Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 666

Archive 660

←

Archive 664

Archive 665

Archive 666

Archive 667

Archive 668

→

Archive 670

Making article for the Doreen Valiente Foundation

I have been trying to make an article about the Doreen Valiente Foundation of which I am a trustee but it keeps being deleted what am I doing wrong? Joolspayne (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Joolspayne: Have you read all the messages on your talk page? Maproom (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

All my edits get deleted by a person with a different view.

A certain person deleted one word from a quote by a historian and I wanted to put the word back on the page of William M. Branham. We discussed it a lot on the talk page at the bottom under "Newspaper Reference". The person thought that the historian was wrong and that he had the correct interpretation of what the historian should have said. I told him I would put the word back and if he deleted it again I would turn in a dispute. Well, he deleted it again and when I tried to turn in a dispute, I got this message: Error: API returned error code "badtoken": Invalid CSRF token. I don't know if I did something wrong because I don't know what a CSRF token means, but when I went to talk I got this message: Editing from 185.20.96.0/22 has been blocked (disabled) by Slakr for the following reason(s): The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. I don't think I'm a host provider or anything like that, I'm just an individual person. Since I'm new to Wikipedia I don't know what to do. When I went to another page it said I wasn't blocked, but whenever I try to write anything, it says I'm blocked. What can a person do in this situation? DanpeanutsDanpeanuts (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This is about William M. Branham. You replaced "The photograph showed a light appearing above Branham's head" by "The photograph showed a halo of light appearing above Branham's head." This was in a sentence of Wikipedia's own text, not in a quotation. You were attributing to Wikipedia the view that the light is indeed a halo. You were wrong to do so, and the other editor was right to revert your edit.

I don't know where you saw the message about a CSRF token, and I've no idea what it means, so I can't help you with that. Maproom (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

CSRF tokens are part of a general mechanism to protect websites against spoofing attacks, Danpeanuts: they're nothing to do with Wikipedia specifically. I don't know why you got the message, but my guess is that it is something to do with the IP range getting blocked. Ignore it unless it keeps happening. --ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

CollinFine, I only changed the article to say the same thing that has been there for several years. It is the words of David Harrell the historian who wrote the book "All Things are Possible" about Revivals in America. Is there a correct way to revert it back to what it originally said? Also, another person yesterday also deleted the sentence after it "The photograph became perhaps the most famous relic in the history of the revival". These people don't believe what Harrell wrote and are systematically changing everything over to Weaver's opinion. If I try to revert that, it will get deleted also. Isn't there anything that can be done? It's ok to have Weaver's opinion there but the other historian shouldn't be deleted just because he gave a different view.

Danpeanuts, I wasn't attempting to contribute to the general discussion: I haven't looked at the article and take no position. I was just explaining what a CSRF token is, and why it is irrelevant to the issue. Please follow the procedure for dispute resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Danpeanuts, that is not going to be decided here. I agree with Maproom that calling a light effect a halo in Wikipedia's voice is not correct. Perhaps you can get consensus to use a direct quote from the source you mentioned, but that will be decided at the article's talk page. If you cannot come to agreement there, see the above advise about dispute resolution. John from Idegon (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, John. That's exactly what the historian said and all others who have seen it except Weaver. He's a Baptist and his book is quite different from Harrell's. Harrell said the halo picture is probably the most important relic of the entire revival. That statement has also been deleted since Monday. You said there may be a way to use the direct quotation from one of the historians, so that's what I'll try for. DanpeanutsDanpeanuts (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Government notability

what is the notability guideline for a governmental body? It is an elected executive lower-tier non-legislative local government body. primary sources and some secondary sources are available. A Guy into Books (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Aguyintobooks. There doesn't seem to be a specific guideline for governmental bodies, as opposed to the politicians who populate them (see WP:NPOL). That being the case, I believe the WP:GNG would be the relevant notability criteria. I hope this answers your question. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 06:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

A Guy into Books, as GF said, there is no definitive guideline for them. What he didn't say is that means it will be WP:GNG, just like any other subject. If they've been written about in detail (and not just routine coverage) in multiple reliable sources, independent of the unit of government they are a part of, then they are notable. It isn't quite the same, but just for example, take a police department. The vast majority of police departments are NOT notable, even though they are mentioned in the news daily as a part of the coverage of crime. But as far as coverage of the department itself, most press is limited to simple job change announcements and the occasional budgetary matters -- not coverage in detail as is required by GNG. You will need sources that discuss the commission or whatever it is itself, not the portion of governmental responsibility they oversee. If it is a zoning board lets say, the routine approval of zoning requests is not the kind of coverage that will make it notable, no matter how controversial the zoning change is. However is a commissioner was mal or misfeasant in the exercise of their duty in regard to the controversial zoning change and the press discussed that, then THAT would be about the commission. Hopefully that is clear enough to understand. I kinda got on a roll :) John from Idegon (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that puts it quite clearly. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Newbie question about Draft

I just drafted my first article. I hit "Save." The title now says "Draft:(name of my article)." Is that it? Now I wait for approval? Thank you to whoever answers this basic question! 2601:647:300:5080:C1F1:3C48:D756:E1E8 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

What is the name of your article? Ruslik_Zero 20:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Hi! When you drafted your article, you were using a different account or IP address. If you'd be so kind as to link to the article, or if you're not sure how to do that, let us know the subject of your draft, I'm sure someone here would take a look and make sure it is waiting for review. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

need template "the citations section of this page is a smoking, molten-slag filled crater"

Hi, I'm new to editing and would appreciate any guidance on issues at BRICS and 2nd_BRIC_summit. The citation for the "Summits" section on the BRICS page leads to a paywall. At the page for the 2nd summit, almost all of the citations lead to dead links. I've done some limited looking around and while most of the info on the page has verifiable sources online, I'm having a very hard time finding good sources for the guest from PNA, which is unfortunate, because I started checking the sources so I could add a reference to this on his article. Where should I start? I'm frankly daunted with the idea of taking this entire task on myself, are there ways to bring attention to it for groups of more experienced users who commonly deal with these types of issues? Again, any help appreciated.Gabriel syme (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Quickly checked the Riyad al-Maliki article, of the four sources cited, one leads to foreign language youtube, one is dead link, one leads to columbian media site in spanish language, and the other is a BBC news digest about cabinet appointments. Much of the information in the article is not contained in this source.Gabriel syme (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Gabriel syme and welcome to the Teahouse.

The rotting away of web citations is a problem everywhere. But first, let me respond to some of your comments.

• references to sources behind paywalls are acceptable, but freely accessible copies are preferred
• references to offline sources are acceptable, but online sources to the same information are preferred
• references in languages other than English are acceptable, but sources to the same information in English are preferred

So do not remove acceptable references simply because you cannot read them.

If you think a source does not support the statement it is used as a reference for, you can tag it with the {{failed verification}} or {{fv}} template. You can include a reason= parameter to further explain what you think is wrong. If the link no longer works, you can tag it with the {{dead link}} template. If you have the time and inclination, you are encouraged to seek replacement sources. Sometimes a search on the old title of the source is sufficient to find another usable copy. You can also use the original URL to try to see if the web archive (sometimes called the Wayback Machine - at http:archive.org) contains an archived version of the original source. The {{cite web}} template will take archiveurl= and archivedate= parameters to point to the archived version and you can use the deadurl=yes parameter to make the archive version appear as the primary link.

You are not expected to unwillingly take on editing tasks brought on by actions of earlier editors. Fix what you know how to fix, tag things that you're not sure how to fix, and you should be fine. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I've ran both pages through InternetArchiveBot's interface. It appeared to fix some of the references, but not all as some pages appeared to have not been cached. In future, you can use that tool to request it to run any article or set a job to fix up to 5000 articles at once. Thanks. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 11:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi again and thanks for your replies! The linkrot article is a big help, and I'm sure the IABot will prove useful. I find it surprising that sources behind paywalls are acceptable, but will make note of that. Having no intention of removing sources just because I can't read them, I was pointing to the fact that an article on english wikipedia contained information that would be difficult or impossible for an english speaker to verify from the sources, which seems counter-productive. Fix what I can and tag the rest is good advice. I appreciate all the help.Gabriel syme (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gabriel syme:

A Guy into Books (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aguyintobooks:Ha! Much appreciated. Gabriel syme (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Gabriel syme, you write that you "find it surprising that sources behind paywalls are acceptable", but as noted at WP:SOURCETYPES, the most reliable sources for many topics are peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles, which are often behind paywalls (although there is clearly a shift in favour of open access publishing in recent years). If paywalled sources couldn't be used, then it would be near impossible to write reliable articles on, for example, medical topics. Scholarly books also tend to be good sources and are expensive to buy, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't use them. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry:Yknow, I never even considered scholarly books at all, but yeah, they are behind a pretty significant paywall themselves. I need to remind myself that even thought it's not a paper encyclopedia, it's, well, still an encyclopedia. Thanks for the input. Gabriel syme (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

i'm glad to be among you all!! :)

Thank you !! but i'm a beginner  :) Page of the artist : http://www.artabus.com.belmadani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamtalsi rayan (talk • contribs) 21:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Lamtalsi rayan. It's a generally expected courtesy that editors sign their comments, so we know who said what to whom. This is usually done by adding ~~~~ at the end, but if you don't a bot will usually come along and do it in your stead, although it's considered bad form not to sign.

Welcome to Wikipedia, in case you haven't been welcomed already. I'm not sure if you have a particular question about editing, but if you do we can usually find a way to help. TimothyJosephWood 21:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I am writing an article called "Atlantis Found: Plato Was Correct. I need help.

I am new to wikipedia and need help getting my article ready for submission. If I can get someone to edit it while I am trying to learn how to do the reference section, I would appreciate it. Also, can you direct me to the information on how to start doing reference section? Thanks. 66.91.19.76 (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, drafter of Draft:Atlantis Found: Plato Was Correct. You can find a how to guide on referencing at Help:Referencing for beginners. It is Wikipedia's verifiability policy that all facts you give in an article have been published in reliable sources. That's why it's the safest bet to provide an inline citation for each piece of information you have, though strictly speaking, you are only obliged to do so for information that is likely to be challenged. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. AlternateYou (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Good luck with finding reliable sources for this.Charles (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello AlternateYou. May I suggest you read the essay on why original research is not accepted in Wikipedia? Your article looks to me as if it contains a lot of it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Do you know of a site that allows original research? AlternateYou (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@AlternateYou: Lots of websites allow almost anything to be self-published. Wikipedia:Alternative outlets shows some possibilities. The search Google:ancient history forum finds many Internet forums where history theories can be discussed. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello PrimeHunter: Thanks for the advice. Believe it or not, I was reading original research as research as old historical information from reliable sources.

Anyway, I deleted that article and wrote another one. Can you take another look at it for me. It is called Atlantis: History or Myth. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Atlantis:_History_or_Myth%3F AlternateYou 21:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlternateYou (talk • contribs)

Need Help with New Article

Hi, I am working on a draft article called “Atlantis: History or Myth?” I would appreciate it if I could get an or two editor to look at it for me before I submit it for review.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Atlantis:_History_or_Myth%3F#cite_note-2

I will continue to work on it after I submit it. Thanks AlternateYou (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It will be rejected. It's a work of fiction, and it cites no sources. Maproom (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, AlternateYou, you are still mistaking Wikipedia for an organ which publishes original thought. Wikipedia articles do not advance arguments, or make any attempt to reach conclusions; nor do they ask questions. They summarise what reliable sources have said on a subject, nothing more. Your sources, even the National Geographic one, are not on the subject of "Atlantis: History or Myth?". Only if you could find several sources addressing precisely this question, and write an article summarising what these sources said, would such an article even be appropriate to consider - and even then, it would require a more encyclopaedic title, not one asking a question. But in any case, I cannot see any possible reason for separating this from the existing article Atlantis. Perhaps there is some materialfrom your draft which could be added to that article: I haven't looked closely. --ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine, I am a researcher not a writer. It is difficult for me to grasp the idea of writing an article without add new information, asking a question, or arguing some point. I am not an expert on writing. If I can figure it out, it seems like it would be fun to do. AlternateYou 22:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlternateYou (talk • contribs)

@AlternateYou: it seems to me that your proposed article would overlap considerably with the existing article Location hypotheses of Atlantis. You'd need to produce something usefully different from that which also relied on reliable published sources and avoided your own synthesis. For a more suitable title, you might consider Historicity of Atlantis, along the lines of the existing Historicity of the Iliad (now renamed since I last visited, I see). I'm interested myself in the topic, so I hope you're able to succeed with a viable article. (I've collected several books on theories about Atlantis, and currently favour that of it being derived from an initially misunderstood Egyptian account of the Trojan war. I've mislaid the book I own proposing this, by a 20th-century British ex-naval surveyor as I recall, but see also this.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.61.201 (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for comments, advice, and information. I have moved the page to Historicity of Atlantis and now I will start putting something together that may past a review.AlternateYou 01:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlternateYou (talk • contribs) 00:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

deletion of article

As soon as an article is created, there are so many intent on deleting them dredging up some obscure rules. How to go about? Dynamic80 (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Create it as a Draft in your userspace, and work on it (with help and advice from more experienced editors) until it's fully fit to be transfered to Article space. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.61.201 (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for help with references.

Hello Teahouse, Could you help with formatting the references at the article I started yesterday? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Howitt Funny because the article is about the founder of a tea company. Just right for the Teahouse. Tk8kpgt (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the picture size and the references, however the article needs to be moved to Tk8kpgt draft space as it needs more work to show notability and to be a finished article. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 03:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft has been moved to User:Tk8kpgt/sandbox/Heather Howitt so that Tk8kpgt can work on it without it being flagged for deletion due to its incomplete state. Tk8kpgt, as I see the photo in the draft is declared as your own work, I advise you to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. This page about why WP discourages autobiographies may also be of interest. Feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 04:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for helping with the picture size and references. I edited the article a little. I thought I'd do the article because there is an article on Oregon Chai and Heather Howitt is the main founder of the company. Could you let me know if I need to do anything else to the article?

Tk8kpgt (talk) 06:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Tk8kpgt, can I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Notability (people)? If there are more sources about Howitt that are reliable and independent of her, then you need to cite these in the article to demonstrate her notability, as that term is defined on Wikipedia. Note that the book currently cited appears to be self-published, and is therefore not a particularly strong source. What you ideally need is newspaper or magazine coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and the book isn't independent either, as it was written by Howitt's mother. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I have been working on the World's Columbian Exposition article

because someone had a "Reference Needed" tag (which I hate) on the American Artists section and now I have used the same source a dozen times and I am going to use it that many more and I know that there is a better form to use than just repeating "Carr, Carolyn Kinder, et all, Revisiting the White City : American Art at the 1893 World's Fair, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C. 1993 p.__"" a few dozen times. Can you help me out? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You could use a named reference with the Refpage template, as used in Frank Oppenheimer. Maproom (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Notability doubts

Hey guys,

I've been working on a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Luminar page for a half a year, but in the end, it was deleted because of the "notability" issues. Maybe "advertising" was involved there as well, I didn't understand honestly. I've tried to clarify the situation on the talk page of reviewer who deleted it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex_Shih#Luminar_deleted_article , but the reviewer referred me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability . I am familiar with these requirements, but I really don't understand why the sources I've used are not notable, for example:

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/macphun-luminar-10 (review) http://www.techradar.com/news/low-cost-photo-editor-luminar-will-light-up-mac-owners-screens-on-november-17th (review) http://www.macworld.com/article/3152728/photography/luminar-review-a-serious-challenger-to-the-reigning-pro-apps-for-photo-editing-mastery.html (review) http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/mac-software/best-macbook-pro-touch-bar-apps-8-apps-with-touch-bar-support-3651046 (mention) http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/best-photo-editing-software-1284627 (mention) http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2017/2/luminar-review (review) http://www.canonrumors.com/macphun-introduces-accent-%E2%80%8B-%E2%80%8Ban%E2%80%8B-%E2%80%8Bai-powered-filter-that-takes-images-from-good-to-great-in-one-second (review) http://www.tipa.com/english/XXVII_tipa_awards_2017.html (TIPA results mention) http://www.cultofmac.com/459302/photo-app-luminar-blends-power-and-simplicity-review (review) http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/reviews/creative-software/macphun-luminar-review (review)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomaslaurinavicius/2016/11/21/the-future-of-the-digital-photography/#1c75f307a36a (mention within the article about its developer)

Most of these sites are pretty big in "photo editing" and "Mac" niche. All articles were written by their editorial staff and are not user generated or paid reviews. I honestly don't understand how this set of references doesn't show the notability. I would be great for the advice of what would be the better ideas for the references in this case.

Actually, there are much more mentions of it on other sites of similar popularity, but I've used this set on purpose - in order to keep the ballance between the mentions and reviews.

What am I missing here? I need an insight please.

Thanks!

Jenyajc (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Some sources can't be used to show notability.

Put simply, mentions don't count; the reviews you have linked look sponsered (they might not be, but they sure look it) which makes them related to the subject, and not independent secondary sources, so they don't count either. = no sources that show notability. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Jenyajc, and welcome to the teahouse.

I also recommend that you take a look at WP:NSOFT, as that is the specific notability guidelines for software. That may help answer some of your questions regarding notability, but if you are still unclear please come back to the teahouse for additional discussion. Another excellent resource for writing your article is MOS:COMPUTING; you mentioned in your conversation with Alex that you did not have a style guide to work with. That is a great place to start to understand what should or should not be included in an article about a piece of software.

Again, I don't mean to bombard you with links to documentation, so please feel free to continue this conversation if anything doesn't make sense or you have additional questions. Cthomas3 (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'm going to check these pages. Hope it'll give me some more insights on what "notable sources" for software are. Jenyajc (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Redgro

Hi this is Redgro, a new editor. Can you give me a welcome on my talk page because I am a new editor? Also I want to make worthy contributions to Wikipedia by mostly reverting vandalism and make minor changes to articles. I want advice from experience editors from the Teahouse. Thank you! Redgro (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Redgro, and welcome to both Wikipedia and the Teahouse. I see that Theroadislong has placed a welcome template full of helpful links on your user talk page. You may also find Special:RecentChanges helpful if you want to revert vandalism, and consider joining Wikipedia:Cleanup, Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and/or Wikipedia:Typo Team if you want to focus on making minor edits. Thanks for your contributions, and feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Redgro. To add on to the above response, if you would like to focus on vandalism, you can read WP:Vandalism and User:Kudpung/Anti vandal centre. I recommend using WP:Twinkle to aid you in reverting vandalism, which is available to autoconfirmed users (10 edits and 4 day old account). You'll be able to enable in 3 more days once you have made 10 edits. Good luck! Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 05:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I read your talk page message. I will warn editors if they vandalize. But I can't warn some editors (usually IPs) because they don't have talk pages so I would have to create their talk page to edit it but I thank you for the great advice. Redgro (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Redgro, there's no reason not to start a talk page for an editor who doesn't have one yet. I do it myself now and then. Usually I begin by posting one of the WP:Welcome Templates, then add a new section below whichever template I used to address whatever issue I wanted to raise with that editor. There are some templates designed specifically for warning new editors who have apparently only made vandalism edits or other problematic editing, but I generally like to detail the particular issue(s) with the new editor's edits in my own words. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 09:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Adler and Allan company page update / conflict interest?

Hi all,

i have been trying to upload a NON commercial updated version of the Adler and Allan page company info today as the old Wikipedia information is outdated.

the version i just uploaded has now been taken down by "331dot" and i am unsure why the information aas it is NON commercial and only factual is deleted and not allowed.

can someone please help me with this and or proof read the copy for the page.

many thanks in advance.

Rene Willemsen (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rene Willemsen: Hello. I have tried to contact you directly but you have not replied to my posts on your user talk page. The text is promotional because it contains language like "leading provider" which is just puffery. Articles need to have a neutral point of view. I would also note that you need to declare your conflict of interest and (if you have one) a paid editing relationship before you edit further; I have posted information about this on your user talk page. Since you have a conflict of interest(as your username was previously that of the company) you should avoid editing the page directly, and instead suggest changes on the article talk page. If you have other questions, I am happy to answer them, either on your user talk page, mine, or the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

DRAFT: Ian Cockerill - Declined by Sulfurboy - Request for advice to resolve citation issues

The reason left by Sulfurboy for declining the article was: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified.

The comment the reviewer left was: Looks like a case of WP:BOMBARD, sources need to be consolidated to those most relevant to the article and the subject. For example, we don't need to see 22 citations just for one point as was done in the controversies and awards section.

First, thanks to Sulfurboy for taking the time to review the page, when there is a big backlog of articles.

Secondly, my technical questions are:

(1) The reason is "not adequately supported by reliable sources" The sources included in the article are from, for example, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian (UK) The Daily Telegraph UK and many very respectable South African sources such as Business Day, Mail and Guardain and so on. Do these not count as "reliable sources"?

(2) The additional reviewer comment from Sulfurboy was that there were too many sources cited. I did not include all the sources I found - only the most relevant. The information being sourced was a hostile take over bid which, at the time, was very big news in the South African and global mining and financial communities (as can be seen from the quality of the sources cited, such as Wall Street Journal etc). The most recent source cited was written in August 2017 discussing the take over bid - more than a decade after it happened, which gives an indication of the historical importance of this event and of Cockerill's impact on mining history in South Africa in successfully fighting off the hostile bid.

I included the number of sources I did as each article cited gives a different viewpoint of the progression of the hostile bid – from the first opening attack, through the challenges to the end of the bid and then the most recent article showing that it is still relevant in South African mining today with the new mining charter being proposed in South Africa’s parliament.

As regards resolving Sulfurboy’s comment satisfactorily, I was wondering if it would be better to expand the controversies section in the draft article on Cockerill and actually detail the progression of the hostile bid step-by-step, so that the citations are not all listed at the end, but actually interspersed through a more detailed article? From an historical South African mining viewpoint, I do think it is important to have the information about the hostile bid easily available in one central source such as Wikipedia. Your advice would be appreciated.

Thank you and best wishes Collins Collins Mtika (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Collins Mtika: I have two comments.

The first sentence of the article uses the word "well-known". This will act as a red flag to a reviewer. If someone is well-known, there's no reason to mention it, it will be evident from the article.

There are far too many references. None of those I have checked help to establish that Cockerill is notable. It's the quality of the references that counts, not the quantity. Three good references, with substantial discussion of the subject, can be enough to establish notability. Fifty references that lack such discussion can just annoy a reviewer, and give the impression that they're there as a smokescreen, to hide the lack of any good ones. Maproom (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Maproom (talk Thank you for your comments. I will review & edit the article removing any terms that could be perceived as puffery, and will also go through the references keeping only those that show Cockerill is a South African mining notable. Best wishes Collins Mtika (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

No-one doubts that he's a South African mining executive. What needs be be shown is that he's notable in the peculiar sense in which Wikipedia uses that word. We need sources with "significant discussion" of him – not just statements that he was appointed to a post, dismissed from a post, or went to a meeting. (Such sources may usefully be cited, but they don't help to establish his notability.) For a former CEO of Anglo American, good sources should be easy to find. Maproom (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Maproom (talk) Thank you! The differentiation between executive and notable is a great help! And I definitely won't have trouble finding sources! The trouble (as you could see) was too many sources!! :) Will whittle them down to the best and most appropriate - and re write the article to be more focused on notability rather than executive status. (His notability comes mainly from the way in which he succeeded with averting the hostile bid when he was CEO of Goldfields & with his contributions to conservation in Africa, so I'll concentrate on those.) Thanks again - it's a great help! Best wishes Collins Collins Mtika (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing a claim which can easily be shown to be true, but for which there is no direct source

Hi. Fixing random "citation neededs", I hit a claim that "For much of the first half of the season, they had the worst record in the league." Now, this is quite easy to verify -- http://www.pennant-race.com/custom_baseball_graph lets me build a graph that shows the claim is true. Perhaps this is inadmissible on Original Research grounds, but if not I still have a problem as there is no way to permalink to the generated graph. So is there anything I can do here to provide a citation? If not, I think I'll have to delete the sentence as unsourced, which is frustrating given that I can see that it is true.

Would appreciate any advice. Shuggaroth (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You haven't said which team you're talking about, but assuming it's a pro sports team you'll invariably be able to find a league table (or equivalent) in a contemporary newspaper, or as a last resort an archive.org snapshot of the official website for whatever competition they were participating in, either of which would be a reliable source in this context. ‑ Iridescent 20:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I think they are saying you have to use the website to build a graph, but the claim the graph suggests isn't made in any WP:RS as of yet. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

And what I'm saying is that if the team are notable enough to have an entry on Wikipedia at all, they'll be competing in a competition notable enough that someone, somewhere, will be publishing regular "season updates". If there isn't a source saying "worst record in the league", it's not a claim that should be made in Wikipedia's voice. ‑ Iridescent 21:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to refer to the article -- it's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Orioles#2010_season. The problem with using a league table is that that shows that they had the worst record at any given time, rather than that they maintained the worst record over a period of time. I think a graph is really needed to show that. http://archive.alexreisner.com/baseball/history/race?y=2010 seemed to be almost what I need, but it doesn't show the whole league on one graph. Shuggaroth (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The issue is whether the "worst record in the league" claim constitutes original research. I have seen it claimed that finding the sum of a few small integers is allowable, but finding their product is original research. The claim in question seems to me somewhere between these. Maproom (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

While I think claiming multiplication = OR is a bit extreme (and I realize you weren't actually suggesting it), it's usually best to err on the side of finding an explicit reference. The best solution may be to see what sources are out there, and create a good paragraph or two from what they actually do say, rather than try to reference one line that we can't. I found this reference that may help; it looks like a pretty in-depth analysis of the Orioles' 2010 season. It doesn't appear that it actually mentions anything about their record being the actual worst at any point, but there's a lot of good stuff in there that you could use for a summary. Cthomas3 (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense — thanks. I'll see what I can do with it. Shuggaroth (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If the issue is regarding calculations please remember to read WP:AVRC and/or WP:CALC. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

wikipedia article citation

Can i cite something in an article with another wikipedia article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Out-typer (talk • contribs) 10:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Out-typer and welcome to the Teahouse. Please remember to sign your talk page contributions.

No, Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for itself. You can link to another article for identification purposes or to provide a path for further explanation, but you cannot cite Wikipedia, or any other site similarly containing user-generated content; such sites are not considered reliable sources, since there is no editorial process controlling the content. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Out-typer: You can, however, take content and references used in one page and import them to another page. On that front, though, please be aware of the requirements of providing suitable credit to the authors of the page you are importing from, as required under our free copyright licenses. The procedure is described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. On the original question, see also WP:CIRCULAR. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You must however, have read the sources cited in any references you "import" from another article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Need some in editing article

I need some help in expanding Rally for Rivers article. IndianEditor (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The first thing you need to do is pay heed to the messages on your talk page, specifically the ones about copyright violation. You have been given one last chance to understand and comply with this policy; please read the policy and ask any questions you have on your talk page (as you are currently blocked from editing elsewhere). —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 15:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft based on reliable third-party sources, but inline citations skew to primary sources

Hi. Looking for some guidance on my draft article for Amani Institute at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Amani_Institute. The general factual information about the organization is supported by reliable third-party sources which establish notability and are cited in the third paragraph. I think perhaps the article appears to rely more heavily on primary sources because I'm using inline citations to the org's website for the most basic organizational info; it's the most succinct and directly relevant source for basic facts. However, the info is supported by the numerous other third-party sources cited elsewhere. Again, these sources are reliable, not WP:ROUTINE and clearly establish notability. Any advice for improvement? Would the article be more suitable if I removed the inline citations and used general references instead? Starseedindigo (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Starseedindigo. Here are my suggestions: If at all possible, eliminate the use of the group's own website. Their website is not independent and contributes nothing to notability. Wikipedia editors care very little about what organizations say about themselves. Build your article by summarizing what independent sources say about this group. Your draft has a highly promotional tone to it and that style of writing is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article and is more suited to a brochure. Read about the neutral point of view and go though your draft, removing every single instance of promotional language. Adopt a dry, "just the facts" tone. As for the references, inline citations are always preferred. There is no good reason to remove them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328. I'll revise and resubmit. I really appreciate your time and polite assistance, but certainly share the frustration expressed by Simsong below. It seems the standard for notability in new articles is so high that editors are forced to write in a more promotional tone in order to "sell" the notability of an organization, etc. While the independent sources should suffice, I think there's an unconscious tendency for editors to say, "well, I'm not familiar with that source/industry/field, so it must not be reliable or notable." Thanks again for your help and efforts, and for hearing my concerns. Starseedindigo (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Starseedindigo. I simply do not understand why any new editor would feel "forced" to write in a "more promotional tone", since that goes against our core content policy, the neutral point of view. A promotional style pretty much assures that a draft article will not be accepted, so where did those editors get that idea? As for the claim that the standard of notability is too high, I agree that some AFC reviewers take that stance. But AFC is a voluntary and entirely optional process intended to assure that new articles written by new editors will survive, so the standards are high. Any editor in good standing can place any new article into the encyclopedia at any time, without an AFC review. It is then the sole responsibility of that editor to ensure that the topic is notable, and that the new article is in compliance with policies and guidelines. If the new article does not comply, it may be deleted. I have written about 100 new articles, none of which has been deleted. That is because I tried really hard to do things right. Too many new editors, in all honesty, are not sufficiently diligent in their work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Cullen328. In my view, every new article contains an implicit argument for notability. Using reliable independent sources should, in theory, make that argument. In practice, I'm finding that that's not enough for AFC reviewers, so the text of the article needs to highlight more strongly the influence or importance of a topic / organization. That's what I mean by "promotional tone". Not puffery, but perhaps undue emphasis on certain aspects of a subject. So it goes. I'm abandoning my draft article at this time, as it appears that either the organization is not notable enough or I'm not deft enough to argue persuasively for that notability. Best wishes. Starseedindigo (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Starseedindigo are you interested in working to improve the lists documenting institutions like the Amani Institute in Kenya and Brazil (elsewhere). In thinking about Kenya, it seems to me the state of Wikipedia articles summarizing what's known and documented about WP:Education_in_Africa and [[1]]] would be a good place to start to improve what can be freely shared about education in Kenya, and how this particular institution fits into that. Given you started this article, I imagine you've got some insight in to the context and might know where to look. I bet there are other editors who would be keen to work on this, especially those working in WikiProjects devoted to either Africa, Brazil or Education. I know I'm curious and I'm just a drive-by Teahouse reader. I also wanted to say, to support what Cullen328 pointed out: you do not need to submit the article for the article review process. Also in no way shape or form is "promotional" writing what the WP:NPOV asks of editors. Quite the contrary! You've got an important topic to develop -- Wikipedia needs to improve. In terms of independent sources, yes the institution's website will help with little details here and there, but it's not going to give that bigger picture that people want to know when they read an encyclopedia. A librarian (I am not one, but maybe we can find one) can help in digging up some off-line books or behind pay-wall articles that summarize and contextualize the place of educational institutions in the history and culture of Kenya/Brazil, etc. better than magazine pieces -- and that kind of reference material will enrich the article and reader's understanding of global nonprofit, non-degree granting educational systems such as the institution you've started to write about. Shameran81 (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Reporting "Bully" Editors...

I love Wikipedia for everything wonderful about it! :-) And for the most part all of my experiences with Wikipedia as both a contributor and a fan have been great, but I stumbled upon something disturbing and don't know what to do about it! I'm a fan of a television personality and read his book over the summer. I looked up here and there are two pages associated with him and since neither has a proper mention of his book (or other public/notable items I found) I decided to add them to his main article. But BOY OH BOY do there seem to be a few specific editors who REALLY HATE THIS GUY! The article should be unbiased but it clearly has been altered to be completely against him and what he does.

I also noticed there is a discussion about merging his articles and in the discussion it seems the same editors keep defending their actions and are CLEARLY biased against him. They are using very plain speak English to express their disgust.

Anyway, I want to bring this situation to the attention of the right people because even as someone relatively new behind the scenes it's obvious! Here is an example from the handful of people acting like bullies to anyone trying to get the article to be neutral:

"Merge to the TV show article, where the scoundrel has become notable - good job bilking the celebs too"

And here is a clearly honest wiki editor trying to figure out what the heck is going on (who was attacked after leaving this comment) -

"OK, you will consistently reinstate EVERY pieces of criticism edited but you remove the ENTIRE section for praise? Why is that OK???? Sounds like someone is using their wiki gig as a place for personal bias"

It just seems really wrong what they are doing - would love some guidance and input before I, like many before me, try and get the article to be a fair and honest Wiki, which it clearly is not! Charleslechien (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The first thing is, what is the article? If you put the article name in double brackets we will get a link right to it, but without actually rereading what is written there I doubt you will get much advice here. However give us a link and see what happens. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Charleslechien is taking about Tyler Henry who as a TV Medium so attracts people critical of what he does. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 06:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Charleslechien - I'm afraid this is not going to be exactly what you want to hear, but what you show above does not amount to bullying, nor is there any sign of such at Talk:Tyler Henry. The two quotes you cite above are, both of them, a little harshly worded but it is in fact only the second one that violates Wikipedia policy, because it casts aspersions on other editors (accusing them of "using their wiki gig" - nobody has a "wiki gig", this is a hobby for all of us - as well as making accusations of bias instead of assuming good faith). The first quote you present addresses the article topic, and not other editors, which is very important in all discussions. (It is perfectly fine to say "this edit of yours doesn't look appropriate because it violates [x] policy", but not "you are a rule breaker because you obviously have [x] opinions", if you see what I mean.)

In addition, the editor who attacked other participants was not attacked in turn - somebody calmly and politely answered their question, pointed out which important Wikipedia policies were being broken, and let them know that edit warring leads to being blocked. --bonadea contributions talk 07:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment on the articles Tyler Henry and Hollywood Medium with Tyler Henry. They are a bit heavy on the debunking side, and some sources may not be WP:BLP-ish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you who have responded, and yes, I am talking about Tyler Henry. I just don't understand how this small handfull of editors is able to completely trash him so clearly; and seems so against the notion of putting all of their critiscim in a specific section, instead of everywhere in the article. Can some of you please take a look at the discussion they started about the merging of the sites - that's where you really can see this group of editors exposing their feelings about TH. Regardless of what people believe about what he offers to celebrities, there are legitimate things he's accomplished that would be right of us to have in his article, including mention of his book - which again, I read and got a lot out of - despite my own sketpisim about what he does (I do agree with them that he can easily Google his clients and get all the personal info he needs to do a reading; but that's not really for us as editors to be concerned about unless there is a controversary that is public, right?) Thank you to talk, bonadea, Carptrash and NZ Footballs Conscience Charleslechien (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

company infobox

Where can I find how to create a company infobox with logo and background info that goes on the top right of a company page? Julie Saeger Nierenberg (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

OKAY! Already found it! Tks. Julie Saeger Nierenberg (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey Julie. In case this adds anything to what you've already found, see Template:Infobox company for the full explanation of all the parameters and what exactly they do. The logo is added to the |logo= parameter, but it will first need to be uploaded, usually as non-free content. If you'd like help with that, you can file requests at Wikipedia:Files for upload. TimothyJosephWood 19:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You totally rock, Timothyjosephwood! Thank you.Julie Saeger Nierenberg (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries Julie. I would add though just as a general point, you seem to be writing at about... I'd say probably a post-graduate level there. But as kindof a rule of thumb, Wikipedia should usually be written some where around a level where a bright and inquisitive teenager could understand an article without needing a dictionary in hand. At least that's in cases where it's possible, and on some highly technical subjects it really isn't.

I'm also not totally sure if "first-in-class" or "next-generation" in this case has a particular industry meaning in the pharmaceutical world, but it sounds an awful lot like jargon. The same kind of thing applies there, and articles should generally avoid jargon whenever possible.

Anyway, maybe just some things to keep in mind. TimothyJosephWood 19:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I will do my best to rid the article of its jargon and simplify wherever I can within a few days, TimothyJosephWood. Thank you. Julie Saeger Nierenberg (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to find local Wikithon editor/presenters?

Dear Teahouse,

I am considering the possibility of holding a Wikithon at a medical library convention in Scottsdale AZ (near Phoenix) on January 21, 2018. I am a novice so am looking for help. Is there a way to find experienced Wikithon editor/presenters I may contact? We would most likely be adding to Women in Science or LGBT Scientists or some other area of under-representation, if you also happen to know if January corresponds to any particular Wikithon projects. Thanks much. MedLibHarrow (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi MedLibHarrow. You may be able to find volunteers with experience in that area through Wikipedia:Edit a thon or Wikipedia:WikiProject Science, possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Women as well. I'd recommend looking through the lists of project members and contacting anybody who mentions interest in those areas and/or whose userpage indicates they could be from the Phoenix area. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Article got declined

Hi, I have uploaded an article yesterday on Mr. Universe Tarun Dutta but it got declined. I am not getting the exact reason. I have mentioned the reliable sources, an article from HT. But still it is not acceptable. Please help me out in this Diksha thukral (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Unless you have included the citations in the article it won't matter. Reviewers will check the article and do a basic search, that's it. I suggest you include the references in the actual article when recreating. You might want to read about notability first. A Guy into Books (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Resubmitting your draft for further review without resolving the problems is likely to annoy reviewers. All you have done is add a further "reference" to a newspaper website's front page, which has no mention of the subject of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

What the reviewer is looking for are inline citations. These citations link specific in-article text with the reliable source that they are taken from. For example, in your article, ideally you would have a paragraph that looks like this:

Workout and diet

---

Dutta's daily diet is focused around 6 solid meals. He takes proper rest in between his workout sessions. He amalgamates strength and cardio workouts to build muscle and avoid fat. A bit of running and yoga is also a part of his daily routine to balance his workout. The diet itself is bifurcated into two parts: off-season and competition season. During off-seasons, he increases the intake of carbohydrates and proteins, with one cheat-day every tenth day where he eats everything and anything he likes. During his competition seasons, he concentrates on diet, workout, and rest factors.

References

---

The reference is itself is built like this:

<ref>
{{cite web
|title=Title of reference specifically mentioning Tarun Dutta's diet and workout
|url=http://www.reference.specifically.mentioning.tarun.dutta's.diet.and.workout.com/
|accessdate=8 September 2017
}}
</ref>

The URL provided should actually mention everything that is included in the paragraph. If you used more than one reference to create the paragraph, each source should be separately cited using a similar format. Every paragraph in your article should have at least one reference like this.
Note that the url, title, and accessdate are only three (but the most basic three) of the fields that the template supports: see Template:cite web for more details on other fields that should be included if available (website name, author, date of article, etc.). Biographies of living persons must have references like these or the content cannot be included, as the danger for misrepresentation is too great. I hope this helps. Cthomas3 (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)