Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 795

Archive 790

←

Archive 793

Archive 794

Archive 795

Archive 796

Archive 797

→

Archive 800

How to deal with self-reverted vandalism?

I noticed that on one page, someone had added a crude, unsupported statement. However, they reverted it themselves soon after with a misleading edit summary. I'm not sure what to do in this case. Further complicating the issue is that the page was a biography of a living person, and the offensive material can still be seen in the "view history" page. What is an appropriate response to this? 171.64.70.62 (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What is the article in question? If the vandalism was self-reverted, I feel that there is little recourse to be taken - nothing exceeding a slap on the wrist, or a level one warning. It is clear that the editor is aware that their actions were unconstructive and has taken action to address this. If the edit was particularly egregious, and in flagrant violation of WP:BLP, then a revision deletion is required, and can be requested from an administrator - you will find plenty amongst the hosts here. However, we need to know the article and diff in question to make an assessment. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC).

The article was Ekta Kapoor, and here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ekta_Kapoor&type=revision&diff=848104350&oldid=848104225 I didn't mention the specifics earlier because I know that sometimes, offensive material shouldn't be discussed publicly. I wasn't sure what to do, but here's the information! 171.64.70.62 (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Generally, not discussing controversial topics is a good idea. That seems like a clear BLP violation to me, completely unbacked by reliable sources or citations, and reverted with a misleading edit summary. Paging all admins in the Teahouse to see if this is worth a revdel. Thanks. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: Revdelled. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: - thanks. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and blocked the editor in question. While there's a chance that maybe sufficient warnings and explanations could get them to never violate BLP or lie in their edit summaries, that all that was the first thing they set out to do leaves me with little hope that they'd be helpful. If another admin is willing to guide them, whatever, but they're gonna have to show interest in learning how things work. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I've run into that problem several times, there are vandals who do this repeatedly and I'm pretty sure there are more than one if I remember correctly. Not sure what to do with these cases, but I try to catch their next edit if I can and notify them on their talk page after reverting it. Coryphantha Talk 21:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Or if they keep adding and revert their own vandalism over and over, leave warnings for test edits, and report them at WP:AIV when they go past the final warning. If some WP:TROUT-target declines it, go to ANI with some WP:DIFFs. Even if they're reverting themselves and not violating BLP, that behavior disrupts the page history and (however insignificantly) wastes site resources. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, in my view. Causing such trouble as a revdel within your first edit is a poor start, and not indicative of a productive editor. Good spot by the IP, and good mop work by User:Ian.thomson. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

COI problem

I recently updated a number for revenue and for employees, and I added a couple new companies to a list of our subsidiaries as well as a couple of new historical bullet points. I received a COI message because I am an employee of the company. Robertgz (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Robertgz

Questions: Do I need to undo the changes? If I can't make the changes, how do they get done?

@Robertgz: - firstly, you need to publicly declare your conflict of interest on your user page and the talk page of all related articles, so it can be taken into consideration and openly acknowledged. Instructions for doing so can be found here. Then, if your edits were sufficiently cited with a reliable source, then they can stand. If not, reversion may be in order. If you are unwilling to edit the page again, I or another host can implement the changes/reversions on your behalf. I would recommend that you avoid editing the articles affected by your COI, as it will only cause unnecessary conflict for you as an editor. If you must make an urgent change, request an edit on the talk page and allow consensus for the edit to build. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC).

Key is declaring PAID, as in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure David notMD (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

True. Good catch. I forgot that money may be changing hands. Worth noting that the editor in question has edited the same related article for upwards of eight years at this stage, so an undeclared WP:PAID violation would be a serious matter. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

While I would hammer down on one that's like two or three years old, eight years is far back enough that I don't think we had clear rules about paid editing yet. As such, I've only left the warning. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Left Template:uw-paid1 on their page. If they do anything besides address that between when I leave and when I get back, go with uw-paid2 or just ask a similarly trigger happy admin who is on to deal with it.

@Robertgz: Even if:

...you were not directly asked to edit the page,

...you are not being directly paid for working on it,

...no one at the company knows you're doing it,

...you used no company resources whatsoever in editing the page,

...you'd still be best off disclosing your employer on your user page anyway, because proving the above would require a concerning amount of information. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

getting a new article online after having edited it

Hello. I uploaded two new articles to Wikipedia and submitted them. I received some basic notes on how to fix them, and then uploaded the fixed, updated versions of them. That was more than a month ago and I've not heard anything back, but the articles are not live online yet. Is there something else I should be doing? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubert van eyck (talk • contribs) 10:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hubert van eyck Hi Welcome to Teahouse. Your two draft articles Draft:SpinaliS and Draft:Rolljet have not been submitted for review. At the current stage, the notabilities for both of the articles have not been met under Wikipeida guidlines. Please visit WP:Your First Article to familiar yourself on topics that are required to write an article in Wikipedia. Once you have done so, then add {{subst:submit}} on top of the draft articles for review. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Not {{submit}}, but {{subst:submit}}. I took the liberty of fixing your link, CASSIOPEIA. WP:SUBSTituting is recommended in the doc, I am not sure why, but I suspect it has to do with the very, extremely, muchely large number of pages in which it is used. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tigraan and CASSIOPEIA: In this case, substitution is required because the template pulls things related to the particular edit in which it occurs and adds them to the recorded info for the submission; things like a timestamp and the name of the user who submitted it (when not supplied). — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tigraan and Jmcgnh: thanks, I forget to add the subst. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 22:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

My first article got declined, how do I respond?

My article got declined and the reviewer said I needed more 'reliable' sources in order to get it published sooner. I am having trouble getting these sources since there isn't a lot of reliable information, if any, on this topic. How do I get better sources for this article? Here is the link to my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ASAP_David/sandbox. Thank you in advance for any help you could give me,

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASAP David (talk • contribs) 20:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, ASAP David, and welcome to the Teahouse. You have created both Draft:Electronic Lock Bumping and User:ASAP David/sandbox. It appears that one of these started as a copy of the other, but you hav continued to edit the sandbox even after the draft was being commented on. it can be confusing and unhelpful to have two copies of a text around. i would advise you to pick one to work on going forward, and mark the other for deletion with {{db-g7}}.

As for better sources, I can't tell you where to find them, but if it is true that there isn't a lot of reliable information, if any, on this topic. then the topic is probably not notable, and there will not be a valid article on it. Do note that sources need not be online. Books, magazine and newspaper articles, as well as scholarly journals, can all be cited as sources without being online. There is at least some related content in Lock (security device) and Lock picking already. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Some steps that may be worth following:

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Creating Wikipedia for my friend

I have content from on own website that is created by me.is any issue on using my own content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansain bashir (talk • contribs) 05:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hansain bashir. Your personal website is a self-published source. It is not acceptable to use as a reference on Wikipedia unless you are a widely recognized expert on the topic who has previously published material through a traditional publisher. Also, you have a conflict of interest in trying to add material from your own website. This is highly unlikely to be acceptable to other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Reiterating Cullen's answer, personal websites are not considered reliable sources, and that goes double for if you have a vested interest in having such content make it into articles for reasons other than having influences on content. Even if you're somebody notable it would be better for someone not connected to you to put your findings into the site. Otherwise you have un-reliable sources, a COI, and original research, none of which are accepted in WP policy.BradLindforth *dial information*! 01:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

My edit on Dillon Brooks was deleted

To whom it may concern,

My name is Paul Melnik, and I am the head coach at Father Henry Carr CS in Toronto Ontario. The same school that Dillon Brooks attended for Grades 9-11.

I attempted to edit and correct Dillon’s info on his Wikipedia page but it wasn’t accepted.

Can you please include the info and stats regarding Dillon’s formative years at Fr Henry Carr.

Please contact me if you need further clarification.

Thanks in advance for your time and consideration!

Best wishes,

Coach Melnik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:628:766F:AD4D:1975:62AA:9DAD (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Paul Melnik. This edit at the Teahouse is your only edit from this IP address. So I am not sure which specific edits you are referring to. Talk:Dillon Brooks is the best place to discuss this specific article. Any addition of statistics must be accompanied by a reference to a reliable source verifying those statistics. Please see Referencing for beginners. Please consider opening a Wikipedia account, which helps when communicating and collaborating with your fellow editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Cullen, I found it right here: Dillon Brooks/diff. It was edited by IP user 99.254.221.31, it's unsourced content. It is more helpful when people have accounts. Coryphantha Talk 03:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, there was an earlier posting, reverted, about this high school years at FHC.

Mr. Melnik - even though you know Dillon Brooks played at FHC, that fact cannot go into the article unless a supporting citation can be added. David notMD (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Image Copyright

Hello everybody, I recently made a new draft about an album by jazz violinist Stephane Grappelli. I wanted to make an image of the cover available and I uploaded one to the Upload Wizard. I took it from allmusic.com. It was however took down because of copyright violation eve though I specified that the work was not mine and that it probably belonged to the record label or the visual artist. Any advice? Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlessandroJazz (talk • contribs) 16:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AlessandroJazz. We do allow the very limited use of copyrighted, non-free images, and music album cover art is a common example. You must do this right, because the standards are strict. Please read and study our policy on use of non-free images. The album cover image must be low-resolution, used in only the article about the album, and properly attributed. One way to learn best practices is to examine the documentation of cover art in WP:Featured articles and Good articles. These articles have been vetted by trusted editors, so if you emulate the documentation of their non-free images, you will be doing things right. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

How to deal with well respected editors about issues that are apparently still delicate 150 years later

So there's this thing about a lot of American Civil War stuff where the Confederates are constantly portrayed as the brave underdogs who win because they were smarter than the other side. (In case you can't tell, most Civil War scholarship was produced by Southerners until at least the 1960s.) I ran into a thing on a civil war page where the article insisted on framing the Confederates as brave smart underdogs even in the context of attacking a group of fleeing native american refugees, which, in my opinion was a bridge too far. I edited the article so that the battle section corresponded a bit better with the rest of the article, it was immediately removed and I was told I needed a reference (even though it was the rest of the page I was using to edit it) and as the only response option I was given was his talk page, I wrote there only to be accused of vandalism and making a personal attack and threatened to have my editor status taken away. Strangely, I found this really upsetting. It's not so much a question as a plea for advice on how to deal with (well respected) editors who come off as seriously unhinged while using rules and conventions (that are ideally supposed to discourage bullying) in a manner that does the opposite. He knew it was my first edit, making me think that he reacted like that specifically to 'put me in my place' (which was obviously below him). He's apparently well respected, which makes the situation so much more complicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RekaFil (talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RekaFil. You are a very new user with one unsourced edit in article mainspace that was reverted. Donner60 is an experienced editor with over 100,000 edits and he is quite familiar with the subject, I would defer to his judgement on this one. I've taken the liberty of leaving you a welcome on your talk page with some links for you to familiarize yourself with how to edit on Wikipedia, may I also suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:CIV. In the future, on talk pages and in the Teahouse, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ as a method of courtesy. Hope this helps. Coryphantha Talk 04:48, 30 June 2018 (UTal

The place to discuss contested material is on the article's talk page. I suggest that you open a thread there, and with less inflammatory wording than you used on the user's talk page. Your vandalism warning was presumably for the terms such as "bullshit"and "sickening" that you used on Donner60's talk page. Meters (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

No need to open a new talk page thread if you are satisfied with the reply you got on the user' page once you asked politely, but keep it in mind for next time. Meters (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Help Vinay Varma

Please help us to understand original mess and coi.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinay sutradhar (talk • contribs) 04:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Vinay sutradhar Hi, Please see below:

1. COI -Conflict of interest means an editor performs edits/add content on an article which the editor have an affiliation with either as a friend, family member and etc, and if the editor receives monetary benefit of the affected article then it would consider paid editor. Any editor who has conflict of interest is required to disclose such affiliation and disclosure can be done here. Please note, Wikipedia strongly discourage any editor with COI to edit on the affected page and the editor could request an edit to be performed by providing sources which are reliable and independent form the subject on the article talk page by inserting {{edit request}}.
2. COI notice board: You have been informed to disclose your COI on June 28 on your talk page for editing on Vinay Varma page, as your username is affiliated to subject's first name + the subject's company. However; you have not done so and continued to edit on the page on June 29, as such you have been reported to here. You need to respond to the report as requested of the issue concerning your COI. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

ceat utt

can any Indian here who will help me to make ceat ultimate table tennis wikipedia page Its a professional sport Table Tenis league in india played by 6 franchises Started in 2017 & now in its second season If someone interested please make a ceat utt wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghoshprashant.51 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Ghoshprashant.51 Hi welcome to Teahouse. Teahouse is help desk on editing topics in Wikipedia. To request an article to be written, pls visit here. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

How to deal with an editor that is blatently lying about source material.

I am not the person whose material was erased nor do I know this person. However I have noted what seems to be a persistant pattern of what I think is misconduct by a specific editor.

Another person added a new part to an article that referenced a history website. The editor in question erased the change (a not trivial amount of work) the person went to the talk page and asked why.

The editor in question said that the referenced article was written by “christian” minister who “self-publishes” that article on the web site.

I go and look.

The author of article was not the publisher or owner of the site. The site has three people listed as running it. It has both an editor and publisher, It has it looks like over 100 articles with I think over 30 different authors.

That article the new editor had cited had 37 different citations, many to books published by widely known press like Oxford university, or Stanford. I checked 4 of them, all were or seemed quite legitimate and on point in the article cited.

The citation seems legitimate, and the “self-published” argument is false.

The subject editor has in my experiance enormous political bias, not standard, but as regards early to mid 20th century America, anything must agree with his prejudices or it gets brutally attacked, no matter how well documented, or neutrally written.

How to deal with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montestruc (talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Montestruc. The first step is to discuss the behavior calmly on the other editor's talk page and the content on the talk pages of the relevant articles. If that is ineffective, you can present evidence of editor misconduct at the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. Provide solid evidence in the form of diffs. Please be aware that your own behavior will come under scrutiny as well. Compromise and consensus is best. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

What was the article? What was the source? Context is usually necessary to make decisions. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

This s probably related to Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory and user:Binksternet 's removal of material . The OP discussed Binksternet's edits at talk:Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory . After seeing "bigotry", "religious bigot", "mendaciously claimed", "malicious politically motivated vandal", "nothing but disrespect for the Wikipedia organization", "misrepresented facts", "engaging in politically motivated vandalism", "deliberatly and maliciously misrepresenting facts", "you lied", and "should be banned" I've warned the OP for personal attacks. Meters (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case, @Montestruc: the website that Binksternet removed was conspiracy theorist garbage. It doesn't matter if it's run by three conspiracy theorists. It doesn't matter if the conspiracy theorist cited claims to be a minister. It doesn't matter if the conspiracy theorists twist and distort otherwise reputable sources to fit their agenda. It's conspiracy theorist garbage, and your defense of it suggests that you need to avoid editing articles relating to at least American history (if not history in general). We stick to professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.

Go read WP:Assume good faith and WP:CIVIL and don't make comments about Binksternet (or any other editor) as a person again. Comment on actions, not editors.

Lastly, talk pages are for article improvement. They're not there for you to go digging up long dead discussions to look for fights. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I was looking at the various edits on the article, but I' won't expand on Ian.thomson's comments. Meters (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It is better to let go, than fight fire with fire. Status of you as a editor always counts in Wikipedia (Not written down anywhere, but it is a reality that is to be accepted). It is always better to promote pov's of editor's who are persistent in Wiki than who are not (In content and argument).

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conflict_management&diff=846943470&oldid=846926700 and

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conflict_management&diff=844616920&oldid=844614838

The content is sourced and it is good, but the revert is done citing lies (in your words) like someone has a different opinion, when no one has stated it in talk page, but it does not matter, what matters is the person and their activity, reinforcing this behavior benefits Wiki even if they spill negativity, like actively policing certain aspects of Wiki, that safeguards it through investing unasked hours. In short, the support system supports such editors.

Voice counts in Wikipedia, however it depends upon who voices it out. In case of fringe theories, it is better to not add articles that have an irrational tone, even if they are published and fits well within the wiki policy. There is low tolerance for that even if it is about giving readers every angles to consider with neutrality. The key here is to understand that the tone of neutrality is determined by authority, and the truth that standpoints of authority may differ for each person like choosing a religion (it is dependent upon the socialized power).

See: Melania Trump: "In September 1998, she met real estate mogul Donald Trump at a party that Zampolli hosted at the Times Square nightclub the Kit Kat Club (now the Stephen Sondheim Theatre). Trump and Marla Maples had been separated since May 1997, and he attended the party with Celina Midelfart. When Midelfart went off to use the restroom, Trump approached Knauss and asked for her telephone number. She took his phone number instead, and they subsequently began a relationship and attended the 1990s Greenwich Village hot spot Moomba." - It stoops to yellow journalism, but it is acceptable because....

174.4.26.61 (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Dead ref url replacement

Hi, I found a dead ref url in Article of Keke Palmer, ref url num 7. this one is dead url. so i replace with https://slaylebrity.com/videos/keke-palmer-didnt-know-how-to-deal-with-childhood-molestation/. but other users undo my changes. You also know that dead ref url is not allow in any article. so will you please help me to replace this url? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adaobiokoyeebozue (talk • contribs) 07:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Adaobiokoyeebozue. The link you are trying to add cites Wikipedia as a source. By definition, this is not a reliable source. Please read WP:CIRCULAR for a more detailed explanation. Instead, find an actual reliable source for the assertion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Adaobiokoyeebozue again, since there was a typographical error in my first try. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Jorhat City

We are facing some issues because an administrator from Wikipedia is unnecessarily removing real information of our city. Jorhat city, Assam, India. Please help! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.179.201.250 (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should not be based on the knowledge of its contributors, but on what has been written in reliable independent sources. The material you have been adding to Jorhat has been removed because it cites no such sources. Maproom (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Market research report with restricted access - how to cite?

Hello! I'm working on an article (please see my COI declarations for more info) and for some reason, I cannot come up with the right template for a citation. I would like to cite a market analysis that was performed by a market research firm, but only the report digest / executive summary is available. To view the report in its entirety, you have to purchase it.

Can someone please let me know how best to cite this work in my article? I'm not sure whether the cite report template is appropriate here.

Thank you in advance for for any insight or advice offered.

Mdrozdowski (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mdrozdowski1: - review WP:PAYWALL and WP:RSC for relevant information regarding paid sources. Please take extra care, given your declared COI, that the market analysis is considered reliable (ask at the noticeboard is unsure), and if the facts which you are sourcing are available in the digest, this source is preferable as a citation for accessibility reasons. Bear in mind that any market analysis added must be notable and of encyclopedic merit before adding it as well. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC).

@Stormy clouds: - Thank you! I think PAYWALL is what I was looking for, but you're spot-on about making sure that the source is reliable. It's a fairly well-known analyst firm covering this market space, but I'm going to go give it another review just to be sure. I appreciate the guidance, thanks again.

Mdrozdowski (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Jackie

Confused and scared — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.110.86.103 (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

50.110.86.103 Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about editing? If so, we'd be glad to help. Don't forget to sign your comments at the Teahouse and on talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~ Coryphantha Talk 13:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Article Notability - A bit confused with what I should next

Hi, I've been working on individual season subarticles for Overwatch League teams to maintain structure/continuity for subsequence seasons. See: Mayhem, Outlaws, Spitfire, Fuel, Gladiators, Shock, Dynasty, and Dragons.

8/9 of the subarticles were reviewed and raised no issues. However, an incomplete version I posted: 2017–18 Boston Uprising season, flagged up issues with notability which led to a discussion here: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#E sports seasons walled gardens. I posted somewhat of a confusing reply.

I was wondering if there's anything else I need to do, or do I just wait for the discussion to generate some form of consensus? i.e. a notability standard for the subarticles.

Also, the bit which slightly confuses me is I'm not actually sure if the discussion is in regards all the subarticles notability (seeing as 8/9 didn't seem to raise any issues) or just the incomplete Uprising version I had submitted? If it's the latter as I now have the completed version: Draft:2017–18 Boston Uprising season, what should I do to point this out? I mentioned it on the discussion but I recieved no feedback, so I'm now a bit lost. Wiki nV (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wiki nV: I think that discussion petered out because it was the wrong venue for it; WT:NPR being a forum for new page patrollers. I would raise the issue at Talk:Overwatch or Talk:Overwatch League and see what other editors knowledgeable about the topic think. I know that Masem and Czar for example have been active on OW-related articles and may have some thoughts. – Joe (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't create drafts of pages that already exist in mainspace, especially if you're going to duplicate the content. You'll need to request a history merge if/when that draft is moved over the redirect. – Joe (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Okay, I'll post something on Talk:Overwatch League. As for the draft, my bad, I just figured that was the best place for it as I didn't want to post the updated version over the redirect without getting an okay from someone. For future reference, if the mainspace exists should I create a sandbox e.g., 2017–18 Boston Uprising season/Sandbox instead? Wiki nV (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wiki nV: Working on it in draftspace was fine, but it's best to move existing pages to where you want them to be rather than duplicating them. So in this case I would have undone the redirect, moved the page to Draft:, then either deleted or retargeted the redirect left behind. Not a big deal though. – Joe (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Overwatch League

Publishing a translation of an existing wikipedia text

There is a published article about Rockdale, NSW, Australia (a suburb where I live). It is been already translated into two other languages. I have translated it into a third language (Arabic). My questions: 1. How can I go about adding the translated Arabic text to other two languages at that location? 2. Being a translation of an existing article, do I need to provide the three necessary reliable sources?

Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Zack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhoballah (talk • contribs) 11:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Zhoballah. The general information (as far as en.wikipedia is concerned) is at Translate us. As far as permissions are concerned, almost all material in Wikipedia is licensed under CC-BY-SA, which means you can reuse it for any purpose (including translating it for another website) as long as your attribute the source. But, each language Wikipedia has its own rules and policies, and I don't know what ar.wikipedia's policies are regarding sources. As far as I know, en.wikipedia has as strict policies as any other, so if you source your translation adequately according to enwiki policies, I think it will pass in any other (I may be wrong). So, assuming the English article is adequately sourced, you can probably use the same sources in your Arabic translation. (Again, I say "probably" because I don't know the policies of arwiki. It is possible, for example, that they might insist on sources in Arabic, though I would be surprised). If the English article is not adequately sourced, I would encourage you to fix that before trying to translate it; but it is conceivable that it might be adequate for arwiki even if it isn't for enwiki (again, I don't know). --ColinFine (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Zhoballah: I'm not sure that I've interpreted your question 1 correctly; but if you're asking how to get the Arabic article listed in the "languages" section of the sidebar in the English article, you'd click on the pencil icon there in the English article, which will take you to the Wikidata item here. Then click "edit" and add "ar" and the Arabic article title to the list. The Arabic article will then show up among the interwiki links in all the corresponding articles in the various languages. Deor (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Password problems

Hi there. I need help resetting my password. I think I blanked out my email in my preferences and now I'm not able to log into my account except on one browser. I want to reset my password and re-add my email address and be able to log into my Wikipedia account from my phone, etc. I have a TUSC ID but it's not supported anymore. Any help, I'd be grateful. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: You can add your e-mail address in the 'User profile' tab of your preferences. Your password can be changed in that section too (the link "Change password" in the first section of the User profile tab) but requires verifying your identity by logging in again, so should be done from the one browser where you still have access. (Then again, since you can't access your Preferences without being logged in, I suppose that's obvious) If you've lost/forgotten your password but can still log in from one browser, you've likely got your password saved in that browser, in which case you can probably retrieve it. (For Firefox, Options -> Privacy & Security -> Saved Logins -> Show Passwords. For Chrome, Settings -> Advanced Settings -> Passwords and forms -> Manage Passwords. Most other browsers have the option in a fairly similar place) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: Thanks for these suggestions. I really appreciate your help. I put my email address as none@gmail.com and to change it I need my password. It's like a total circle of stupidity on my part. I can create a new account I guess but I'd prefer not to have to. I am really annoyed I was so dumb about this. And the stored password in my browser is for Wikidata, but appears to be old / not updated. Blargh. -- Erika BrillLyle (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: I assume you've actually attempted and verified that said old password is not in fact still your valid password? If that doesn't work, and you don't have a valid e-mail address currently attached to your account, I'm afraid your only options are likely to either try to remember your password or create a new account. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

​Because you're somebody who knows other Wikipedia editors IRL, as a last resort if all else fails you can contact someone who knows you well enough to confirm that you're not a hacker trying it on, and whom the developers will consider trustworthy (NYB?), and persuade the WMF to give you a new password. This is very much a last resort; as AddWittyNameHere says, if you can still log on using one browser that implies that your password is still saved, in which case if you go digging round in settings for "show stored passwords" you should be able to retrieve it. ‑ Iridescent 08:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Yes, I tried to use that stored password and it isn't working. I guess I can beg a fellow Wikipedian to vouch for me. That might be the only alternative. I don't know if any of them will help me though. It's sort of ridiculous as I've got a ton of edits and stuff (47,343) under my BrillLyle user name. Ugh. Thanks for trying to help me. Really appreciate it. -- BrillLyle (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

​Not sure if you've already tried it, but provided you can still log on with the one browser, try logging in with that browser and clicking Special:ChangePassword from there. There's at least a fighting chance that the browser will auto-complete the user verification fields there (I just tried in Chrome and it did for me), and if you can get past that stage it should allow you to change your password to something else. ‑ Iridescent 09:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Yeah, I tried that. No luck. Thanks though... -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: Use {{Committed identity}} while you are still logged in. It helps if you later have to make a request to store a new email address for the account. Developers cannot add a new password to the account but they can add an email address you can use to get a new password. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thank you. I appreciate your help. I have a TUSC token and I remember doing a Committed identity thing though I can't seem to find it in my user name page history. Do you know how I ask a developer to add my correct Wiki email address? -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• I also went on the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help -- they suggested a Phabricator ticket, which I was able to log onto using my current browser saved login #thankful. I put in a ticket so maybe they can use Command-line interface to reset the email address. Thanks again for the help. I hope I can get this resolved. I can't believe how many editathons where I help people log on to new accounts and always tell them to use an email address they have access to. Egg on my face. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I have my draft ready for consideration.

I have my draft ready for consideration. what is the next step? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helplord13 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Helplord13: You're going to want to rewrite it before anyone reviews it. You did not cite any reliable sources for any material in there. New articles have to cite independent reliable sources that are specifically about the subject to prove notability. "Reliable sources" means professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. An Instagram like doesn't count, no matter who it's from.

My advice on how to write an article that will not get deleted:

1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism. Also, write the material in a way that someone who hates the subject can still agree with the facts. Do not promote the subject, do not try to make them look super-successful or awesome, just state the facts.

6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

How to keep images in link form

I have a list of images I've uploaded on my user page. Unfortunately, they all seem to become tangible images instead of links to said images, which violates copyright policy I think? How do I make them links? The Verified Cactus 100% 15:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus: Just put a colon at the beginning (before "File") of each file name. Deor (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 20:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Using a Title that has previously been re-directed due to lack of content

Hello, I was looking for some help with this article's title 'Wanlockhead Water-bucket Beam-engine'. When I tried using 'Wanlockhead Beam Engine' I was directed to what has been re-named 'Wanlockhead' as it has only basic details of this unique scheduled monument together with other facts that relate to the village and not the machine. 'Wanlockhead Beam Engine' is the commonly used title if not the most descriptive, but how do I use it? Any help would be much appreciated and I will then add the links tp other articles. Many thanks, Rosser Gruffydd 16:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosser1954 (talk • contribs)

Extended content

Hi Rosser1954. Alright, I sense that there are two separate but related questions here. First, how do you edit a redirect page? If you navigate to Wanlockhead beam engine, you'll be redirected to Wanlockhead. However, there will be a message in small font underneath the article title saying: (Redirected from Wanlockhead beam engine). If you click the link in that message, you'll be taken to the redirect page itself on which you can use the "edit" button. You'll notice that the text of the redirect will be #REDIRECT [[Wanlockhead]]. You can change the target of the redirect by changing the name of the article in brackets. In this case, however, you already have an article at Wanlockhead Water-bucket Pumping-engine. This brings me to your second question: how do you move/rename a page to a title that has a redirect? The answer is that you need to ask an administrator to delete the redirect first. To do this, edit the redirect (you should see #REDIRECT [[Wanlockhead]] as the body) and add the text {{db-move|1=PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|2=REASON FOR MOVE}} to the top of the page, replacing "PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE" with "Wanlockhead Water-bucket Pumping-engine", and "REASON FOR MOVE" with your rationale for why you want to rename the page. This will signal to administrators that the page needs to be deleted to make way for a move. I realize there is a lot of technical junk in this answer, and I apologize if you're confused. Many of us here in the Teahouse are administrators—if you want, you can simply ask one of us to move Wanlockhead Water-bucket Pumping-engine to Wanlockhead beam engine for you. Mz7 (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rosser1954: In the original version of my answer, I suggested an overly complicated solution (you can read it by showing the extended content I collapsed above). A simpler solution is to simply leave a rename request at the page Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Someone already requested the beam engine move on your behalf, so I've gone ahead and  moved the page for you. You can now find it at Wanlockhead beam engine. Mz7 (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Are there formatting standards for the reference objects?

When creating a reference, is there a standard for how to format the object? Like for example (intentionally formatted slightly incorrectly to show content): "<ref{cite web |last1=Doe |first1=John |publisher=JohnDoe's University}/ref>" v.s.
"<ref{cite web
|last1=Doe
|first1=John
|publisher=JohnDoe's University}/ref>" Thesoftskeleton (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Thesoftskeleton

Hi Thesoftskeleton. Either formatted horizontally or vertically works. I prefer horizontal so that I can see a whole paragraph at once even if there are several references. Visual Editor formats horizontally. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

my edits getting erased

Every time I cite health-related sources, my edits get erased. When I used health sources to cite my edits on Latent autoimmune diabetes of adults, my edits got deleted. I'm totally fed up with my edits being erased. I have LADA myself. I feel worthless and ashamed when my health related edits get erased. Angela Maureen (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered User_talk:September_1988#References_2 and taken it up with the editor as suggested? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Creating a page

Hi, how do you create a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lruggieri1 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

See Help:Getting started. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about COI and family tree builder

Hello all,

I was granted US Patent Number 9,947, 122 on April 17, 2018, Photo Family Tree Builder. It is a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that allows people to import the family photo into the app and create a custom family tree. It is truly a different way of making a family tree, compared to traditional family tree charts. I also created a website to housed and distribute the App photofamilytree.com.

I read that getting an article published in Wikipedia would help spread the word about something so new, so I hastily set up a talk page. Now, since reading more, I am not sure this is a good idea.

Therefore, since reading that conflicts of Interest are frowned upon here at Wikipedia. My question is, should I pursue this subject matter? My article is in assessment and has been graded a C. I am almost 71 years old and my motivation is not profit anymore, I just want people to know that there is another way to display genealogical information.

Ajboodram (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ajboodram, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry, but to "help spread the word about something ... new" is a core example of what Wikipedia means by promotion, which is explicitly forbidden on Wikipedia: it is not restricted to commercial subjects. Only once several people who have no connection with your system have chosen to write at length about it and been published in reliable places, will the subject be notable in Wikipedia's sense, and will it be possible for anybody to write an article about it. At that point, there can be an article, but as you note, you are discouraged from writing it because of your COI. --ColinFine (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like to know the biography of a company

Hello, I'm a puertorican and my dad love Schwinn Bikes.Since 1970 he started getting bikes and is still his hoby till now. We would love to know the biography of a company called Araya that made rims. The best rims ever for bikes since you could never see the soldering. They also made bikes but it wasn't as big on puerto rico as the rims. Nowadays one can cost $60 even $100. It would be amazing having the company biography! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.142.13 (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Warning for my article to be deleted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joice_Samuel i have added ref links Though the article is in English, the article is about a person from Kerala ,India. So the reference links are in our native language Malayalam. So will that be a problem for veryfying the citations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anu Appukuttan (talk • contribs) 16:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Anu Appukuttan. References in the Malayalam language are fine. However, the sources must be reliable and must devote significant coverage to the person who is the subject of the article. Brief passing mentions are of no value in establishing notabilty. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

How do I review an edit in my watchlist and mark it as acceptable?

Good morning. In my watchlist is this edit by a guest user which is marked "r" for review. It is a simple spelling correction which is, well, correct and so I want to mark it as an accepted change. I've been hunting around for a way to complete the review process and I can't find one. My "status" is Ex Con but I don't have any other special rights on the site. Is there some functionality I need to apply for or am I just missing a trick? Hoping you can point me in the right direction. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Izzat Kutebar and welcome to the Teahouse.

Some pages on Wikipedia are subject to "pending changes" review, which can only be done by editors with the pending changes reviewer privilege (and admins). The "r" flag from ORES indicates that there is some increased likelihood that the change needs to be reviewed (sometimes, all it takes for that flag to appear is for an edit to be made by and IP user who hasn't edited recently). If you agree with the change, there is nothing else you need to to. I wonder about a spelling change from one variant to another, both of which ought to be acceptable. The same goes for initial capitalization changes in page names in piped links which make zero difference in how the page displays. These sorts of changes strike me as useless noise, causing churn and generally not worth making – but equally not worth undoing. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Undid it on the basis that the word "centers" appears multiple times in the article. Spelling should be consistent as a matter of style, so changes that make spelling inconsistent should be undone. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Jmcgnh: and thank you. So, basically, I just need to make sure the change is okay and then do nothing unless I need to amend or revert. That's fine. I agree that we should have consistency throughout so, yes, it should be undone. The article is one which could be written in either AE or BE and in those cases I would think the choice must rest with the original editor. I'm British but quite happy to use American spellings. Thanks again and all the best. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Picture Getting Deleted immediately

Hi-

I want to add a picture to Marvin E Newman's page. I built his website and he has authorized me to add a picture to his wikipedia page. Each time I add it, it gets immediately deleted.

I am new to editing wikipedia, but whomever has a program removing the picture may think they are helping but they are not.

Please advise. David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidweltz (talk • contribs) 06:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Davidweltz. The image that you had used was deleted from Wikimedia Commons as a copyright violation. That deletion was carried out by a human administrator over there. Their copyright policies are very strict as are ours here on Wikipedia. You need to provide convincing written proof that the photo has an acceptable free license. The copyright holder cannot casually delegate the power to license the photo to any other person such as a web designer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Davidweltz, thank you for editing, and welcome to Wikipedia! Your work to make the site better is appreciated. It's probably also good to know that everything on Wikipedia is free to copy and use somewhere else. This means that it is not possible to just give premission to Wikipedia to use a photo. You have to give the same permission to the entire world. Also, in most cases, it's not the person depicted who owns the copyright (although it's not impossible either), but the photographer. There's an email template at c:Commons:Email templates if Newman is indeed the copyright holder, and wants the image to be published under a free license where anyone can use it. Whoever keeps deleting the file is not doing this out of spite, but to protect Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons by removing material that may not legally be used. /Julle (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Change photo

John Michael ferrari would like to change his Wikipedia photo.

Can you help him?

Pepper Jay (personal information redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PepperJay4u (talk • contribs) 03:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PepperJay4u. Please do not post personal email addresses and phone numbers. We communicate openly on Wikipedia, unless privacy is clearly needed. Freely licensed photos can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, our sister project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi PepperJay4u, thank you for your question. It's probably good to know that everything on Wikipedia is free to copy and use somewhere else. This means that it is not possible to just give premission to Wikipedia to use a photo. You have to give the same permission to the entire world. Also, in most cases, it's not the person depicted who owns the copyright (although it's not impossible either), but the photographer. There's an email template at c:Commons:Email templates if Ferrari is indeed the copyright holder, and wants the image to be published under a free license where anyone can use it.

(As a side not, it should also be noted that images are a kind of information, and Wikipedia is neutral. Normally, if someone doesn't like their photo and there's no good reason to not exchange it, using a new one is not a big deal, but it should be noted that an obviously too flattering image (because Photoshop etc) could be considered non-neutral, a way to depict the subject of the article in better light than a neutral publication like Wikipedia should. This is not the case for most photos, but could be true for some publicity pics.) /Julle (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)