Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 855

Archive 850

←

Archive 853

Archive 854

Archive 855

Archive 856

Archive 857

→

Archive 860

how do I contact other contributors to a page?

Have been editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwanentorbr%C3%BCcke and noticed that some of the German translation is not quite correct. Have questions on the sourcing too. I'm just familiarizing myself with this system and can't figure out how to locate and contact the original contributor (or the one who made the edit in question). Also there are other instances where I find myself needing to ask questions of contributors because it is unclear what they mean with certain phrases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natbaker (talk • contribs) 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Use the talk page and try to 'ping' them to draw their attention to the concern. The Template:Ping explains its use, but the code is @USERNAME:, this will send a notification to the user when active. The email user function is available, but the query may be answered by others who watch the talk page without resorting to personal messages. cygnis insignis 16:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Natbaker: you click the "view history" tab when looking at the article, it gives you a list of contributors and every edit they contributed. If you find the person who added the text you have questions about, you can then click the "talk" link next to their user name to be taken to their user talk page. From there, you can leave a message for them. You can also ask on the article talk page, which you can access by clicking the "talk" tab at the top of the article page. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 16:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: okay I think I was able to do that.... Natbaker (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

How to create a page

I herd that I need to do 10 edits before creating a page. Is it possible to publish a page without edits ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You already have 6 edits. It is true that to be autoconfirmed (and be able to create pages on your own) you need to have at least 10 edits and your account needs to be at least four days old; your account is not old enough yet. It is possible to use Articles for Creation to submit a draft for review before then. Is there any particular reason you want to create a page quickly? Please understand that Wikipedia is not just for merely creating pages; this is an encyclopedia, that has articles about subjects that are notable(as Wikipedia defines it) and have significant coverage in independent reliable sources(not just brief mentions). 331dot (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the title of the page? You can create a draft in your user space and ask someone to assist in publishing that. Others may have better ideas, and know when the software allows new users to create an article, but show what you want to achieve and more experienced users can demonstrate. cygnis insignis 16:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Welcome @Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322:. We're glad to have you. To answer your question, no, you cannot create a new article until after your account is autoconfirmed. This is to ensure that the account is clean and not a bot account or otherwise used for abuse. Being autoconfirmed just means your account needs to be 4 days old (minimum) and that you have edited 4 pages at Wikipedia. Every contribution you make, including the question you just asked, counts as an "edit". So far, your account is 19 hours old and it has made 6 total edits (you can see your information by clicking the "contributions" link at the very top of your page). If you make 4 more edits, and wait until 21:40, 5 November, 2018 (UTC) you can start creating pages. If you want to know more about creating articles, you can read Wikipedia:Your first article. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 16:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answers and I will definitely take it as consideration. Basically I want to work on the Big data Analytics where I want to give a brief explanation about Hadoop. However, I will wait until 5 November, 2018 to create a page and publish it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone created a redirect from big data analytics to big data, that article gives a link to Apache Hadoop. Do some research in reliable sources and you will be able make a suggestion on the talk page or improve those articles right away, no need to wait. cygnis insignis 16:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

R/D help

Our few days of rest are over. The ref desks are being trolled again. MarnetteD|Talk 14:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Soft skin

(edit conflict)Here we go again. Nobody can fight the vandalism on the Humanities desk because the edit filter prevents it. Please get your act together - you've had long enough to do it. 2.25.226.253 (talk)

OK, I see what the problem is. Future Perfect at Sunrise has protected two of the desks - nobody else has done this and the desks are not being attacked. Also, when cleaning the vandalism he simply reverted to before the vandalism started, thus deleting good faith comment since. That's the lazy way - he should have worked from the current page and just wiped off the vandalism. 79.73.10.60 (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Is there an administrator with half a brain around here? Can somebody

• UNPROTECT the Humanities desk (protected by Future Perfect at Sunrise)
• UNPROTECT the Language desk (protected by Future Perfect at Sunrise)
• Restore the good faith comments on the Language desk removed by Future Perfect at Sunrise
• UNPROTECT "Wikipedia talk:Reference desk" which is protected indefinitely?

Other administrators removed vandalism without adding unnecessary protection. 2A00:23C1:D100:1400:5807:A73D:E1B6:B2B6 (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Creating a new page

Hello, can anyone tell how to create a new page? Thank you very Much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Borg (talk • contribs)

@Benjamin Borg: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that successfully creating a new Wikipedia article is probably the most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time, practice, and effort. New users who are most successful at creating articles became successful because they took time to learn about Wikipedia and how it operates, by making smaller edits to existing articles first. That helps new users learn the best. They also usually use this tutorial which helps them learn about Wikipedia. I strongly suggest that you do both of those things first before attempting to create any articles. New users who dive right into creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their hard work is mercilessly reviewed and changed or rejected. I don't want you to have any bad feelings. However, if you still want to attempt to create an article, you should read Your First Article first, and then use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review. This way you would get feedback before you formally place the draft in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more harshly. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, again, I wish to know how many edits I have made, and my account age. Thank you very much. PS, can you give me the link to creating a new page, as I read all of the guidelines. Thank you once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Borg (talk • contribs) 16:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Benjamin Borg: You can look at your contribution history by clicking "My contributions" at the top right of the screen(assuming you are using a computer) or by clicking the link next to your username in the above post(please remember to sign all forum and talk page posts with ~~~~ so we know you wrote them). It appears that you have 9 edits as of this moment. One more will get you the 10 edits you need, but your account needs to be over four days old as well. You can create drafts at Articles for Creation(click those words) even right now.

Note that I've been here for many years, and I haven't "read all the guidelines". There are many, and you don't necessarily need to worry about following all of them the first time- but be willing to change what you do if things are pointed out to you. That's one reason using Articles for Creation is good, so you can get feedback. 331dot (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

About adding the citation

I wold like to know how can we add the citations for the edits what we are doing in the Wikipedia and also how we will get to know whether our edits are approved or not? Please give me some suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 17:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322. You may want to check out our tutorial on referencing for beginners to help get you accustomed to how referencing on Wikipedia works. GMG^talk 17:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322, I've noticed that you use "we" and "our" above. Please understand that only one individual should be using your account. Do you represent a group of some kind? 331dot (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322 (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)what I mean to say is that how each and everyone can add the citations for edits. Its just me only using my account no one is using it other than me. However, Thank you for your suggestion.

There is no 'approved.' Other editors can revert (delete), add to or leave alone. Disputes are best managed by going to the Talk of the article in question to start a discussion. David notMD (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing

Hello, Can anyone check my account age, and total number of edits. If you can please send me the link that takes you to the create new page.

Hii, My name is Vijay and I would like to guide you about where you can check your No. of edits. First, Click on the contribution button at the top right side of the screen then you will be able to watch your edits how many you made. Even when you are asking this question in the Teahouse is also considered as an edit for you and counts. Thank you for choosing the Teahouse. Hope my answer helps you.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Benjamin Borg. You can see a summary of your contributions here. You can create a new page by searching for the title in the search bar at the upper right. You cannot create a new page until you have completed 10 edit and your account is at least four days old. GMG^talk 17:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) @Benjamin Borg: @Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322: A reminder to both of you: Please sign all comments with four tildes (sign with ~~~~) so it's easier to tell who said it. The rest of this is only related to Benjamin Borg.
This question appears to be similar to the one above, which 331dot answered for you. I have checked your account age and number of edits, though, and while your edits would bring you up to autoconfirmed status, you need to wait four days: your account appears to have just been created today. To create a new page (in the user or draft space, as you are not yet autoconfirmed), simply type the name of your intended article into the search window, and if it does not exist, there should be a line at the top of the results saying "You may create the page Draft:XYZ." Click on that and start creating! There are, however, lots of rules. A briefened version: don't write it like an ad, make sure the thing the article is about is famous enough to warrant an article, make sure that fame is verifiable, and some other stuff. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

An addendum: Draft space is a place to cultivate articles without being visible to Google. When you are finished with an article in draft space, follow the instructions at WP:AFC. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322 (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you for reminding, I will definitely do it and like you said its hard to find who is asking question and how is answering. It has to be in a structured way so everyone will be able to understand what our answer is about.

@Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322: No problem! I do suggest signing the end and not the beginning, though. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Structured Innovation

Hi,

I want to ask how I can change the page title currently showing my user name to article's title. I have created a new article on "Structured Innovation" also called Innewayshown or In-(a)New-Way-Shown.

Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzaga (talk • contribs) 07:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Enzaga, and welcome to Wikipedia! The title should be changed once the article is ready to go into mainspace. Which I don't think it is. But it seems you copied the text from somewhere rather than wrote in your own words. Now, rather than just telling you to read Wikipedia:Copyright violations, which is already linked from the speedy deletion template, I'll also suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. The text you copied is somehow hard to follow. Here's a sentence from that draft:

Structured Innovation is a term to describe the combination of two simple and common approaches to thinking about the elements of a particular problem or issue, which together form the basis for systematically innovating and generating new ideas.

What does that mean? If I understand it correctly, it means something along the lines of this:

Structured Innovation means thinking about several aspects of something and combining them in new ways.

If that's what it means, then try to simplify the other parts of the article in similar ways. If it means something else, well, you can hopefully express it in a way people like me could understand. It's a rather long text, but I guess the same information could be written with fewer, and probably shorter, words. I'm not saying you should use words like something, but you probably know better than me which type of issue the text refers to. And you should keep Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing in mind, even though just to make the text readable by non-experts you'd probably be making a lot of changes. You might also want to look for more sources rather than having an entire article relying only on one source. – Pretended leer {talk} 18:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Refs to different author's chapters

I have tried several times to puzzle this out, when I hoped to just find and adapt a similar example, The encyclopedia style temple is performing the task I think, but every piece of template documentation only addresses the situation of one reference within a larger work; I keep skipping between discussion of anchors, harvard and sfn styles and the solution is not penetrating my noggin if it is there. My attempt is to link a template with multiple and different chapter titles and authors to the collection they are found in. For example, in the article William Nairne Clark I want to add text from several chapters by different authors in Stannage, C. T., ed. (1981). A new history … Not a common situation, but one I keep encountering and have no neat solution, the crude solution is to repeat the whole citation with the specific data. Cheers peers, cygnis insignis 16:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Does Help:References and page numbers answer your questions? --Jayron32 16:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Perhaps, but I read that one through three times and only saw uses I was already aware of :( cygnis insignis 16:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

One thing you can do is have a separate works cited and references sections. Collect the larger works in the "works cited" section, and then reference them in the "references" section. I have done this many times myself, see for example Plymouth Colony which shows how that can work. --Jayron32 16:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Holy cow, an impressive article. I may end up applying that plain text solution (or am I missing something?), unless someone can make the anchor to the text work. cygnis insignis 16:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC) P.S. there is only one larger work, which complicates the solutions I've previously applied using sfn templates (just different page numbers, same author for the whole text). cygnis insignis 16:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Could the references in the references section refer to the cited works so that pointing at one of them highlights the referenced work in the section below and clicking it scrolls to it? And if it can be done, should it? – Pretended leer {talk} 17:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

A good point, I'll consider that as I may have been looking at this the wrong way round. cygnis insignis 18:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Structured Innovation

Actually, my early post was not accepted because it was based on my original research, whereas Wikipedia accepts referenced material only. So, I posted some work done on Structured Innovation from a website by quoting its reference without adding anything from other sources. But I did mention the reference, maybe the format was not correct.

Does Wikipedia accept though leadership based original work/information that is new addition to the body of knowledge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzaga (talk • contribs) 19:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Enzaga: and thanks for asking this question. First, as an aside, make sure you sign your posts on talk pages, like this one, with four tilde characters like this: ~~~~. That lets the Wikipedia software know to sign your name after your comments so every knows who they are talking to. Secondly, to answer your question: The problem with the text you added is not that it isn't referenced. The problem with the text you recently added is that you didn't write it. The text appears to be copied from another source, and I'm afraid that is not allowed. This is not merely a Wikipedia rule, there are laws against copying work from one place to another without permission, it's called copyright, and Wikipedia needs to obey that law! I hope you understand that. The proper way to handle that is to use the text from the source as a source of information and to then create your own, new fresh text, entirely of your own work, based on the information you found in your sources. You use the source as a basis of research and then you have to write your own wholly-original text that explains the same ideas, but is entirely different and unique. I hope that helps explain why you are having problems. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask! --Jayron32 19:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

User name's colour

Hello! I have a question! To change the colour of my username do I have to edit a lot of pages or can I just add a lot of content to few pages? Thank you so much!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colussisi (talk • contribs)

• Hey @Colussisi:, thanks for stopping by The Teahouse today. So, there are a couple of things. First, please be sure to sign your posts on talk pages by adding 4 tilde characters like this: ~~~~ to the end of your post. That tells the Wiki software to add your signature to the end of your conversation. Secondly, the link to your username leads to your Userpage, which is a special page at Wikipedia you can use to describe yourself. It is colored red because, like all red-colored links at Wikipedia, it is directed to a page that doesn't yet exist. If you want it to turn to "blue", you just create your userpage. You can see a simple example of a userpage by checking out mine at User:Jayron32. I hope that answers your question! --Jayron32 19:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  Oops! Almost forgot to tell you to read Wikipedia:User pages to learn more. If there's anything else we can help you with, let us know! --Jayron32 19:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Dealing With Research And Copyrighted Contents

Hi Wikipedians,

I have referred about the tribals in Wayanad from a link and copy and pasted relevant content in Tribal of Wayanad section. I doubt the citation link is a research document. If so how can i add such content to Wikipedia? Can i write it in my own words instead of copy and paste? I read somewhere that both may violate copyrights. What would be the best way to add content? Arajc (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey @Arajc:, thanks for stopping by and asking this question. It's a good one, and I hope you will indulge me with a short diversion to explain a common confusion among two related, but distinct, words: plagiarism and copyright. There's lots of ways these can be defined, but here's my own take: Plagiarism is taking the ideas of another person and pretending those are your own ideas. Copyright is a legal protection offered to creative works that allows the creator the control of the work they created. You violate that copyright when you copy their work (copyright literally means "the exclusive right to copy" something, and if you don't own that right, you can't copy it!). At Wikipedia, you can avoid both of these problems with two things: First, you can avoid copyright violations by writing your own original text and never copying and pasting. So long as your text is completely unique and does not in any way resemble the original text in wording or format or structure, you aren't violating copyright (it isn't enough to change a few words around, you really do need to internalize the original ideas, and find new and wholly creative ways to express them in a different and unique manner.) Second, you can avoid plagiarism simply by citing your sources. Citing your sources just means telling the world where the information came from; so long as you both a) write your own original text and b) cite where the ideas you used to write that text came from, you're in good shape! I hope that makes sense! If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. --Jayron32 19:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Fonts are not matching

In my own biography page before content box i have written some sentences but those sentences fonts aren't matching with my biography headings' fonts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rozel Ahmed (talk • contribs) 20:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rozel Ahmed welcome to the Teahouse. I have fixed the font problem for you - it was simply an unwanted space at the start of a paragraph. What I can't fix is the fact that you appear to have completely misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia in that it is an encyclopaedia of notable topics, not a place to write about and promote oneself, even in your sandbox. I was particularly bemused by these words that you used to describe yourself: "He is so much extrovert and social as well as good behaving person.He is an absolute beauty with his brilliant English Cricket Commentary." I really am sorry, but this kind of content will never be accepted here, and even in a sandbox could be put forward for deletion at any time by another editor. My advice would be to remove it completely, and just say a few simple words about yourself and your editing interests on your main user page. If you genuinely are a well-known cricket commentator, you will need to prove this by citing evidence from reliable, independent sources and also declare your Conflict of Interest. Apart from your own social media accounts, I can find no-one notable under that name. Please also read about the pitfalls of attempting to write an encyclopaedia article about oneself, which is heavily discouraged here. See: WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk)

Advice re COI

Hello, please could you advise me how to get help with editing the article 'John Ronald Skirth'? I have declared a COI with this article on my talk page, but am not sure how to proceed. Thanks *ptrs4all* (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@*ptrs4all*: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for declaring your conflict. Please use {{Request edit}} on the article's talk page to propose any changes you want to the article. RudolfRed (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you*ptrs4all* (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong information on the Charmed 2018 page

So, there's a wrong information on the Charmed reboot page and every time I try to correct it, the person in charge puts it back to the incorrect information. How can we resolve this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supreme198 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Supreme198: Do not engage in an edit war. Discuss it on the article's talk page. If you can't reach a consensus, follow the guidance at WP:DR. RudolfRed (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Supreme198, thanks for bringing your question to the Teahouse. I'm a bit confused: your only edit to Charmed (2018 TV series) appears to be this one, which has not been reverted. So, are you editing under more than account name, or as an unregistered IP editor? As there appear to be innumerable other articles relating to this series, I'm unwilling to wade through on the off-chance of spotting repeat reverts and guessing whether that person is you or not. So, could you clarify which page you are asking about, please, and ideally supply a link to it, as well as advising which account name/IP address your edits were made from? Normally, what happens is that someone sees another editor changing information without either a) giving an explanatory edit summary, or b) citing a supporting reference, so simply assume (as indeed I often do) that unexplained changes are invalid and best reverted to maintain the status quo. The problem is that none of us are mind-readers, so we all need to make it clear why we're changing things. If, having done that, you continue to experience issues over genuine edits, you should attempt to communicate with the other editor to explain what you're trying to do, and why. Only by good communication and not continually reverting one another's edits can we ensure we reach a consensus and don't end up being disruptive, as RudolfRed says above. Does this help? Oh, do please remember to sign all future talk page edits with four keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~).Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Updating Wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Farmers_and_Ranchers_Alliance

Hello I was wondering if anyone could help me update this page with correct information, a lot of it is dated and old. For instance, Bob Stallman and Randy Krotz are no longer with the organization but listed as key people. The revenue it is showing is from 2011. Essentially it looks like this whole article is referencing items from 2011. The organization has since switched focus to sustainability and is inclusive of all types of agriculture.

Here is an article in which the new CEO discusses sustainability: https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/world-policy/article/2018/10/18/cast-award-winner-highlights-ag

Here is another article in which the new CEO Erin Fitzgerald discusses the organizations new focus on sustainability: https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2018/10/12/Soup-To-Nuts-Podcast-Farmers-ranchers-and-brands-must-cooperate-to-address-climate-change#

Interview with new CEO in which she discusses the organization pivot and change of direction: https://www.agriculture.com/news/business/usfra-version-20-starts-now

From what i understand "Origin and aims" is an odd section title and on most pages it would just be "History", can that be changed?

Many items in the "Activities" section should be moved into the newly made "History" section as that info is extremely old

Here are more articles for your reference:

https://www.agdaily.com/lifestyle/u-s-farmers-ranchers-alliance-app-engage/

https://www.agweb.com/article/randy-krotz-no-longer-ceo-of-us-farmers-and-ranchers-alliance/

https://www.agweek.com/business/agriculture/4418270-start-conversation-and-help-consumers-learn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.240.178 (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Thanks for asking your question at the Teahouse. Actually, the best thing you could do is to post the above note on the associated talk page of U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance, rather than here, explaining what you propose to do. Wait a while to see if anyone expresses any concerns, and, if none, just 'be bold' and go ahead and add the updated information. I've not checked the links themselves, but just avoid adding anything that is either non-neutral in tone, or promotional, or is not supported by reliable sources. I hope this helps, and please remember to sign all talk page posts with four keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Report a Spam Reference?

I want to report a couple of either dead links with crappy redirects or outright spam references on an article.

1. REDIRECT Respiratory Compensation.

I've looked around a little, but can't find a simple way to do this. Any simple way? I don't have time to figure this out on my own so I'm asking for a little sympathy for a noob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkmansp (talk • contribs) 23:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dkmansp: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. If you see spam, be bold and remove it. If the link is no longer pointing to where it should, please try to fix it by replacing it with an archived version. See WP:LINKROT. RudolfRed (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Joined Defunct Taskforce: do I just charge ahead?

Hi there. I just joined both Wikipedia:WikiProject Film and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Silent films task force. However, this task force's last edit on their task force page was four years ago and the task force looks incomplete. Do I just take over and start working on pages while diligently following the guidelines? I imagine I should compare what an active taskforce looks like to find what kind of things belong in the "resources" category, etc. Thanks. 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 01:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes! If you are really diligent others may join you. - Ahunt (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Ahunt. I'll study some active taskforces and see what I can do! 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 02:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I love fixing citations: direct me to the database/list/community page to find them!

The title says it all: point me in the right direction! I'll work on link rot, verifying that sources say what's in articles, formatting improperly formatted sources, etc. It's my favorite thing to do! I learned the habit as an IP who didn't trust Wikipedia to give me accurate information, so I have a habit of skimming articles and just open all the sources instead of reading the article. ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY 07:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Shashi Sushila Murray! You could look at the subcategories of Category:CS1 errors. That only catches errors where a citation template was used in certain ways. But they're probably the easiest to spot.

On a completely different note, your signature is longer than your message when viewed in the source editor. You might want to read WP:signatures and find a way to do the same stuff with less code. Specifically, the templates you're using should be substituted. And if the templates themselves uses templates, subst those as well:

You can simplify it to this without changing the appearance: <span class="emoji">[[File:Emojione_1F645.svg|16px|alt=🙅]][[File:Emojione_1F645.svg|16px|alt=🙅]][[File:Emojione_1F645.svg|16px|alt=🙅]]</span>[[User talk:Shashi Sushila Murray|''ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY'']]<span class="emoji">[[File:Emojione_1F623.svg|16px|alt=😣]][[File:Emojione_1F623.svg|16px|alt=😣]][[File:Emojione_1F623.svg|16px|alt=😣]]</span>

That's still 328 characters with two different images, which is considered too much, but it's much better than 5059 characters above. Consider using 🙅 and 😣 as characters rather than images, 🙅🙅🙅[[User talk:Shashi Sushila Murray|''ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY'']]😣😣😣 which shows as 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣. That's 67 characters. – Pretended leer {talk} 13:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pretended leer: Thanks for the signature tips! I read the guidelines page. Do you think that these emojis would count in their WP:SIGIMAGE guideline? They are handled by one's device and not the wikipedia servers, correct?

I think I found the right place to work on sources and citations: WP:COM Here it takes me to a page where I can click more and I get this Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification which I think would involve reading through the cited sources to confirm that they contain the information claimed in the article as per this template Template:Verify source (wikipedia's guidelines etc. seem like a sprawling maze-like mess sometimes, but I learn quickly—thankfully everything is built on ever-shifting context-dependent definitions of "consensus" and we have WP:IGNORE or else I'd be paralyzed). Also I was able to find this page which is ambiguous to me: Category:Wikipedia articles with sourcing issues what issues do they mean? Thanks for directing me to the Category:CS1 errors. I'll start there, then when I've had my fill of that I'll work on the factual verification. 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 18:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Shashi Sushila Murray: Yes, Wikipedia articles needing factual verification would be a good place to look for facts to check in the sources. But the templates that add stuff to that category usually get used because of issues with printed sources or paywalled ones. For sources that everyone can check on the internet, people tend to just check them themselves rather than add those templates. Of course, if you live near a library, you might be able to get some help there.

CS1 errors errors can usually be fixed by anyone. There's also bare URLs, which is generally easy to fix.

But there are also bots fixing bare URLs, and that brings me to the next thing to look for: articles containing <!--Bot-generated title-->. I'm not sure how to search for them [see below], but you can look for them and check if they got it right. And if they appear in a reference, they usually aren't formatted with {{cite web}}, you could try to do that. Bot generated titles can also be wrong, especially when the page isn't in English. (Teahouse editors: What do you do when the bot has added mojibake?)

About emojis, some websites actually replace them with images to make sure they look the same way on all devices. But Wikipedia doesn't. However, if you use the emoji template, it will use images. So your previous signature used images but your current one doesn't. – Pretended leer {talk} 20:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, to find bot generated titles, you could search for it. It seems I misspelled it as "<!-- bot added title -->. – Pretended leer {talk} 09:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thecnical Probem

After I make some edits to a page, I always refresh the page, but they do not show. PS, Can anyone check how many exits I have made, Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Borg (talk • contribs) 06:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, can you elaborate? You can see all your edits here. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not a technical problem. At each of the articles you have edited, other editors have reverted the article to as it was before, because your changes were inappropriate and/or unreferenced. Notes to this effect were added to your Talk page. Also, the types of changes you were making should not be identified as minor edits. David notMD (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is the EM 1964 not accepted as a participation for Albania ?

I have a question? Why is it if me as an Albanian National Football team fan did always get an decline when i post on wikipedia, with facts that the Albanian National Team is qualified for the 1964 Euros... Thanks for your answer :D, but at the End Albanias Football Success is 1964 (Round of 16 and 9th best team in this Tournemant) and the Euros 2016 !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egzon35 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Tungatjeta, Egzon35. You and Vanjagenije are having an argument about the content of a Wikipedia article. This is a perfectly normal part of the process of creating Wikipedia (see WP:BRD) the next step is for you to have a discussion on the article's talk page and try to reach consensus. If you cannot get to that, then dispute resolution tells you what the next steps are. --ColinFine (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Prevention of plagiarism

Hi,

The article in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kadebose/sandbox is about dairy cattle judging. There is a single source that is considered the standard for this type of evaluation: http://www.purebreddairycattle.com/file_open.php?id=2 and I want to make sure that I give all of the appropriate information without plagiarizing. Can someone give me some suggestions?

Thanks Kadebose (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Kadebose, I'm relatively new to editing on here so I don't feel qualified in answering your question properly. But while you're waiting for a better reply you could read through this page: WP:PLAGIARISM. 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 09:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Kadebose:. You say "There is a single source that is considered the standard for this type of evaluation" and link to a document on the website of the Purebred Dairy Cattle Association. As far as I can tell, this organisation appears to be confined mostly if not entirely to the USA – are there really no other standards used anywhere else in the World?

Please remember, the English Wikipedia is used by all English-literate people worldwide: just because its servers happen (currently) to be located in the USA doesn't mean it's supposed to be USA-centric.

At the moment your draft article makes no mention of its geographical scope, but indirectly reads as if it deals only with the USA. Perhaps you need to consider either (a) expanding its scope to cover the rest of the World as well, or (b) make it clear in its text and its eventual title that it is only about dairy-cattle judging in the USA. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.42 (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

URGENT ****EDITS NEEDED****

Hi!

My name is Eugena Washington, I have a Wiki page but it is completely outdated and the information is completely detrimental to my new career path. I attempted to change the information myself, However, I was intercepted by Wiki bots who reversed my edits. Please help me to fix this problem as it is severely holding me back from future opportunities. I need to do this s quickly as possible. Thank You, Eugena Washington — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piewashington (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Piewashington: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please take a moment and confirm your identity with Wikipedia by emailing the address listed in the paragraph written here. This will help ensure that no one is impersonating you. Only once was one of your edits reverted by a bot, the rest were removed by other human editors. As the article is about you, you should not edit it directly, but instead make an edit request for any edits you feel are needed. Please review the autobiography policy for more information. Wikipedia has a strict policy about how living people are written about(which you can see at WP:BLP) and we want all articles to be correct, but Wikipedia is not concerned with your career. That sounds cruel, and I don't mean it to be, but our purpose here is creating and maintaining an encyclopedia of human knowledge. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

HI! I understand that about it not being concerned with my career, but my page is currently only based around one period in my life (Playboy) and that instance overshadows all of the other things Ive done AND a lot of the other information isn't completely correct. I want to make sure that my identity as it stated on the internet is factual and not biased on ONE thing I've done in life. The entire scope of human knowledge as it pertains to me on Wiki is flawed and needs to be edited as it actually stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piewashington (talk • contribs) 19:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable, published sources about those parts of your life so the Wikipedia article can be expanded? Writers need some information to research to help them expand the article in question. If you have some sources that people could use to help them research, and the write, the extra text, it would REALLY help. If you have those sources, could you put pointers to them on the article talk page, so that they can be used to improve the article about you? Thanks! --Jayron32 19:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Piewashington: At Eugena Washington editors have gone to the trouble to add referenced description of TV and movie career. If Eugena Washington, as the subject of this article, wants to see more referenced content added, a reasonable path forward is to create a new section in Talk (with those references). Other editors can look at it there and decide to add to the article or not. Again, what EW knows to be true about herself is not sufficient - references are essential. Also, subjects of articles should not remove truthful, referenced content about themselves just because it is embarrassing or 'old news." Subjects of articles do not 'own' those articles. David notMD (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

publish article in sandbox

I cannot use my sandbox because an article I published long ago is in the sandbox. I do not want to delete this published article. The URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Heron10/sandbox&redirect=no

The article is also at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_of_Martyrs. Please help me to get a blank page so I can use the sandbox without destroying my published article.§heron10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heron10 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Heron10. Welcome to the Teahouse. You simply had what we call a Redirect in your Sandbox, which sent users to the main article. It was a hangover from the move of the article into mainspace, and was an easy job to remove that line and leave you with a blank page to work with. (Had you actually had a genuine duplicate copy there, I would have advised you to delete it, but that wasn't the case.) Hope this helps? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help, NickHeron10 (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes citeation

I am currently in the middle of creating an article and I would like to know if infoboxes need to have citation. Thanks, --Canti60 (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Canti60 - There is no requirement for infoboxes to contain citations. However, the information in the infobox should be included in the body of the article, and that is where the citation should go. Other editors who dispute the validity of uncited material may delete it at any time. Especially in articles about living people.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

added reference

I'd added information about the culture of AA, with references to quantitative research. This was removed by someone and it's frustrating. How can we protect the addition of sound scientific or carefully documented facts to Wiki articles?

Doug (Vestapol) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vestapol (talk • contribs) 21:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Doug. Nobody owns any article. It is a normal part of editing Wikipedia that editors disagree about what should go into an article: see BOLD. Defendingaa has reverted your edits, and then (quite properly) laid out in detail on the talk page Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous why they think your edits were not appropriate. If you choose to take this any further, your next step is to engage with Defendingaa on that talk page, explaining why you think the edits are appropriate, and see if together (with any other editors who choose to get involved) you can reach a consensus as to what should go in the article. This is not about being right, or winning an argument: it is about collaborating with other editors to make Wikipedia the best we can. If you have difficulty reaching consensus, look at dispute resolution for the next steps. --ColinFine (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Doug, I have just left you a message on your talk page, and encourage you to discuss your edits at Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous. The fact that three different editors so far have reverted your edits to Alcoholics Anonymous means that it's really a good idea to discuss your proposed changes before trying to edit a high-visibility article which has had issues with contentious editing. Defendingaa (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Image change

I've made amistake in uploading an image and/or itsdescription so I can't find it to insert it. I have tried to upload the image again but I'm not allowed being told that it is a duplicate of the first but without giving me the full description of the first! What can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diane Coffey (talk • contribs) 23:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it File:Hannah Winbolt (1).jpg? If so it is already in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Moving work over to mainspace

Hi, I'm moving my work over to the mainspace and was wondering if anyone could take a quick look at it. The link is here. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbrodsky (talk • contribs) 21:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Qbrodsky: My immediate impression is that it has far too many images—just look at the way they're running off the end of the page—and you should carefully consider which are necessary. I'll also note in passing that at 4099 words of readable prose, Introductory Electromagnetism is currently considerably longer than the main Electromagnetism (2853 words). You should probably ask this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electrical engineering, since that's where the people who are best placed to spot errors or omissions are likely to be. ‑ Iridescent 21:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Qbrodsky. You have clearly put a lot of effort into this, but in my opinion, it is completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a textbook. It contains articles on notable topics. I have not looked at your references, but judging from their titles I would guess that there is not one of them which deals with a clearly defined field or subject called "introductory electromagnetics". Unless there is such a topic - established in several reference works - it is not a suitable topic for an encyclopaedia. You may find it Wikiversity a more appropriate place to contribute. --ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@ColinFine, that's very unfair. Having separate introductory and in-depth articles is standard practice for Wikipedia's coverage of broad scientific topics—see Introduction to general relativity, Introduction to viruses, Introduction to entropy, Introduction to the metric system, Introduction to evolution et al. ‑ Iridescent 23:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Iridescent: I didn't know that. I see that another editor has moved it to Introduction to electromagnetism, which is a much better title. I suggest you add the template {{Introductory article}} to it (which I also didn't know about). You learn soething every day! --ColinFine (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I found a citation that doesn't seem verifiable, and I'd like to know if or how I can mark it as a citation needing improvement.

This is the article in question, specifically the citation in the 5th bullet under the "Harmful" common argument.

The citation has only the name of an author and no other additional information. I don't work in academia but this doesn't seem to be enough info to verify any source. I'm not sure what to do about it, or even what options are available to me to do something about it. I've been browsing the Wikipedia help and searching for how to flag a citation, or if anyone's asked the question before, but nothing's coming up in the Reference Desk archives. Any help or redirect would be appreciated.

Also as an avid reader of Wikipedia I just want to also shout out and say thanks to the volunteers and others who keep this place running. You folks rock! (｡♥‿♥｡) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.183.38 (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see the template {{better source}}. General Ization ^Talk 00:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much General Ization! 24.5.183.38 (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello 24.5.183.38 and welcome to the Teahouse.

This issue may be a matter of different editors' approaches to referencing. The book The New Deal by Paul Conkin is listed in a section named "Surveys" near the bottom of the article and is referenced with an in-text citation earlier in the article. So we probably know what book is being referenced, but ideally we'd like a page number: {{page number}}. As you can see from other references in the article, it has been around a long time and many older referencing styles remain mixed in with the newer ones that we might prefer today. There's always room for improvement! — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominating an article for "Good Article" assessment

Hello, I'm Rebestalic.

The article for Les Miserables is potentially good enough to be a good article. How do I nominate it for "Good Article" assessment?

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rebestalic: You can see the Good Article criteria and how to nominate at WP:GA. RudolfRed (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Although if you have not been able to find that page for yourself, you might want to consider gathering more experience first... Regards SoWhy 20:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you mean Les Misérables (musical), currently rated B-class, to which you have made eight minor edits. Typically, an editor puts in some serious time on an article, and may first declare an intent at Talk to nominate it for Good Article status before taking the plunge. David notMD (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

You might find it useful to look at the Talk page for the Stanley Marcus article -- |Talk page] -- to see some of the steps I went through between when I asked for a peer-review in March 2007 and when the Good Article assessment was done (successfully) over a year later. There was also a failed feature article nomination where it failed at least partly, if not primarily, because I didn't realize anything had happened on it and they closed it because they thought I had lost interest. (Oops!) You can use the history of the article to see what it looked like before the assessment and after, and how much had already been done to it before the assessment. Every article is different, and every editor's process is different, but you might find it helpful as one example. Lawikitejana (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC) P.S. Believe it or not, I've got hundreds of pages of source materials that haven't even been edited into it yet.