 added the manager's email address, it seems reasonable to believe that he's either their manager or PR guy. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

how to get back my deleted page..

Hello.. my page K.D.Satyam has been deleted and it says "Unambiguous Advertising or promotion, To be honest, I am a bonafide film maker from Bollywood India, and I was trying to update the legitimate information. I may be new to Wikipedia and probably I was unaware of the rules to do it. But I can assure you that in future will take care of the rules, therefore please put back my page, would really appreciate that. Regards K.D.SatyamK. D. Satyam (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello K.D. Satyam, I had a look at the deleted page, and it was essentially a "profile", with a long list of "awards" and generally positive language. That's not what Wikipedia is for and so was properly deleted as promotional. If you'd like to write a profile of yourself, there are many other sites that do allow that, you might try one of them. We strongly discourage people from writing about themselves or things they have an interest in, since it's near impossible for anyone to stay neutral with something like that. You could try putting a request for the article at requested articles, where someone who doesn't have an interest might see it and write the article if and only if there's enough solid reference material to do it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

How do I insert a link?

I am a co-founder of an independent catholic school and have successfully listed our name (Canongate Catholic High School) under the North Carolina heading on wikipedia's "list of independent Catholic schools" page. I would like for readers to be able to click on that name and be brought to a page (article?) that gives information about our school. How can I accomplish this? I am new to Wikipedia. Rtrentjr (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Rtrentjr, and welcome to Wikipedia. You already used square brackets (or VisualEditor) to make a link from List of independent Catholic schools in the United States to the article Canongate Catholic High School. As you can see, the latter link is red, indicating that there is not yet an article with that name.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy which strongly discourages people connected to the subject of an article from editing such articles. There is a related paid-editing policy which it is important for you to read and comply with as soon as possible; failure to do so could result in your being blocked from editing any articles. What I would advise you to do, after you make your disclosure, is go to either User:Rtrentjr/sandbox or Draft:Canongate Catholic High School and start building an article there. Wikipedia:Your first article will have some pointers for you, and you will be welcome to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Rtrentjr. A Google search shows that this school is four years old and has only 17 students. My quick search did not uncover any significant coverage of this school in independent, reliable sources. Accordingly, I do not believe that this school is notable and I have therefore deleted it from List of independent Catholic schools in the United States. That list article is in poor condition and needs to be cleaned up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Rtrentjr. I'm afraid that, like many people, you misunderstand what Wikipedia is for. "I would like for readers to be able to click on that name and be brought to a page (article?) that gives information about our school" is a clear example of promotion, which is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia. The decision of whether or not there should be an article about your school is out of your hands: it gets made by a consensus of uninvolved editors, according to Wikipedia policies: some relevant information is at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, everybody - you are correct - I truly did not understand what Wikipedia is for. Now I know! I thank all of you for taking the time to give me your response.

Rtrentjr 96.37.28.206 (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

What would be a legitimate reason for Canongate Catholic High School to be listed on Wikipedia's list of Independent Catholic High Schools? And how could this be accomplished? Specifically, how did the other schools listed on this page qualify? 96.37.28.206 (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Are you Rtrentjr? If so, please remember to log in before editing. That school would be eligible only if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the school. As for that list article, as I said above, it is "in poor condition and needs to be cleaned up". We have over five million articles, many of which need lots of work, and probably no experienced editor has taken a close look at that list before. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

New article doesn't exist?

Hi, I've just published my first article. I've edited Wikipedia in the past, I read through all of the relevant info, and have followed all of the guidelines for formatting, references, notability, etc. so I'm hoping it's good to go! I thought I had successfully moved it from a Draft page to the Mainspace, but when I try to link to it elsewhere (for instance on the disambiguation page for CUS), it tells me that the article doesn't exist. Can someone please advise?

It's a notable scholarly field that people have long been calling for a wiki page for (comparable fields in other disciplines like Critical Legal Studies and Critical Race Theory have pages). I learned about the field in class and want to get more involved with Wiki, so thought it'd be a good place to start.

Here's the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_university_studies

Thanks so much! Lbutterfield (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It definitely exists. Here's a more standard link to it: Critical university studies. Maproom (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay great, thanks. I think it wasn't working because I was capitalizing all of the words in the title. It also hasn't shown up on Google yet, so that also made me suspicious that it was not live somehow. Lbutterfield (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lbutterfield. An unreviewed new article will not be indexed by Google for 30 days. Titles are case sensitive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Got it, that makes sense Cullen328. Are there any steps that I should take to get it reviewed? Lbutterfield (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I recommend patience, Lbutterfield. The new page patrollers are deluged with a flood of terrible garbage and may pass by a relatively well developed article like yours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The waiting time before allowing external indexing of unreviewed articles was increased from 30 to 90 days in June.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that update, PrimeHunter. I will try to hammer that information into my crowded brain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

why my sandbox got cleared by another user?

hello,

I have found that my sandbox has been cleared by another user, named Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, who left no explanation for his/her action whatsoever. I have asked him/her a question on his/her talk page, but got no answer.

I am puzzled. Did I do anything wrong? Is there anything I am not allowed to do in my sandbox? Is it normal procedure to clear someone else's sandbox with no explanation? --Hh1718 (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hh1718, welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know whether it was the reason for clearing but you did two things wrong. You copied from another page without attribution as required by Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, for example by saying "copied from Warsaw Uprising" in the edit summary. And you left many categories meant for articles so the sandbox was listed in Category:Battles and operations of World War II and others. The categories at the bottom of the page could for example have been removed by placing <nowiki>...</nowiki> around the code. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hh1718. Further on the above, I have fixed the copyright violation with this edit. Please make sure to do this in the future. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

hello again and thanks for the hints. I was guided (misguided?) by assumption that one's sandbox is a trial-and-error area and as long as its content does not get published as an article, I might test various options, regardless how silly they would look like.

It is very kind of you to provide some coaching here, though I wish the editor who cleared my inbox were a bit more explicit. It is discouraging to find that someone who apparently is charging with safeguarding WP standards deletes your work with no clarification and ignores the calls for advice later on.

--Hh1718 (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hh1718: one of the things that is unusual about Wikipedia is that it doesn't have the concept of "publishing". Literally everything in Wikipedia is readable by anybody (and the vast majority can be edited by anybody). Until articles are moved to main space they won't get indexed by search engines (and in fact not even then, until they have been reviewed or waited long enough), and people sometimes talk about moving to mainspace being "publishing"; but everything is visible, and therefore serious problems (copyright, personal attacks, libel) get dealt with as soon as somebody sees them. Other than that, the convention is not to edit pages in somebody else's user space (apart from their User Talk page) but there's no technical restriction on doing so. --ColinFine (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks again for your kind note. I am not sure I understand your message; is it "whatever and wherever you edit it is subject to our policing" or is it "basically you can do in your sandbox whatever you like unless it is really silly or dangerous"? Anyway, I find it encouraging that someone bothers to give a nice and friendly note. --Hh1718 (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hh1718: Sandboxes are less policed than articles but some rules apply everywhere. Copyright violation is a legal issue and not allowed anywhere. Wikipedia:User pages#Categories, templates that add categories, and redirects says: "Do not put your userpage or subpages, including draft articles, into content categories." Our software has no option to prevent sandboxes from appearing in content categories, so inappropriate categories have to be removed by editing the sandbox. Many other issues like unreliable sources and broken formatting are ignored in sandboxes. It basically is a trial-and-error area as long as you don't do anything illegal, harassing, or affecting the encyclopedia negatively. A few other things like spam/advertisements are also disallowed but that's not trial-and-error. See more at Wikipedia:User pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

What to do with a duplicate?

Hi, i have created a page Yosef Kara, but i just realized that there is already a page titled Joseph Kara and that my page is a duplicate of that one. What do i do?

Joseph HaleviJoseph Halevi (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Joseph Halevi. First, determine which spelling is most common in English in reliable sources. That should be the long term title of the article. Copy all encyclopedic content to that article, attributing it to the source article in edit summaries. Now, change the other version into a redirect so that anyone typing that search term will automatically be taken to the fully developed article with the proper title. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I have examined the two articles, Joseph Halevi and Cullen328, and the newer one (Yosef Kara) is a stub with no references or content which isn't also present in the older, longer article (Joseph Kara). There also haven't been any substantial edits to the stub other than by Joseph Halevi, just tagging and so on. I was going to say that Joseph Halevi could add {{Db-g7}} to the stub, which would request its deletion, but Cullen328 is right that a redirect is a better idea. Feel free to return to the Teahouse if you have any trouble converting your stub to a redirect, Joseph Halevi, or if you have any other questions about editing Wikipedia. Thank you also for trying to contribute — as I think you may suspect, creating a new Wikipedia article is actually pretty hard to do; but there are lots of other ways to contribute. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 02:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, after having time to read both articles, I agree with GrammarFascist. The older article is far better developed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm being acused of doing things I have no knowledge about.

Over the last year I have received several notifications about edits and changes that I have made to a variety of articles here on Wikipedia. The last just this past July. I have no knowledge of any such activity. I have no idea what I am even being accused of. But I now fear that I may be banned from using Wikipedia, or something, because someone else is being confused with me - or worse, that I am the victim of some kind of identity theft.107.77.216.184 (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You might consider creating an account. Bus stop (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, AT&T in Florida assign that IP address to different people on different occasions. This is common, and noted at the top of your talk page. The IP address will not be blocked unless the vandalism becomes serious, but you can avoid any risk of blame by creating your own account on Wikipedia, as suggested above and on your talk page. The other advantage is that you can then see all of your edits in one list. Dbfirs 05:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

image for savita kovind(first lady of india)

Yesterday i was editing the page of Savitha Kovind, but I then realized that i could not insert any image as there were none. When i tried to upload one well i failed. can someone help me in uploading an image.Adithya harish pergade (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Adithya harish pergade. Images are really a lagging concern behind article content. In this case, the article may be deleted or redirected as a result of its current articles for deletion discussion (I assure you, whether the article contains an image of her or not is immaterial to that discussion), so the issue of an image may become moot very soon, depending on the outcome. Meanwhile, the first question about any potential image upload is its copyright status. In short:

• all images you find are assumed fully non-free copyrighted, unless you have...
• affirmative and verifiable evidence that its copyright has been released by its owner in a manner that would allow its use here, which would be...
• a release into the public domain or under a free copyright license that it compatible with the two free copyright licenses borne by most of Wikipedia's content; however...
• there is an exception for limited use of non-free images under a claim of fair use, when an image meets all ten of the non-free content criteria... but
• with some rare exceptions, images of living person cannot meet our interpretation of fair use (under the "no free equivalent" doctrine).

Boiling this down, unless a suitably-free image is available (if you know of one please refer to it in any follow-up post) no image is permitted to be uploaded anyway, and the issue appears secondary right now. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair use of low resolution image for a book cover on en.wiki

Hi there, am I allowed to upload a fair use image (see the source, please) to insert it in into an article I'm creating on en.wiki project? This is the statement:

fair use rationale

Also, I don't think that I can Italicize the article title, it's a book name, it should be with italics. Or if I can do it, please let me know.

Thanks! Robert G. (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Robert G.. Book covers are fairly run-of-the-mill for fair use images on Wikipedia. In fact, the image upload wizard will actually take care of most of the details for you. So you should be fine in that regard.

As to the italic title, you can either use Template:Italic title, or if you use Template:Infobox book it will automatically italicize the title for you. TimothyJosephWood 12:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks TimothyJosephWood, I solved both issues. In the image description bog haven't entered the |image has rationale=yes because "To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an 'appropriate' rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template." I don't know why the whole licensing box appended twice, it's intended?

| Here's the file in question. Thanks a ton! Robert G. (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Robert G.: Looks like maybe one version was added automatically by the upload wizard and one was added manually by you. I've tidied it up. No worries. TimothyJosephWood 13:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

TimothyJosephWood, thanks! Robert G. (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Usage of YouTube as source for a YouTuber's channel number of subscribers

Hello, in a page about a YouTuber, an edit was added that gives information about his number of subscribers (over 650 thousand). There is a user that undid that edit because the source of that information is primary (youtube itself) and claimed that it is invalid.

I've seen other YouTuber pages that cite their number of subscribers and the reference to that kind of information is their YouTube channel page, which shows that information. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PewDiePie

My question is: is the usage of a youtuber's youtube channel a valid source for their number of subscribers or do we need to find an article that mentions their channel has that information? HJBC (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, HJBC. Primary sources may be used only for uncontroversial factual information. It seems to me that the number of subscribers to a YouTube channel is easily enough manipulated (and there would be an obvious motive for doing so) that it should not be regarded as reliable. --ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for answering ColinFine, I do not understand how a mechanical counter can somehow be "easily enough manipulated". If that's actually the case, then several pages must be edited removing that kind of information, but I'm sure no one will find acceptable to do so in the page I mentioned earlier, for example. HJBC (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone could easily register more than one YouTube account to watch the same video multiple times. 331dot (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Very well, then every page that cites a YouTuber's subscibers number should be removed, correct? HJBC (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Could be, or dealt with in some othere way. If that's a battle you are interested in fighting, you are welcome to, though I would start a major discussion about that first. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Deal with it in what other way exactly? If there is a rule and there are several exceptions to it, I don't see the point in existing such a rule. Where could I go to argue about this? HJBC (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

". . . every page that cites a YouTuber's subscribers numbers should be removed . . . ." That is not what happened in the instance you raised, and no-one has suggested it. The reasonable inference is that claims of subscriber numbers should be removed from the pages concerned (unless substantiated by a more reliable source than the raw YouTube counter), not that the entire pages should be removed. If we removed every article that contained a challengable fact (rather than either substantiating the claim with a Reliable Source or editing it out), there would likely be no Wikipedia left! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.204.180.96 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Best practice on citing a specific fact

Hey all. I have a question on the specifics of WP:SWYGT. Suppose that I have a specific fact ("the earth is big") which is documented in a work by Jones, who cites Smith as their source for that information. I currently have access to both the work by Jones and the original work by Smith. Is it preferable to just cite Smith as my source, or does "Smith, cited by Jones" convey any sort of additional legitimacy or benefit? Additionally, if Jones claims something and cites Smith as their source, is it acceptable to simply cite Jones and trust that readers following up on this will read Jones and see where they got their sources? RexSueciae (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RexSueciae. There is no single answer. If the fact is non-controversial, I would cite one source, and select it based on comprehensiveness, accessibility and so on. If the fact is controversial or counterintuitive, I would cite both. If highly controversial, look for a third source as well. Use good editorial judgment. The main point is to avoid citing sources you have not actually read yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Headquarters

Where is the Wikipedia Headquarters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijah the Editor Magician (talk • contribs) 18:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Elijah the Editor Magician. Wikipedia is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation. That organization has its headquarters in San Francisco. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Trump Trips

Trump only was in one city in Arizona. How do you change?16:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnylospo (talk • contribs)

Hello, Vinnylospo, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump lists visits to both Yuma and Phoenix on August 22, and that information is cited to reliable sources. In order to remove either city from the list, you would need to cite a reliable source saying that Trump either didn't really go to Yuma or didn't really go to Phoenix on that day. I hope this answers your question; in any case you are welcome to return to the Teahouse with any future questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Coding appears in body text of Wikipedia article about Trivago

Hi. I was reading the Wikipedia article about Trivago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivago) and noticed that what appears to be reference coding appears in the two paragraphs of body text beneath the sub-head "Hotel search". As a new(ish) contributor, I thought I might be able to do a quick fix. However, I wasn't sure what to do in the first paragraph, and one of the citations in the second paragraph doesn't look right in that it references an article in Spanish. So, I wanted to draw it to the attention of someone with more experience. Not sure the Teahouse is the place, and if not, please let me know what to do the next time I come across something like this. Thanks!Ian.fraser1 (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It was this edit that screwed the page up. I've reverted it. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ian!Ian.fraser1 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem, Ian! Ian.thomson (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

For future reference, Ian.fraser1:

• If the problem was caused by the most recent edit to the page, you can click "undo" on the article's History tab to revert the bad edit; be sure to include the reason for reverting in the edit summary. Otherwise you can revert manually, like Ian.thomson did here.
• Sources cited in articles on the English Wikipedia do not need to be in English; they do however need to be reliable sources.
• The Teahouse is open to anyone with questions about editing Wikipedia, including editors with years of experience. It's not just for brand-new users.

Thank you for your contributions. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! That's very good to know. Best regardsIan.fraser1 (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

help!

i must be causing problems or i dont know how i imvrove the typoons110.54.231.126 (talk) 06:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello anonymous, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Unfortunately, your question here is the only edit associated with your IP address. The most recent change to the Typhoon article was more than a week ago and if that IP editor was also you, shame on you for vandalizing.

For us to be of any help, you'll need to give us some more context. What article were you attempting to edit? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the IP editor's complete message, "typoons" could be a typo for "typos". --Thnidu (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Where can I post my comments

I posted a question on the village pump suggesting Wikipedia changes something on the logs, adding a "Show pages starting/containing this text" and no one responded. Where do I put something like this then? Rain Drop, Drop Top _{Smokin on cookie in the hot box} 19:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rain drops, drop top: Hello and welcome. It appears to me that a couple users have replied to your post, including one who says something like your suggestion exists already. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Is organization's website reliable for a person's status as alumnus?

I've just added a citation to American Swiss Foundation for the statement that "former North Carolina governor Pat McCrory" is a former member of their "Young Leaders Conference". My source, however, is a page on the Foundation's website, Alumni in Leadership Positions. I consulted WP:QUESTIONABLE and was none the wiser: this seems like a borderline case. Advice, please? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Hello and welcome. If you're asking for opinions, I think that for something uncontroversial and factual like evidence of membership in an organization, a primary source would be OK. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, 331dot. I thought it would be, but it's a gray area in general, so indeed I wanted another opinion.--Thnidu (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Review of Draft:JavierMartin

Does it appear that the updates and corrections I have made will satisfy the appropriate tone of neutrality that is needed. I would like to submit the article for approval again, however, I want to ensure that the article conforms to all guidelines. If anyone would be able to offer any advice/tips on this draft it would be much appreciated. Thealiengirl (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Thealiengirl and welcome back to the Teahouse.

I did a quick read of Draft:Javier Martin. It's still entirely positive about the artist, which some reviewers will see as not neutral. You could probably try to dry out some of the text describing the artist's aims and goals.

I'm also unsure if your refs include the sort of in-depth, substantial coverage that is needed to establish an artist's notability. Some of the refs, such as what is currently #8, do not appear to mention the subject at all, either at the landing page the url takes you to, or at the downloadable PDF attachment. References are expected to substantiate the statements made in the sentence where they are used, they are not merely convenience links to associate with one of the entities mentioned.

I also advise you to create a "References" section, turn the long quote into a blockquote (or trim it back), and regularize your citation style. While these are not supposed to be barriers to a submission's acceptance, they will have to be fixed by someone.

I see that you've been working on this article for some time. I don't want you to be frustrated, but creating a whole new article on WP is a difficult task: there are so many things to master before you can succeed. You're well on your way, but it looks like you might want to spend some time improving other articles and learning the ropes before submitting this again. You'll make some good edits, a few mistakes, but by solidifying these elements in your understanding of how to edit on WP, you'll be in a much better place to bring your first article forward. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Thealiengirl. I am concerned about the reliability of most of your sources, and whether they are acceptable as sources in a biography of an artist. Fubiz, for example, identifies its staff by first names only. This is a bad sign. Toys for Boys looks like a lifestyle magazine devoted to expensive cars, watches, liquor and celebrity gossip. Luxury Properties is an Asian magazine devoted to "ultra high end" real estate, and I see no evidence that the writer, Kevin Daniel Dwyer, is an art expert as opposed to a real estate promoter. Hong Kong Tatler is a self-described lifestyle and luxury magazine, and that article is an interview with the artist as opposed to independent coverage of him and his art. One of the Art World Forum sources is an article about the financial aspects of the contemporary art market in Asia, and I see no mention of Martin there. The Vice magazine piece is very brief and has all the hallmarks of something generated by a press release. The Soho House New York source appears to be a routine event calendar listing which is of no value in establishing notability. A minor problem is that your references are poorly formatted and most lack clickable links. In conclusion, the sources now in the article completely fail to demonstrate that this artist meets our notability guideline for artists, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

resubmitting an edit request

Hi Wikipedians,

I recently made some suggestions for changes to the History Section on the Arla Foods Talk page (since I have a COI). The request was denied and I submitted a revised version as a comment on the talk page, addressed at the original reviewer. I have not received a response yet. Should I somehow resubmit the request to notify the reviewer or other users who can review the submission as well?

Thanks in advance!

A8260 (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@A8260: Hello and welcome. As this is a volunteer project, with people doing what they can when they can, it may take time for the person who replied to you to reply again. I see that you pinged the user, once they see it, they should reply. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

MAKE WIKIPEDIA PAGE LIVE

please help me in making VIPUL D SHAH wikipedia page live. If the article looks more like an advertisement, please help in editing so I can make this page live asapVipul D Shah (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You need to read why Wikipedia recommends against trying to write an autobiography. If you wish to write about another subject, there are recommendations at WP:Your first article, and you also need to read about the need for references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. Also, please don't WP:SHOUT. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I have re edited my draft for a page to be approved, how do I submit it?

I finished a new wiki page that now meets the musician notability criteria that it did not before. How do I submit it for review now? danny Dashugs03 (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Danny_Delegato Dashugs03 (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome,you have submitted the draft for review.But due to high backlog in Wikipedia,your draft may be reviewed after 3 or 5 weeks gap.Or it may take a long time.Happy editing Abishe (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I took a quick look at your submission. I applied an automated tool to your page to fill in what were bare URLs and turned them into web citations. Bare URLs are subject to LINKROT while citations fare a little better.

You may want to visit the AfC help desk with what you think are the three best references to establish notability according to the notability criteria that apply to musicians. It was not obvious to me that you had what's needed, but having the discussion about notability at the help desk will give some clarity to the decision. It would help to do this while waiting for the next review. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

deleted entry on Atuu FEstival

I put up an article on Atuu Festival of Arts on Wikipedia and it has been deletedTetteh Ahuma Bosco Ocansey (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You have not yet created an article. You created User:Tetteh Ahuma Bosco Ocansey/sandbox as a userspace draft which you have not yet submitted for review (and which would not be accepted in its current form, so please read the advice at WP:Your first article). --David Biddulph (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Google search for Wiki page

Hi all! I recently created a wikipedia page for an artist (Brodha V), who's band also has a wikipedia page (Machas with Attitude) that has been in existence for a couple of years now. However, when you google the name of the artist, the band's page pops up in the search results. The artist's page pops up only if you google 'Brodha V wiki' specifically. Is this common? Or did I miss something while creating the artist's page? My guess was that since the artist's page is relatively new, and till date people could find information about him only through the band's page, that was still the most popular result. However, I just wanted to confirm with experts to make sure I didn't miss anything. Thanks in advance! Nramesh (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Nramesh, and welcome to the Teahouse. All seems in order on Wikipedia's end: the page exists in the mainspace and is open for indexing by search engines. Whatever Google wants to do from that point on is their business, not ours, and there is nothing we can do about it. It is a good thing you asked though. Not all editors are aware how articles are indexed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

How?

How to I Become an Administrator on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireMarioCutie56 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

With a lot of work. See WP:Not now for more information. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The basic method is.

• step 1: edit wikipedia for a minimum six months, but possibly several years showing a good understanding of how it works.
• step 2: ask some other editors whether they think you would make a good admin.
• step 3: if response is generally positive you could submit a RfA to be considered for the role.

You can also read about the process on WP:ADMIN. note there are lots of other things you can do the contribution that don't involve being an administrator. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Robert Muse Bass -Texas billionaire wiki

I'm trying to correct a terribly inaccuracate article on Mr. Bass. One he does not live in Woodside ( Portola Valley,CA) to be exact, it's a vacation home. Second all the Links on number of children end at a dead spot as Duke has removed her trustee profile. Additionally their son Christopher Maddox Bass is quite notable as he now oversees major giving with Duke University and most recently pledged $20 million. Why that particular editor refuses to see my links are from valid newspapers including Mr Bass FEC contributions and his Forbes profile, along with the DUKE article on his son and the large duty placed on him. To have a semblance of balance by listing only one daughter of theirs and in a somewhat tongue in cheek way, it's only fair that you add Mr. Christopher Maddox Bass achievements. I don't know what else to do, however I don't want to get into an argument with the individual it's just those links are dead and the ending of the biography is false of Wikipedia is proving that it can be reliable then it needs to address that glaring problem that nearly everyone knows is inaccurate. Thank you for your patience and understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8081:D2A0:6D62:A379:42A0:640F (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Your edits to Robert Bass violate several wikipedia policies. posting specific address details is not allowed in policy, also the information you added to the infobox should not be in the infobox but somewhere else on the page, according to policy. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with your sources, you simply need to read WP:MOS and familiarise yourself with how information should be presented. If you don't get it right, then your edits will be reverted even if the information is valid. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

suggestion for adding different political affiliations to infoboxes for politicians

I've been adding and editing infoboxes for several 19th century Virginia politicians in the past year, in part because I think they provide better navigation through the tumultuous politics of the era. Often these politicians changed political parties, especially if one party basically disappeared (like the Whigs and Know-Nothings before and the Readjuster Party after the American Civil War). The political infobox templates like Officeholder don't accept multiple political parties, from various attempts I've made. Last month, I edited Chester D. Hubbard (which used a U.S. Congressman template) and added the second party simply using a break--which doesn't generate an error message but also eliminates info about when the party change occurred. Last week I wanted to work on Alexander H.H. Stuart (which uses the U.S. Cabinet official template). He is one of many Virginia politicians whose bios could illustrate the changing political landscape -- if party could be associated with political office (he changed parties between stints in the Virginia General Assembly. Making such a request on the article's talk page seems unlikely to generate comments. But I can't seem to find where to make template suggestions.Jweaver28 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates or at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). A Guy into Books (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Also you could try getting someone to edit the infobox template by finding who wrote it and asking those editors directly on their talk pages. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Using primary source for lists

Hi I am making a page which once finished will have some similarity to the [[2]] which i am planning to use to build it. WP:CIL is not helpful enough. please advise. It will contain more information, my worry is that it will seem very similar (from a copyvio perspective), and that even if i don't use that source, i will end up building much the same list anyway, since the bus routes use standard notation. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi again A Guy into Books. If the entries to the list are suitably finite (e.g., 22 entries it would seem here as the totality) such that you will not be exercising creative selection in what routes to include, and the ordering is done by some standardized criteria. e.g., alphabetical, beginning stop, to end stop, etc., and furthermore, the source's selection of what to include as to each entry is not creatively selective (for example, there might be a problem if each entry on a list contained ten categories of data, where many types of data categories could have been selected, and you copied those ten categories) you do not have a copyright issue here. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Before putting too much effort into such an article please read WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTGUIDE, and WP:OR. Going by past experiance such a list compiled from primary sources is likely to be deleted as original research and non-encyclopedic content.Charles (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Trump trips

There are some areas of the map where trump has been where a colored dot is, even though he has been there. How can I update it?23:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnylospo (talk • contribs)

Complaining about bossy user

Wikipedian MezzoMezzo is being very arrogant and bossy he always edits the article i write and calls it my POV , however it's instead his own grudge against the person i am writing regarding. Even his knowledge regarding the subject is valued, please take action or such wikipedian will never let new users and true facts to appear on Wikipedia.Thanks, --Saudmujadidi (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Saudmujadidi. If the dispute is about an article, the best place to discuss it on the article's talk page. For instance, if it's Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, then you should begin a discussion at Talk:Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi . If the dispute is primarily about user behavior, you can consider filing a report at WP:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents, but it might be a better approach just to go edit some other articles for a while; emotional investment in an article or topic tends to diminish when one editor takes a break, and that's generally a good thing. I haven't looked into the specifics of this dispute, and you haven't provided any links, but I'll tell you frankly that the allegation you have made about MezzoMezzo—that they have a grudge against the subject of an article they're editing—is a serious one. You want to be very sure of what you say, and be able to back it up with compelling evidence, when you allege something like that. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reply and guidance. I am writing for years on Ahmed Raza Khan in text. Despite this I am in direct contact with the family members of Ahmed Raza Khan. I recently shared my edits with him concern it's authenticity which I was assured. Also I have various books written by different authors on biography of Ahmed Raza Khan. Secondly I noticed MezzoMezzo doesn't have knowledge regarding Sufism and Ahmed Raza Khan was a Sufi. Actually Islam is currently divided mainly into the Sufi and the orthodox sect. It may be that the user belong to the other group therefore he tries to edit it on POV and it may be merely his illiteracy on the topic. In both the cases he should leave poking in this topic. If you want I could show you my large collection on books written on him and I also have in connection with many PhD candidate in thesis on Ahmed Raza Khan. User:Saudmujadidi (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Now appears Saudmujadidi is contacting other users to push his side of the disagreement with MezzoMezzo [3] NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 07:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Saudmujadidi, it sounds as if you have a conflict of interest. Please read the relevant guideline carefully before making any more edits to that article. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I find it interesting that before posting here and canvassing other users, Saudmujadidi's only interaction with me consisted of him flaming me on my talk page and me asking him to take it to the talk page of the article in question. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Saudmujadidi has continued editing tendentiously with significant changes to articles with which he has a COI yet without discussing said changes on talk pages first. He's also continued canvassing other users based on his errant assumption that if those users share his religious beliefs, they'll automatically support his edits.

So I have a teahouse question. Is there a way we can educate Saudmujadidi about the way that Wikipedia basically functions (i.e. as a neutral collection of sources and not a competition to see whose point of view wins in the end)? Is there any sort of a mandatory mentorship program that can be required when problematic behavior like this arises? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Welcome to the Teahouse. This is not the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents which is the proper venue for behavioral issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Editors are encouraged to act with civility and review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Just Not Sure?

I'm Not Sure What to Write About on Wikipedia. Cause it Seems That There's a Page For Everything These Days — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireMarioCutie56 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That is the idea. You could just improve some other articles, or join a wikiproject - Wikipedia:WikiProject, and see the to do list. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@FireMarioCutie56: We've admittedly plateaued in article creation.

If you do find a topic to write about, the best way to write an article is to:

• Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find that are specifically about the topic but unaffiliated with and independent of it. Things like books from university presses, or articles in newspapers.
• In a word processor (preferably one that doesn't automatically format, like Microsoft Notepad), summarize each of those sources, following each summary with a proper citation.
• Paraphrase those summaries, combining overlapping material, and distributing the citations as needed.
• Then post that in the new article space on this site.

You can also patrol Special:NewPages and look for articles that need more sources. There are other ways to help, such as checking random pages for typos or other errors (or adding more sources and expanding those articles), or checking Special:RecentChanges to help the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

FireMarioCutie56: only a tiny fraction of the work done on Wikipedia is creating new articles. Wikipedia currently has 5,462,562 articles, and I'll bet that 5,000,000 of them have room for improvement. Maproom (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If you are going to contribute to Wikipedia you need to learn that in the English language we do not start each word with a capital letter, see MOS:CAPS. We would also be grateful if you would tell us about your connection with User:Bonbondash1234. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Cyclone trixie is not responsible for 71 deaths.

On the Australian Cyclone page:- it states, " Cyclone Trixie killed 71 people is recorded ! It wasn't it, it was actually CYCLONE TRACY over Darwin on Christmas Eve in 1974, to be correct ! " just, thought ya would be interested in correcting a misprint of the details, eh ... and beers & cheers for the read 🍻🍻🍻 and i give it the 👍👍👍 up, otherwise to ya ! 😉 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:865F:CE00:8C5:4BEA:17FB:866D (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. There isn't a page Australian Cyclone. The 71 deaths are attributed to Tracy in Cyclone Tracy and 1974–75 Australian region cyclone season. Which article are you talking about? --David Biddulph (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)