Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 887

Archive 880

←

Archive 885

Archive 886

Archive 887

Archive 888

Archive 889

Archive 890

Misspelled name on wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Voice_Senior

Dear Wikipedia

Please correct the spelling of my name Anna Greene Dell'Era, semi-finalist on Team Yvonne, on the German broadcast of The Voice Senior Germany that is listed incorrectly on your wikipedia page (English)

Thank you

Regards,

Anna Greene Dell'Era *(Greene instead of Green) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB10:3D8:CD00:FC92:9A07:EFFF:6025 (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed, Have a nice day! WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Convenience links:

the article & the section in it: The Voice Senior (German TV series)#Coaches and finalists;

the fix: Special:Diff/877261863.

--CiaPan (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines for keeping pages up to date & trouble interpreting edits

Hi all,

I hope I'm asking in the right place. I'm a very inexperienced editor and was recently trying to find a way to flag the page "Environmental aspects of the electric car" for updating. However, I'm not at all sure of the process for doing this-it seems like there must be a template for a flag that could be displayed at the top of the page? If so, how do you add the flag and what are the policies for requesting this? Justification: Most of the cited research is based on data from early electric vehicles and dates from 2014 or earlier.

Second question: I noticed that one of the recent edits by the most recent editor on Dec. 30 seems to have removed a section on the advantages of electric cars. I can't tell, honestly, if this biases the article as I still find the history section hard to follow. Could someone else take a look?

Thanks for your help.

Michelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccarras (talk • contribs) 14:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks as if the 30 Dec edits didn't remove a section but merely changed the order, & reworded a few places. The place for discussion of the article is on its talk page: Talk:Environmental aspects of the electric car. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

References circa 2014 are considered current. If you have new content supported by new references, that can be added. David notMD (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Opinion Poll Charts

Hi, I was just reading up on the recent developments in the 2018 Swedish government formation and I was just wondering how polling charts like these are made? Melias C (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Avopeas: Can you advise? RhinosF1 (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

removes

hello why is it everytime i add to a page another user removes wut ive added? everything i put is right and yet it gets removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fambase (talk • contribs) 01:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I looked at all of your edits, and none of them have been removed. Schazjmd (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fambase: hi and thanks for contributing! Did you make any edits without logging in? Can you show me an example of an edit that was reverted? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Fambase Hi, Welcome to Teahouse. If you refer to these edits - Sundance Head which have been removed, it was because you did not provide an inline citation to a independent, reliable source to support the content you added. Please note all content added/changed must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material to prove the content claimed - see WP:PROVEIT. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

In shorter words, does not matter if changes are true unless you can provide citations. David notMD (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

how do i add so as not to get it removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fambase (talk • contribs) 05:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Every fact needs a reference. Also, sign your name here and on Talk pages by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

In looking more closely, appears that in your second effort to add content you provided four references. GorgeCustersSabre reverted the content again. GCS has reverted previous changes to this article, usually with an edit summary that the references were not considered reliable sources. (In my opinion, a more useful contribution would have been to add valid sources.) The appropriate next step for you is to start a new section at the talk of the article, asking GCS what would be considered reliable sources for the information you want to add - specifically, what has happened after appearance on The Voice. You could also post a note at GCS's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing dispute, possible next steps

What would be a next step I could take in an editing dispute I'm having at Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 with an apparently experienced editor, Samf4u? There was a "Reactions" section in the article but it was removed. I disagree with that removal. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the history and chose to restore the section. Also commented at Talk. With two edits opining for delete and two for stay, no consensus. The text in question is adequately referenced. David notMD (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I approve of your merging of the paragraphs within that section. Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to How to add camouflage colors of a sports team

Hi,Vingadores: O Início

First of all, I would like to thank everybody who helped in my previous question. I missed to acknowledge the first time I asked.

I'm trying to add the team colors of a Philippine basketball team AFP Cavaliers. Their jersey colors are camouflage and white, and I'm using Template:Color_box, but I don't know how to put the camouflage color because there is no other professional or amateur team I know that has a regular camouflage jersey. The sample can be found here: https://www.untvweb.com/news/game-2-ng-best-of-3-championship-match-ng-afp-cavaliers-at-pnp-responders-sa-untv-cup-season-4-ngayong-gabi-na/.

PS: They use camouflage jerseys because they are the team in the league that represents the military and has actual military personnel as players.

Thank you in advance! elivic (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)elivic

Hello Elivic. I'm not surprised you are having difficulty finding how to do this. I haven't found it either, but I have some pointers. I think you will need to make it yourself: uploading the image to Commons, and then adding it to Template:Football kit/pattern list. Unfortunately there do not seem to be any instructions how to do this. (Various places say there are instructions on the talk page, but there aren't now, even if there once were - and I can't find them in the archive). I'm pinging Vectorebus, who has recently made several additions to the pattern list, in the hope that they can advise you. --ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine, Thank you for the quick response! Thanks for the suggestion of having jersey templates. I forgot that it will be needed also because these teams don't have their own wiki pages yet. I'm not a graphic artist, but I'll also try to find instructions on how to do it. Below are additional links for reference. elivic (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)elivic

• (Season 3 camo jerseys) Link 1, Link 2 Link 3
• (Season 3 white jerseys) Link 1, Link 2 Link 3
• (Season 4 camo jerseys) Link 1, Link 2 Link 3
• (Season 4 white jerseys) Link 1 Link 2

Hi Vectorebus, may I have your advice regarding this? Thank you in advance! elivic (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)elivic

Hi Elivic, thanks for your contact. I'll be willing to design the camouflage uniform for the Philippine basketball team AFP Cavaliers – home and away kit. I'll only be done after you created the page for the team. However, I won't be able to design all the jerseys for the previous seasons. All the best, Vectorebus (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Vectorebus, Thank you for the quick response! I'm currently developing the page in my sandbox, though I'm still figuring out how to add the league's teams' colors in Template:Basketball color. Do you also have an idea on how to put camouflage using Template:Color_box? Sports teams' wiki pages have team colors, and this has been bothering me aside from the jersey templates. elivic (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC) elivic

columns in reflist

I'm informed that using columns in the reflist is now compulsory, and that there was an RFC on that decision. I have tried to discover this discussion, or a rationale, without success. Can someone point me to that. ty cygnis insignis 18:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the template talk page that you may find useful. Template talk:Reflist#column default TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

timtempleton, are you being cute? cygnis insignis 19:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Not at all - isn't that what you were looking for? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah - I skimmed too fast - didn't see your name there. Sorry. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

timtempleton, as I said, in your haste to help as I imagine you often can, it was just a sore point for me cygnis insignis 19:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

timtempleton, my apologies, in your haste to help you have overlooked that I said that I had already tried to find the RFC that details the consensus and rationale, not where I made that enquiry and got stomped. cygnis insignis 19:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

So now that the link to the discussion is there, others can help without making the same mistake I made. For what it's worth, I've been putting reflist|30em in all my articles if there are enough sources to keep it from looking stretched, and I recently noticed that the default setting avoids having to do this. I see it as an improvement. If I have time I'll hunt some more for the RFC you referenced. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

This discussion I found was apparently closed because the changes had already gone into effect. Again probably not exactly what you are looking for, but some insight at least. [[1]] And this is probably a discussion better held on the Template talk:Reflist talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

timtempleton, no, but what I expected happened. I'm not being belligerent, I seriously consider it more difficult to use (read, not look at). It was used in print because paper is expensive, not for the readers benefit, who always reads from the left margin. Once again, apologies and thank you. cygnis insignis 20:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Unable to post a picture

I am not allowed to post a picture of Shiki's vol cover due to possible copyright. What do I do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megumishimizuwu (talk • contribs) 20:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Don't post it. There are strict rules of what we can do with non-free content (such as album covers, typically), and just posting it is not OK--Wikipedia:Non-free content indicates when non-free content can be used in an article. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

sandbox

what is the sandbox for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLACKINKHEART (talk • contribs) 21:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Explained at WP:Sandbox. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Hi BLACKINKHEART, I'm Bellezzasolo. The sandbox is for testing edits - so it's an ideal place to play around with Wiki markup. You have a personal sandbox located at User:BLACKINKHEART/Sandbox, there's also a general sandbox at Wikipedia:Sandbox, which may give you an idea of the sort of edits done there. Heavily used templates also have sandboxes so that changes can be prototyped in a more systematic manner. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

A portion of my wiki article was rejected due to "copyright infringement" when this portion actually auto-populated

Hi, I'm upset that an auto-populated portion of a wiki that I was developing got flagged as copyright infringement. Specifically, not only did the items/content (academic works) auto-populate when I created the page, the page I created was 100% deleted (instead of simply being flagged and held).

I'd like to know why an auto-populated set of content forced a total content removal, versus an assist on a citation.

Help. Now I have to create the whole page over? I'm super-new to wiki but know academic work citations well: just because a university has a specific list of publications, or the page I developed had a similar list of publications (which h after these auto-populated, 4-5 we're missing and I re-ordered publications in line with chron and alpha rules for co-publications and publications...here is what I got:

This is Theresa Conner's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Theresa Conner.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks For disputes, seek dispute resolution

Your submission at Articles for creation: Moriba Jah (November 19)[edit source] AFC-Logo Decline.svgYour recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. This submission appears to be taken from https://utexas.academia.edu/MoribaJah/CurriculumVitae. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work. Draft:Moriba Jah may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresa Conner (talk • contribs) 06:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Theresa Conner: What do you mean "auto-populated"...? Your draft submission should have been your own work: if anything was automatically filled out, then that indicates a serious problem on your end. Even if you were previously editing under the account QuiddityEmpowered, that account's attempt at a draft was over a year ago. I'll leave detailed instructions on how to create articles that will not be deleted on your user talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ian.thompson I wrote about a university professor, and 2 items did auto-populate: 1. A reference to this professor's US congressional testimony (a citation that Ted Cruz led the panel request for testimony), and approximately 95% of Prof. Moriba K. Jah's publications. When I created the article on him I did write the content, hence my question about why a simple citation wasn't recommended versus deleting the whole article that I wrote. No university owns a copyright on any professors list of publications. Less so when such a list is built over time. When the content on publications auto-populated (meaning, it was there and I hadn't entered it, I then corrected it for author name order and date. I thought that some content was drawn from other wikipedia sources.

Thanks for leaving instructions. I will need to write the article again and simply add a citation from https://utexas.academia.edu/MoribaJah/CurriculumVitae. I'm bummed that all of the work that I did do wasn't just kept with a suggestion to add this citation (or that a reviewer simply didn't add the citation. Whether Dr. Jah's list of publications are on a CV or not, they are still an accurate list of publications. Is a simple citation from https://utexas.academia.edu/MoribaJah/CurriculumVitae sufficient? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresa Conner (talk • contribs) 06:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC) Theresa Conner (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC) Theresa

As written to you at your Talk, Wikipedia articles are not places to insert a person's publication list from their CV. More appropriate would be a SHORT list of selected works. Also, while a list Dr. Moriba Jah's publications would not be cover by copyright if you created it, the source your want to copy a list from - utexas.academia.edu - IS protected by copyright, which is clearly stated at the bottom of that website. Copying it, even if citing it, will result in deletion of your draft again. David notMD (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You could always start the draft of your article in Word, or in a Wikipedia sandbox page, so that your drafts would always remain somewhere. This would also protect against text losses while you are editting, due to computer or internet crashes. Acwilson9 (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Trying to add a ref to an image caption

In the article Phrygian cap, I'm following a template (cite web) to cite the Library of Congress at the end of a lengthy caption. Here is my text (with deliberate typo of "reff"):

"...depicted as sharks.]]<reff>"Britannia between Scylla & Charybdis. or..." Library of Congress. Library of Congress. Retrieved 7 January 2019.</ref>"

There were no error messages when I added the ref, but the citation number is not appending to the caption, while the citation does appear as the fourth citation in the References, where it should appear. Is this because WP prefers citations in the body of the article only? Or might it be a bug, or?--Quisqualis (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want the reference to apply to the caption of the image, you would put it after the full stop but before the closing brackets of the image, not after the closing brackets. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

?=User error. Thanks--Quisqualis (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect title fixing

The page Night Attack at Târgovişte has a spelling error in its title, it should be written with the correct Romanian diacritic as 'Targoviște' instead. I don't know how to change a title for a page, can anyone help? 2WR1 (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse 2WR1. See WP:MOVE for how to move a page to a different title. —teb728 t c 00:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello 2WR1. Welcome to the Teahouse. Article titles are changed by 'moving' them. This is done via a drop-down menu option called 'Move page' which you can find in the 'Page' Tab which gives you access to this function. This Tab is just to the left of the 'Search Wikipedia' box at the top of the page. See also Wikipedia:Moving a page. However, I note that neither the title of the painting, nor your suggested alteration match with the accented spelling used in the page on Târgoviște (did you simply miss off the accent on the 'a' by mistake?). I'm glad to see you have already discussed making the appropriate change at Talk:Night Attack at Târgovişte and appear to have found agreement. Providing you are confident that you are definitely using the correct format, I hope this is sufficient for you to do this yourself. The act of moving a page leaves behind a Redirect which allows anyone searching for the old title or spelling to be forwarded to the newer version. Do come back and let us know how you get on. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help, Nick Moyes! Yes, good catch! after all that pickiness with the diacritics in the page I neglected the circumflex on the a in my comment here. I have successfully moved the page so thank you very much for showing me how! 2WR1 (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@2WR1: Great to know it worked OK. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

What is Twinkle

I heard of Twinkle and Wikepidia from time to time but I wonder what twinkle is Can someone tell me Freedy 31 (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Freedy 31. You can find out more at WP:TWINKLE. I don't use it myself, but I believe its basically a script that automates certain tasks making them a bit easier to carry out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Add to a page

I would like to add another orchestra to the List of Symphony Orchestras in the US page. Can someone explain how to do this? The page URL is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_symphony_orchestras_in_the_United_States

Thanks, Mike Palumbo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelpalumbo45 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Michaelpalumbo45, does the orchestra you want to add have an article in Wikipedia? —teb728 t c 23:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Michaelpalumbo45. I've added some more information about this on your user talk page, but you really shouldn't be trying to add content about yourself or any organizations, etc. your associated with to any Wikipedia articles per Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Submission to create article Declined

Submission to create article Declined and reason is : undifined

What does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon V12 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

On the page, it states the reason as not notable. The undefined in the summary is because of an empty field WelpThatWorked (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

On your Talk page, the message says, Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk...

Just use that blue link.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Please Help Me To Write A Article

Hello Team, I Wanna Write An Article On Our Organization. Please Help Me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satnam Sokhal (talk • contribs) 05:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Satnam Sokhal. You can try posting a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles, but before you do I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for reference.

If you decide to try and write the article yourself, please start with a draft and submit it for review via Wikipedia:Articles for creation when you think it's ready. You might also find some helpful suggestions in Wikipedia:Your first article or Ian.thomson's guide User:Ian.thomson/Guide#How to write articles that won't be rejected or deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Finding a photo safe to use for a celebrity's page?

Hello all. I've been using Wikipedia for years and recently wrote my first wiki article, for one of my favorite actresses who did not have a Wiki page. I was wondering, however, how to obtain an image for the page itself that is creative commons/doesn't violate any copyrights. I've tried a few methods to no avail. Thanks! Dylanshears (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanshears (talk • contribs) 03:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dylanshears. There's a couple of things you might try. First, you can post a request at Wikipedia:Requested pictures or c:Commons:Picture requests and hope someone is able to help you. You can also try emailing the actress, her representatives, or the copyright holders of any images you find online to see if someone is willing to provide a free image. Some examples on how you might go about doing this can be found at Wikipedia:Requesting free content. Other than that, there's not really much that you can do other than actually take a photo of the actress yourself or keeping searching online in the hope that you find an existing image which has already be released under an acceptable free license.

As an aside, after looking at Breeda Wool, you might want to first try and find some better sources to cite in the article since IMDb is genreally not considered to be a reliable source per WP:UGC, WP:SPS, WP:BLPSPS and WP:RS/IMDB. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dylanshears. This is simple. Go to a public event where the actress is appearing, and take a good photo of her yourself. Upload that photo to Wikimedia Commons and use it here on Wikipedia. My portrait photos of notable people are in several Wikipedia biographies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are also collections of resources at meta:Free image resources and Commons:Free media resources for example that you can try. Also, oftentimes photos of people can be found on Flickr, you just have to make sure that they are released under a compatible license (see Commons:Flickr files for more details). Last but not least, you can try contacting the subject themselves or their representatives and ask them to make a photograph available under a free license (which they can verify to have done by mailing the OTRS-team. Regards SoWhy 07:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you write an article for me?

Dear Team, Can you write an article for me?

I have article sources. check these links : https://www.quora.com/profile/Netplus-Broadband-3/Netplus-Broadband-is-a-leading-North-India-s-Broadband-Company

http://sportifynews.com/news/netplus-broadband-announces-double-data-for-its-customers-starts-offering-100gb-with-499-monthly-rental-plans/0121701/

Here is brand logo image : File:Netplus Broadband Logo Red.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satnam Sokhal (talk • contribs) 07:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, you have been given an answer above as to where you can go to request that an article be written. However, you will need more than announcements of routine business transactions or glowing promotional pieces. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent, third party reliable sources have chosen to give significant coverage to on their own. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome letter with many links

I have seen at the top of various WP users' Talk pages a big welcoming letter, containing many varied links to articles on using and editing WP. It should be on the Talk pages of all new users. In its absence, when I (too frequently) encounter a new editor with no clue as to the purpose or proper editing of the encyclopedia, I'd like to post the letter verbatim, preferably using a template. Any idea what I'm referring to here?--Quisqualis (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Quisqualis. I think that what you are looking for can be found at Template:Welcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: In addition to what Cullen said, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Twinkle. Among other things, it makes it easy to welcome new users with different welcome templates based on the situation at hand. See Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Wel (welcome) for more details. Regards SoWhy 08:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Beyond Template:Welcome, there are many other welcome templates listed at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I'm mostly interested in placing the template on Talk pages whose users have little clue as to what WP is about nor how to use it. Sadly, some of these users already have the letter, but clearly did not click any of its links...--Quisqualis (talk)

Why aren't Conservatives sources concidered "unreliable"?

I edited the 2016 election page about 3 months ago. Apparently stating sources saying that after a recount by the green party, it was found out that a huge chunk of Clinton's voters were not even alive during the election. Is wikipedia bias? If not what is happening. I also was directed to conservapedia, which I find kinda offensive. Wikipedia should be a place of learning the truth, not bias information. Why is this happening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Roe234 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Chris Roe234: In your two attempts to edit the article and two attempts to edit the article's talk page, you didn't cite a single source of any kind -- unless you were editing with other accounts you need to tell us about.

As for conservative sources here's a few pieces of truth you won't be able to deny:

- It's the truth that conservatism is by definition opposed to any change but "back to the way things used to be." (I'm not saying that's wrong or anything, I understand where it's coming from).

- It's the truth that the easiest way to get fear and anger out of people is using something they're opposed to.

- It's the truth that fear and anger are especially addictive emotions that can blind one to logic, especially when one is mistakenly angry at or fearful of something that really isn't a problem (and so has no solution).

- It's the truth that fake news, pseudoscience, and other manipulative charlatanism (regardless of any politics connected to it) focus more on creating fear and anger than dispassionately gauging consensus.

Wikipedia does not in any way ban conservative sources but it does generally restrict the use of fake news sources, and the most popular fake news sources tend to be conservative for the above reasons. This is not even touching matters where some conservative demagogues have chosen to unnecessarily politicize empirically settled matters (such as evolution or climate change). This is also not getting into how non-conservatives (not just "liberal," politics is more than a coin or even a line) generally have to operate with a pluralist mindset that better enables empirical observation. The simple fact is that fake news peddlers knows that conservative fake news sells better than "liberal" fake news. If you are not letting your own politics get in the way of reality, that one fact should not offend you in the slightest (and you should not feel the need to reply with any butwhatabouts regarding non-conservatives). If you are not letting your own bias get in the way, you'll aim for pluralistic empiricism in your news reading/viewing -- not to "hear both sides" but to find the consensus about reality. If you do that, you're not going to be worried about whether "conservative" or "liberal" sources are being given not enough or too much weight. You can find more detailed discussion at this discussion at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson could you not state more simply that the rejection of his contribution was due to the fact that he failed to cite reliable sources.

I am new to Wikipedia editing so forgive me if I am incorrect but I assume that the ideal use of Wikipedia is to present objective facts that have been observed utilizing the scientific method. Anything uncited or cited claims that fail to meet what is broadly defined as scientific method should not qualify for posting on Wikipedia.

Without this standard, Wikipedia would fall into anarchy where one persons opinion is pitted against anothers with no way to determine who's is more valid.

If I am oversimplifying, or simply incorrect please explain.I would be happy to hear more of your opinion or those of others. Cheers.

Mkmatthewkoehler (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mkmatthewkoehler: Sadly that is indeed an oversimplification. We do not quite use the scientific method here; we don't perform experiments on our own (that would be original research). I think what you instead mean is logical deduction. Unfortunately, the world is not black and white. The notion of a neutral point of view exists because in many cases, there will be irreconcilable differences between sources on the same subject. The scientific method is of no use in settling such matters. Even if you mean logical deduction, different people subscribe to different logic systems. Indeed, ZFC is widely accepted but there are some who subscribe to the axiom of determinacy, which is inconsistent with ZFC. Also, logic aside it's nice of him to answer the question posed by the OP, lest he be accused of merely providing a red herring. --Jasper Deng (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

One does not have to be alive on election day as long as they were alive when they put their vote in the box/mail/gave to an election official. If lots of dead people made it to the ballot box to vote for HRC or anyone, that needs an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: thank you for linking me to the three core editing principles of Wikipedia, much appreciated.

Addmitedly the axiom links had me a little lost. I hope I don't need to understand them to be a good editor because they look very confusing.

And lastly I am not sure that :@Ian.thomson: was providing a red hearing as he did clearly state that the original posters problem was not having cited his contributions. However his rant on conservative bias clearly lay to bare his own bias.

Bias is a human problem and is not attributable to any one group of people. Ian.thomson you seem like a very intelligent person so please don't forget to keep your own biases in check while you keep those of others in check as well. I will my best to do the same too.

Mkmatthewkoehler (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Plenty of conservative sources are "not considered unreliable". Among UK papers the Times and The Telegraph are considered reliable, the Daily Mail is deprecated, not because it has a Conservative bias, but because of an editorial record that means we can't trust it to be true. As for dead people voting in the US, over 1% of voters die every year, so unless you have an efficient method of removing them from the voters list, you are going to have lots of dead people who are entitled to vote. It is a small part of the reasons for low voter turnout. It only becomes a scandal when and if you have examples of people voting after they have died (not counting mail in ballots from people who died while their vote was in the post). It is easy to cite sources for people alleging that lots of dead people are on voting rolls, but if you want to assert that people are fraudulently voting on behalf of those dead people, then that requires a reliable source, especially if you are accusing a specific campaign or its supporters of such fraud. ϢereSpielChequers 10:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to How Can you do a Special signature?

I still don’t understand how I can do a special signature. Acyclonxe (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't help you with that as I've never done it but I'll ping the helper from last time as they should be able to. (@Abelmoschus Esculentus:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhinosF1 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Acyclonxe: Click here. Search for an English word called "Signature". Change the text in the box to your new signature style (image). Scroll to the bottom and hit Save. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 08:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

It says Invalid raw signature. Check HTML tags. What... Also, can someone change it for me? That will be really nice! Acyclonxe (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Acyclonxe: Other people can't do it for you because they can't access your preferences. What do you want your signature to look like? —teb728 t c 11:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Teb728: Bold orange text for Acyclonxe, small bold text in blue for the talk page. Small bold text in cyan for the contributions. Acyclonxe (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Acyclonxe: Try putting <Redacted> in the Signature box, and check "Treat the above as wiki markup" —teb728 t c 12:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Teb728: It doesn’t work. Acyclonxe 05:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Acyclonxe: What happened when you tried? You do understand that you are not supposed to include the <code> and <nowiki> tags that I wrapped my suggestion in? In any case if you temporarily give up, uncheck "Treat the above as wiki markup"; so that you get a normal signature. —teb728 t c 07:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Acyclonxe: Here is what it looks like if I put the same code (with my username) into my preferences teb728 talk contribs 07:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I have changed my signature to this: Acyclonxe ^{Let’s discuss it, please.} 10:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Teb728: So, can you still do the signature I wanted but it had been taken by another user? Acyclonxe ^{Let’s discuss it, please.} 11:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

worming disambiguation page suggestions

Worming

might benefit by the addition of links to these two pages parcel and serve, nautical terms since both cover another meaning for worming.

both the talk page for the disambiguation page, and the talk page for the project page have a very read-only vibe so hopefully the teahouse is the best venue for this suggestion Longpinkytoes (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Longpinkytoes: I added a link to Worm, parcel and serve from Worming. Thank you for bringing it up here. In the future, feel free to be bold and do it yourself. MarkZusab (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

thanks! and i will try to do it myself next time. :) when a page redirects you to another page to join a club to make changes, it can come cross as being the kind of thing that the average wikipedia editor shouldn't attempt.Longpinkytoes (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

One more point, Longpinkytoes (not directly related to this question, but prompted by several of your questions): when you want to link to a Wikipedia page, please wikilink it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worming] displays as the rather uninformative [2], whereas [[Worming]] displays as the rather more obvious Worming. --ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@ColinFine: when i first started linking, i wondered how to do that, but then i realised that the uninformative method of linking shows you the target on mouseover ((along the bottom-left (in firefox)), and helps declutter the text, so i stopped looking for the proper way. i'll use the proper way from now on, thanks! Longpinkytoes (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

If you look further at WP:linking, you will find that instead of your method of linking to parcel and serve and nautical terms as external links, you could use [[Worm, parcel and serve|parcel and serve]] and [[Glossary of nautical terms|nautical terms]] which render as the wikilinks parcel and serve and nautical terms. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Colin, and David thank you both! the problem with researching the right way to do a thing, is that it relies on prior knowledge of doing it wrong way! ;)

Longpinkytoes (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

rope anatomy and splicing techniques with interesting names

WARNING: first link leads to a wikipedia page with a great deal of nsfw text that depending on your employer could land you in a review.

this page [3] is not the landing page you want for academics simply wanting clarification of a word they recently came across in an old book about tall ships, and especially not the landing page you want children to have to wade through to find the same word. (and not the landing page for people searching the term on coffee break from the office)

Glossary of Nautical Terms [4] and Rope Splicing [5] both contain terms that may require an image for full understanding of the description. As they are both lists of things, inserting an image may not be appropriate wikipedia practice as it could make the list of unwieldy length if other editors followed the example.

a separate page might not be required, although many entries on the Glossary of Nautical Terms do, in fact, have their own page. what really needs to be remedied is the fact that the safe-for-work section is at the very bottom of the page, and disguised under Derived Meanings heading. whether or not the nautical terms predate the nsfw meaning, or the other way around, nestling that information in a way that requires at least skimming the entire page from top to bottom, seems to be in need of a little critical thinking.

reordering the nsfw page to have the nautical terms at the top might work, or even a link with a quick explanation that nautical terms are considered Derived Meanings for the purpose of that specific wikipedia page would both mitigate the situation. since a google search for the word "cuntlines" lists the nsfw page first or second, and none of the other hits seem on-topic, not having a separate page for the safe-for-work terms could dead-end a lot of searches where the person searching wouldn't even consider that wikipedia would send them to a nsfw page for a nautical term, and assume the search hit is erroneous. the nsfw page even has a link to the Scunthorpe Problem [6]which nearly admits that the editors in charge of the page are aware that they are hiding the safe-for-work information from a certain demographic. Longpinkytoes (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe WP:NOTCENSORED will be of interest. There are no "editors in charge"; see WP:OWN. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Anyone searching for the former nautical term cunt splice will be redirected to the correct article and will not see any inappropriate content. Wikipedia is not responsible for Google's errors. The word "cuntline" is very rare in British English, so rare as to be not even listed in the latest edition of the OED (2014). It is mentioned in Merriam-Webster as a variant of contline, so perhaps is slightly less rare in American English. Dbfirs 08:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ariconte: the NOTCENSORED link was of interest, but doesn't seem to relate to information being buried in unlikely places. while wikipedia might not be censored, excluding information from people unwilling or unable to view the nsfw page seems unwikipedialike. unless, of course WP:WIKIPEDIALIKE disagrees with that. ;)

@Dbfirs: not attempting to nitpick, but the link you provide for wiktionary states that contline and cantline are derivative of the original term, not the other way around. not sure i understand your implications regarding the word being rare. or is it just rare? Longpinkytoes (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The original seems to be cant-line, with the American version possibly being an American aviators' joke last century. Wiktionary seems to get it the wrong way round because "cant-line" is first recorded in 1867. The origin seems to be kant or cante meaning edge, border, corner or angle in Middle English (first recorded in 1375). Dbfirs 20:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

1819 tho... more here :) (oddly appears to be just before the January 2019 header, not after)

Longpinkytoes (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Help speedy

Please speedy delete this page appears to be complete nonsense and declares a personal love story, involving personal info.. Thanks if some does this for me! 182.58.254.76 (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 13:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Appropriate sources: training guides

Before editing a number of Benin related items, I wanted to check if Peace Corps training booklets are an appropriate source. They are produced by a government agency, but are not publicly published. The topics at hand (mostly cuisine and local language information) have little to no outside scholarly research, and information can be very difficult to find in a country with extremely poor technical literacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyman427 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

New post and edits

Hi--my submission was declined because the editor said it contained copyright materials--but all of the copy is original--nothing is copyrighted. How do I find out exactly what the editor thinks is copyrighted?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneBecker19 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, declined twice - first for lack of references, second for incorporating copyright protected content. Is it possible that you have written about Nora Barry and had that published in a way that it is under copyright? In that circumstance, using your own content would be a violation. David notMD (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

You could try asking the declining editor, AngusWOOF. That link will alert them to this conversation. Rojomoke (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It was copied straight out of Nora Barry's organization's website. If you wrote the content for Barry's website, you can't just copy it over for Wikipedia purposes. It would have to be fundamentally rewritten. Also this would indicate you are connected to Barry in some manner which would be a conflict of interest. It was also written in a style that praised Barry rather than analyze her career neutrally, so it has a biased tone. That's fine if it's on her organization's website, but not for Wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Harry Volpe

I reviewed Draft:Harry Volpe and declined it, saying that I thought that the subject was probably notable, but that I would like to see better sources. User:Alwayslearnedstuff replied, on my talk page:

While a seminal figure in early jazz guitar with numerous mentions in print and online--in addition to his many recordings, of course--Volpe is practically a ghost in terms of published biographical information. The two main published sources are William Bay's book, Masters of the Plectrum Guitar, as well as Volpe's out-of-print, impossible-to-find autobiography. 

I referenced both of those books. In your comment, "It appears that this subject is likely notable, but that better sources are required", how would I go about improving? They and I would like to ask what the next step is. My inclination, in the case of a minor figure in musical history who is poorly documented, is that the best course is simply to accept the article as is. If we can't find better sources, we can't find better sources. This clearly isn't a case where anyone is trying to bias or misuse Wikipedia. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that the path forward here is to evaluate the book by William Bay, Masters of the Plectrum Guitar. Is Bey a recognized expert? Was the book positively reviewed by reliable sources? Does the book devote significant coverage or just a passing mention to Volpe? If it is a respected book by a respected author issued by respected publisher, and it devotes a full chapter to Volpe, and if there are a few other solid if briefer sources, then he is probably notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)=

in school, something like 80-90% of references for research papers are urls now. searching that musician's name gets the first page full of people that are not him, talking about him. can online resources be reliable sources for wikipedia articles? how about youtube videos that show his face, and demonstrate his jazz-musician-ness?

(kind of like picture id, but moving) Longpinkytoes (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Another editor moved it to main space, so no longer a draft. Getting back to RM's question, people who are leaders in 'hidden' professions may not be written about compared to people who are in front of the microphone or camera or whatever. Always a judgement call on what is enough in the way of refs. To LPS's question, Youtube almost never considered suitable. David notMD (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

As to YouTube, a YouTube video showing his face would have to have been made at least twenty-five years ago anyway. He's dead. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Order of Nine Angles Legacy and Influence

Greetings.

I am a member of the band Hvile I Kaos. We are referenced under the "Legacy and Influence" section of the article on the Order of Nine Angles. We recently parted ways with the organization, and I have attempted to edit the article to include our departure. My first attempt at doing so was deleted. Is there any way I can ensure that my changes remain?

Also, I'm having difficulty citing my sources if you need them. I announced it via a facebook post through the Hvile I Kaos band page on December 9th but am having difficulty hyperlinking it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvileikaos (talk • contribs) 18:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Hvileikaos. That is because Facebook, and other user-generated sources, are not normally regarded as reliable, and cannot be cited. Has a reliable source independent of you reported the change? That is what Wikipedia generally needs.

Also, please change your username to something which represents you personally (it does not need to be your real name): accounts which appear to represent organisations are not allowed. Please see CHU. --ColinFine (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

How can I make this Draft live.

This is still a work in progress, but hoping to get out at least this minimal part of the page. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Make_the_Road_New_York — Preceding unsigned comment added by RicardoAca1203 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Before you do that, please see the important information I have just placed on your user talk page. Thanks 331dot (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Maketheroadny: I suggest waiting until you are finished, but when you are you can use WP:AfC. I will ask, however, if you have a conflict of interest; your username appears to be related to the article, and the article reads in a promotional fashion, that is, not in a neutral point of view. If you do, I STRONGLY recommend reading (and adhering to) WP:COI. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Also; there is absolutely no way the draft will be accepted in its current form. If it is sent through AfC, it will be declined; if you move it to mainspace yourself, it will be deleted. I suggest not attempting to mainstream it yet. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse (edit conflicts)

if we assume good faith, and that nobody changes the words of another editor on Teahouse, is there a way to disable the wiki-engine from notifying us when we have both posted an answer after the same previous entry? it seems like all the notification is bringing to our attention is that two editors have used the same level of colon indent. Longpinkytoes (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to this, Longpinkytoes, but here are my thoughts. There are two areas of concern: technical, and procedural. Procedurally, it probably doesn't do any harm to include both answers; but I know that when I get conflict, I always look at the answer that preceded mine, and sometimes I decide that mine won't add anything further, and abandon it. (Sometimes I decide to include it nevertheless). Technically, you are asking the software to detect that both edits added material in the same place, and did not make any other changes. I'm sure that that is possible, but whether the existing program is capable of it without substantial changes, I don't know. --ColinFine (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine all i meant was could that function be turned off for Teahouse, since unless we start rewording each other's entries, there seems to be little harm done by two people clicking publish on the same section at the same time. the (edit conflicts) flag seems to operate under the assumption that there is a danger of two users editing the exact stretch of text concurrently. regular talk pages probably move way too slowly for the wiki-engine to incorporate that function, i only mentioned it because we were batting 1000 for a few sections in a row there with generating (edit conflict) tags. :p

Longpinkytoes (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, I don't know the answer, Longpinkytoes, but I very much doubt it. Editing is one of the core technical functions of the Mediawiki software, and dealing with conflicts smoothly is one of the principal challenges of any software which allows people to edit the same object at the same time. To turn off that facility for certain pages would be risky (not all edits to the page are separable in that way, even if most of them are), and implementing it and testing that it hadn't broken anything would cost effort out of all proportion to the gain, I think. --ColinFine (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine you make some good points xD

also thankyou for the U shortcut for users:

Longpinkytoes (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)