Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 982

Archive 975

←

Archive 980

Archive 981

Archive 982

Archive 983

Archive 984

Archive 985

How to get a new page searchable

Dear Folks,

I have created a new page entitled Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria. It happens that formal research that I have just had published indicates that the Sugarloaf Creek pastoral station, founded in 1837, was more notable than has ever been recognised. There has never been a Wikipedia for this Sugarloaf Creek.

But I cannot get the title searchable. If I search google with 'Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria' (without quotes of course), I do not get it.

How do you fix it.

Thanks,

Mwill66 (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Wikipedia is free to create articles and edit for all. This means that sometimes malicious agents may create bogus pages that can have harmful effects in the world and to Wikipedia's credibility. So, new pages don't get automatically indexed by search engines. They need to first be vetted by trusted users with special rights, according to this. There is usually a backlog as there are more editors creating pages than trusted editors who have the right to approve these pages for indexing, and this is entirely a volunteer-based community. As such, all you can do is wait. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 06:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mwill66 and Usedtobecool: I'd also add that Wikipedia can tell the indexing machines whether specific page sould be indexed or not, but it's always the indexing machine's decision whether it fetches some page or not. And Wikipedia has no way to enforce one action or another on indexing machine. So ...you can only wait. :) CiaPan (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course! I tried searching for 'Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria wikipedia'. Google knows what it's doing but Bing and Duckduckgo list the talk page pretty high up even though they know the article isn't ready for listing yet, so, LOL! And wait. Google trusts wikipedia implicitly, at least officially, so although they can ignore, they won't. So, wait for the page to be approved by Wikipedia and google will oblige. Haha! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

All new articles have a "noindex" tag attached to them that tells Google not to index them. The tag is removed when a patroller reviews the article, and experience tells me that once that is done, it will be indexed by Google within minutes and you can then immediately find it by searching.

There is a large backlog of articles waiting to be reviewed (as in several months long), so Wikipedia is also set to automatically remove the "noindex" tag after 90 days, even if the article has not been reviewed by anyone, and in theory, this should make it available for indexing by Google. However, this doesn't actually seem to make Google index the article - even after the 90-day mark passes and the tag comes off, I have found that they still won't index my articles until a patroller marks them as "reviewed", anyway.

Long story short, as others above said, you just have to sit tight and wait (usually for several months) for a patroller to get to your article and review it. I have several articles that have been waiting 3 months already and still aren't indexed by Google because they haven't come up for review yet, so be patient. It takes a while due to the backlog. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Polish Chicken_is the current content of the page presenting biased information?

The Polish Chicken Wikipedia page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_chicken> contains a whole lot of speculations about the origin of this breed of birds. I understand that this breed has been bred for a long time in Holland and eventually registered in the US as of Dutch origin, but that doe's not mean that the information recorded in US poultry association is reliable, valid, and relevant.

Somewhere in the second paragraph, I found something a somewhat ludicrous revelation, that the bird's name Polish (or Poland) is derived from the Middle Dutch word "pol". Let's be serious. Similarly, the author of the note might want to derive the name of the country of Poland from this Dutch word. Is this the standard we a hoping to provide in Wikipedia? My belief is, that as long as the authors speculate their statement is burdened with many risks of cognitive distortions that result in the circular logic type of argument, where conclusion becomes its premise. In my opinion, this kind of speculations should not be included in a text that has the ambition to serve as a source of popular knowledge. I am asking the editors to critically review this thread.

Another weak thing is supporting the text with popular guides' references. Look, we live in times of print-on-demand and self-publishing, and every literate layperson person can at any time become a self-made expert in popular knowledge. That's what some references provided here look like. Let's have a look at the first sentence: <The oldest accounts of these birds come from The Netherlands; their exact origins are unknown, however.[1] (Carol Ekarius, 2007)>. The Ekarius book is very carefully published but it is by a small Publishing house. Ekarius is their livestock expert with diverse interests <https://www.storey.com/author/carol_ekarius/>. In the second paragraph of her book <https://archive.org/stream/Storeys_Illustrated_Guide_to_Poultry_Breeds_Complete/Storey's%20Illustrated%20Guide%20to%20Poultry%20Breeds%20Complete#page/n3/mode/2up>, p.145, Ekarius explains that "In spite of the name, the Polish breed is not from Poland" (no reference), and further: "The breed as we know it today comes from Holland,..." (no reference, no details) and further: "... (where Polish birds show in paintings dating back to the fifteenth century) but its beginnings are unclear." (no references about the source form Mrs. Ekarius, no particulars about aforementioned paintings or painters). This is unsubstantiated claim and is an unsupported opinion, and even if printed in a book, I don't think it fits the standard, Wikipedia should be aiming at.

I do not know where this breed comes from. I am Polish and, of course, it would be nice to feel a historical-cultural relationship with this bird that is loved my so many. I know that it appeared here and there in Polish literature and visual art (at least in what was not damaged during the two world wars and the country partitions during the entire nineteenth century, i.e., at the time of the documented breeding in Holland), but it would not be acceptable for me, to force in my beliefs and wishes where I don't hold strong evidence.

Please, take a critical look at the Wikipedia text on Polish Chicken, and where possible, please verify the references, add a relevant in-text citation or revise the text deleting the information which is not evidence-supported. We cannot post unsubstantiated statements, are we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasia Polish (talk • contribs) 08:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Kasia Polish This page is for new users to ask questions about using Wikipedia, not to bring up concerns with an article. You should do that on the article talk page. You can even make such a comment as a formal Request for Comment. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The article's Talk page has two (!) extended debates on the origin of the name. Not saying not to start a new discussion, but read the existing ones first. David notMD (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

How to edit?

Hello, I'm trying to edit an article, "Human sexuality" and I don't think I did it right. I have all my information in a google doc but i'm still confused in how to publish/add my work into the article.Varzolao (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Copy and paste what you wrote in the Google Doc into the article by clicking the "edit" tab on desktop or the pencil icon on mobile. You need to make sure the article is not protected, which might be why you did not do it right. When you are done with the addition leave an edit summary if you wish, then click "publish changes". Your edit will be saved. I hope this helps answer your question. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 20:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

To others, see my reply here. The editor is being reverted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Strange emoji things in signatures

Lately I've noticed small, colored icons appearing in users' signatures. Example:｜😹｜✝️｜. Is this a feature of Wikipedia? Are they encouraged? Does WP have a way of constraining their use, or, at least, preventing their display to certain users? Thanks, Quisqualis (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Quisqualis. All signatures need to comply with WP:SIG. Editors can customize their signatures as long as they do so per WP:CUSTOMSIG. There's nothing specifically mentioned about icons/emojies per se and I've seen then used quite a bit; so, they're probably OK. One thing to keep in mind though is that not everyone accesses Wikipedia using the same type of device, so what might seem fine on a lap top computer, might not work so well on a smart phone, etc. I'm not sure how icons/emojies affect accessibility. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: Call me old-fashioned, but I personally find them extremely annoying, irrelevant and intrusive. Please don't be tempted to move to the dark side. There are enough people over there already, and these signatures look 💩! Regards. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Was also not a fan of them till a wikiconference in Montreal were it was talked about like WP:Last word....as in they stand out and people generally take note..--Moxy 🍁 01:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't follow this rule myself but you generally find that editors and admins who have been here the longest, have the simplest signatures, usually standard font, no frills. I like a little style but if you want to imitate the long-timers, you'll have a simple signature. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Heh, those look like the ones from my signature. I've tried to remove the color since some find it a nuisance; sorry for the bother. From an accessibility perspective, they're just plain-text Unicode characters, so they should be fairly benign; I grant that being distracting is a valid accessibility concern, though.

I've tried to change my signature to monochrome. I don't know if all computers/browsers respect the method I changed it with (variation selectors: see below if curious). I guess if it still shows up colored for anyone I can just delete them. Hopefully this signature's not an irritant now! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹︎｜✝｜John 15:12｜☮｜🍂︎｜T/C 06:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Technical details and tips: The colors are actually colored glyphs in a typeface you have installed in your computer, or that is provided by your Web browser. A character that defaults to being colored can be requested to be monochrome by placing the character U+FE0E VARIATION SELECTOR-15 after it. Color for a monochrome-default one can be requested by placing U+FE0F VARIATION SELECTOR-16 after it, but not all characters support color. If you want to make this type of character monochrome everywhere, you could perhaps give a monochrome typeface including them higher priority than the colored ones (this can generally be accomplished by adjusting your fontconfig preferences in GNU/Linux; I'm not sure about other operating systems), or just uninstall the colored one(s) for the extreme solution. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹︎｜✝｜John 15:12｜☮｜🍂︎｜T/C 06:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: To me, your signature looks OK, and I can still see from its highlighting you're an adminstrator - unlike Lourdes whose admin status is not visible from their signature, which I find misleading (especially after what I seem to remember happening after their RFA.) Goldenshimmer's is pointless as far as I perceive it. Pretty, but totally not needed, and confusing to other editors. There - I told you I was old-fashioned! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Uhm, what is this "highlighting" you talk of that shows an admin's admin status? —Rutilant (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rutilant: Sorry, I wasn't very clear. There are a handful of optional, user-installed scripts available for highlighting different users. I have installed User:Amalthea/userhighlighter.js which highlights every admin signature in bright blue (unless they've forced some background colour of their own which overrides it, as I think Lourdes and some others have done - there's no rule against it, I might add). I also have User:PleaseStand/highlight-comments.js installed which highlights parts of my own contributions in yellow, which makes them easy to find amongst all the others) You can find a huge list of other user-created scripts which you can try out at Wikipedia:User scripts/List. I often forget that as soon as one changes one's own scripts and user preferences it can make all of ones own Wikipedia pages appear completely different from how others see and use them. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Nick, your statement: "...unlike Lourdes whose admin status is not visible from their signature, which I find misleading (especially after what I seem to remember happening after their RFA.)" is spot on. My signature is like this because I want to mislead people, especially after what happened post my RfA. I'm pleased you've summarised it well. Thank you. Lourdes 14:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC) (Check the new blue color in my signature. I think it rocks. What do you think? Oh, I already have the answer. MISLEADING!)

LOL! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes: You mentioned my signature was confusing — does removing the color resolve that, or are there other issues? (Is it just too long? "T/C" abbreviations confusing?) I appreciate hearing your feedback if it's still a bother. (I'm leaning towards changing it to just "—{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜talk/contribs"; maybe that's better...) Thanks! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹︎｜✝｜John 15:12｜☮｜🍂︎｜T/C 02:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Goldenshimmer: Well, as colourful as it is, I don't find it helpful. All this stuff is unclickable, and irrelevant to a signature: "(they/their)｜😹︎｜✝｜John 15:12｜☮｜🍂︎｜" So, seeing as how you asked, my view is that your religious views, and whatever the other stuff refers to, are best left for your userpage. The hyperlinked T/C bit works OK for me. But the view of this particular grumpy traditionalist is that clever emojis and other graphics have no place whatsoever in a signature, which should be designed to facilitate communication, not obfuscation. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes: Thank you for your feedback! My goal with that stuff was to make it seem more "human" and inviting by including some personality, but since it distracts people, then it hurts communication rather than helps... I've made some changes, so hopefully it's fixed now. (I left the "(they/their)" since I don't want people to have to click through to my userpage to know how to refer to me, so it seems practically useful for a signature.) Thanks again! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜Talk｜Contributions 02:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

This is fascinating; I had no idea. I must be a very old editor (2005, tho not a heavy contributor); I still sign with my Real Name, which is also my login! Maybe I should add a little colour to my life? Thanks @Quisqualis for raising the issue. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Page validation

Hello,

Can you please tell me if this page is good to go online ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MissWrite

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommErt (talk • contribs) 14:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@CommErt: You may simply put this code: {{subst:submit}} at the top of your draft and see what feedback you get. :) However, I think it's better to move Draft:MissWrite to Draft:Eurailtest before submitting. --CiaPan (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I have moved it to Draft:Eurailtest.   Maproom (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@CommErt: IMHO the draft is far too promotional in tone to be accepted as an article. I have marked some of the expressions, whose tone does not sound 'encyclopedic' enough for me. --CiaPan (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Is citing a physical copy OK?

Is it OK to cite a physical copy or a physical DVD? Maxikray (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxikray (talk • contribs)

@Maxikray: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you may cite physical copies; there is no requirement that sources be online. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK to cite a newspaper article that can be found on Newsbank? To find out what NewsBank is, check out the following link:

http://guides.ccclib.org/c.php?g=43943&p=277576

Maxikray (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Maxikray: Please sign your posts so we know that you wrote them; you may do so by typing four tildes(~~~~) at the end of your post, or by clicking the Signature button on the screen located above the posting area(it looks like a scribble) while your cursor is at the end of your post. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: No offense, but I would still like to know if it is OK to cite a newspaper article that can be found on NewsBank. To find out what NewsBank is, check out the following link:

http://guides.ccclib.org/c.php?g=43943&p=277576

Maxikray (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Maxikray. You can cite any source that has been published, and is in principle available for a reader to get hold of, even if it might be difficult for them. A newspaper that only a few libraries have copies of would be OK. Of course, it is much easier for readers if the sources cited are readily available, but it is not a requirement. Note that this implies that the important part of most citations is the bibliographical information: title, author, date, page number, what publication etc. A URL is a convenience, not a crucial part of the citation. --ColinFine (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

However, Maxikray, note that requirements for reliability vary with the type of article. A newspaper cite that is perfectly suitable for a history article may be unacceptable in,, say, a medical article. I learn a great deal about this by reading Talk pages whenever I browse an article--warning, it can become addictive--and by making mistakes & being corrected! --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

"Not in reference" template?

Portmanteau § Examples in English includes

(e.g., Renault markets its Twingo, a combination of twist, swing and tango).

The title of the cited article is nothing like that, just "Renault Twingo hatchback review", and these words do not appear in the article itself. (In fact, the article and archive links go to two entirely different texts in different journals, but that's another can of worms.)

I'm sure I've seen a template to tag a footnote with something like "Not supported by reference", but I can't find it. Where is it, please?

* I found {{Failed verification }}. Thnidu (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

References

--Thnidu (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Thnidu! That's the right template to use in that situation. I was able to locate a replacement source for the portmanteau (the Renault UK press office) and I went ahead and replaced the failed source with the new one. CThomas³ (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The OP found an answer to their question after having asked it here, added that answer and tried to mark this thread as resolved. So, we can safely consider this one closed, unless someone has an insight to share, of their own volition. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 06:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of insights, Thnidu, it is recommended that editors don't refactor comments not even their own without explicit explanation because that could be very confusing. For example, there are two signatures from you there. It looked as though someone had asked a question and forgot to sign and you had added two replies trying to help them, before I went through the history. In this case, a lot less confusing would have been if you'd just added that information about what you found at the bottom of your comment, in a separate comment. If you have to change what you've said in your comments itself, it should accompany an explanation. Put the words you need to erase between <s></s> tags and add substitute words next to it. If you need to add without erasing anything, it's better to do it in a new comment, or maybe write an explanation in parenthesis at the beginning of the text that's newly added. Not saying there's a problem here specifically (you don't need to do anything about it in this thread), just a general note for the future. Happy editing! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 06:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cthomas3 and Usedtobecool: Thank you both! Usedtobecool, I'm going to copy your advice about not refactoring to save with my useful wiki info. --Thnidu (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thnidu, haha! I recommend adding this to your list then: WP:RTP Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 16:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Henry

Is this the same sweet young name that does cameoes on the Korean variety show Home Alone, and what is the name of the Chinese historical drama he stars in as a king,? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.229.126 (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! You are at the wrong address. The place you are looking for is WP:RD/E. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 16:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

New Entry - Artwork

Hi-

I researched in grad school who does not have a Wiki entry and I feel should have one, and I joined so that I can write one, since I've accumulated more than enough resources about him and his work. Much of his work I have seen either in person or in photo documentation, and I'm wary of how much of my own observations, if not included in the verbiage of one of my sources, I can include in my entry.

Can descriptive observations of a work of art be included in a wiki entry if they are made either in person by the writer of the entry, or from images and documentation for which there is no accompanying text?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmerringer (talk • contribs) 18:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

In answer to your questions - no, no, no, no. Your own observations are considered original research, which is forbidden. All content has to come from reliable sources. David notMD (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

How can i make my page visible /

How can i make my page visible on search engines and create exact page as the link below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akinwunmi_Ambode

Thank You

Destiny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destiny Chiamaka Emmanuel (talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Destiny. The user page autobiography you have created will not ever be visible on search engines because it is not visible to them. Instead, you must create an article on Wikipedia, in a similar format to the article on Akinwunmi Ambode. Please read the following articles and note carefully their major points:

• Wikipedia:Your first article
• Wikipedia:Autobiography
• Wikipedia:Notability
• Wikipedia:Citing sources
• Wikipedia:Manual of style

Also note the helpful articles listed on your Talk page Best of luck to you.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It appears that what you did is use your User page to create article-like content. This is not what the User page is for, and has been deleted. You can attempt to create an article in your Sandbox, or as a draft. Neither of these will appear in search engines. Only if submitted and then approved by reviewer would an article move to main space, and be searchable. Quisqualis gave you informative pages to look at, among them that Wikipedia strongly advises against attempting an autobiography. David notMD (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Is that intended by MediaWiki

Is this an intended thing by the software. I mean, that you create a div that is above all content of the page and blocking clicks as well as scrolling? 85.199.71.123 (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with MediaWiki. It is normal behavior of the your browser: fixed positioned div occupies the whole viewport. Ruslik_Zero 19:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the question is: "why does MediaWiki allow malicious divs like this?" (For what it's worth, in my browser I can still click on "edit" and "history"—so it's not difficult to revert it.) Eman235/talk 19:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Software intentions are better explored at WP:RD/C, although I am curious why it is what it is. Despite what it's doing, the page is seems to be working just fine, as it pertains to fulfilling its prime directive, unless it behaves differently with IPs. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 19:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ben Lee Violinist Page

Could you please help me with the afd deletion notices on this page. Ben Lee (violinist) the page.Or how one would go about finding help with editing the page, so it may be saved from deletion. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Armstrong21 (talk • contribs)

Armstrong21 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you click on the link in the Articles for Deletion notice, it will take you to the discussion page created to discuss the deletion proposal. There, you can see and respond to the nominator's concerns. What is your interest in "saving" the article(not just "page") from deletion? 331dot (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I would add that, at the bottom of the AfD notice, there is a list of links under "find sources". Open each of those links in new tabs and explore a little to see if you can find new WP:RS that have WP:SIGCOV of him. If so, the article can be saved, if not, it's better to let it get deleted if community deems it necessary and recreate it once such sources become available to address all concerns that are raised in this AfD. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 19:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism

The Build a Bear article was vandalized. I know a bit about reverting, but if I revert, am I responsible for placing a warning on the user talk page of the vandal? Thanks. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

DiamondRemley39, you don't necessarily have to warn a user if you revert vandalism, but it's a good idea to do so. I've reverted the vandalism and given the warning in this case. Take a look at WP:TWINKLE for a tool to help in giving warnings, as well as many other things, if you like. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Getting Into Wikipedia

Hi! I'm, pretty new to Wikipedia and was wondering if there was anyone I could talk to to get a better understanding of how everything works. I'm considering starting a research-based club at my school and was wondering if Wikipedia would be a good place to post our findings. How do you become better at editing pages? Do you do research with the sole intention of adding to a page, or do you only edit pages where you have background information? (sorry I haven't made my profile page yet) Owenwitt (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Owenwitt

• Is Wikipedia a good place to post findings?
• How do you become better at editing pages?
• You should start out editing pages to learn the basics, then consider adding an article to Wikpedia. In both cases, you must cite WP:Reliable sources for your edits/additions to the encyclopedia.

• There is no requirement for a profile page on Wikipedia. In any case, it should be concise and describe your editing intentions on Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind, no original research. All editing based on reliable sources as citations. Advice is to start by editing existing articles before ever trying to create an article. Helpful links posted on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The Page For Card's Against Humanity Needs An Update

Specifically the section of packs they've come out with.

I've never edited an article and have no intention to but the pride pack, college pack, and many others aren't showing up and should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.233.83 (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey! You state you have no intention to edit an article. In that case, you may make an edit request at the article's talk page by following the instructions here. --MrClog (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Editor with COI behaving like s/he "owns" page.

I don't know the best way to deal with the situation at Midwest University. There is an editor with an admitted conflict of interest who is behaving as though s/he owns the page, is changing the work of two other editors back to how s/he believes the page should read, and won't engage on his/her talk page. Is this considered vandalism for AIV purposes? Is there something I should do that I haven't done yet?  Eyer ^contact  03:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Eyer Pls provide editor/IP name that you mentioned above to understand and to advise further if the editor made vandalized edits or it is a content dispute. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA — Thanks. I appreciate another set of eyes. It's User:Tbum777. In a diff, the editor stated "I am an employee of the University and I have corrected information." On a previous version of the user's talk page, the editor stated "I have been instructed my the President of the institution to correct the information."  Eyer ^contact  03:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Eyer, this is useful information about what looks like a serious policy violation. Please file a report at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, which is the proper venue to look into this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Eyer and Tbum777:, I had a look at the edit made by both of you and you guys are engaging in WP:edit warring and would subject to be blocked for both of you violated the WP:3RR guideline. Pls stop revert each other edit immediately and bring the discussion to the article talk page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been trying to engage the editor on the User talk page. I'll try to engage on the article Talk page instead. I will still go to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, as I believe this is still an issue. Thanks again.  Eyer ^contact  03:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Eyer: You have warned Tbum777 on their talk page and not engaging in a discussion that is a big different. Communication is the key to resolve the issue in the article talk page to find a resolution. Do note any info change need to support by independent reliable source. If that doest not work then bring the issue to WP:ANI. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: To be fair to me, my warning included an invitation to discuss the situation: "[Y]ou may want to make use of the page Talk:Midwest University, to discuss any changes you propose. I am happy to facilitate changes to the article on your behalf." I welcome feedback on how I can communicate better, though, and I've taken yours. I'll post an invitation for discussion on the article talk page and see if that helps. Thanks again.  Eyer ^contact  03:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Henry

I wrote a question that was mistaken as an article. I don't know Henry's last name but do know he acted in a classical kdrama and does cameoes on Home Alone. I wanted to know what the name of his new Historical Chinese dramas is. I also wonder why Home Alone isn't in his credits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.229.126 (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

See the answer to your previous question at #Henry above. David Biddulph (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Dead Link Need Help

Hi, I fixed a dead link:

• 1959 BMW Isetta / Hot Wheels WHATTADRAG

after putting in the correct url, should I remove the dead link part:

Or should I leave that for the moderator to check the work and they'll remove that part?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpful Hippopotamus (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Helpful Hippopotamus, welcome to the Teahouse! There are no moderators specifically checking everyone else's work. Editors are encouraged to be BOLD here. You do what you think will improve the encyclopedia. If someone thinks it makes it worse instead, they'll undo your work and then you talk it out with them and settle on an improvement that the whole community can get on board with. Having said that, rest assured, one of your fellow editors has the page on their watchlist, more likely than not, and they are going to check what you did.

Back to the matter at hand, make sure you've replaced that link with a link that's both live and verifies the exact same things that the previous link was cited for, then you must remove that warning as well, since that was exactly why it was placed there-- so someone sees it and fixes it. Once you've fixed it, it would be saying there's a problem where there isn't. What good is that going to do anybody ? Important: When you are saving an edit, you get a window that asks what you've done. Please be sure to fill in an accurate summary of exactly what changes you've made in that edit, so the other editors and even yourself coming back later have an accurate picture of what improvements were made in each edit. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 16:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation :)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpful Hippopotamus (talk • contribs) 22:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Helpful Hippopotamus: And please remember to sign your posts and comments here and on Talk pages. All it takes is four tildes: ~~~~. The automatic repair gets tedious to keep seeing, "Preceding unsigned comment added by...". Thanks in advance. --Thnidu (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Yes, of course. Helpful Hippopotamus (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Wiki article was created with an individuals formerly known as name?

Hi,

There is a wiki article under the name Michael Hiltner- he is still living and has been known as Victor Vincente of America (his now legal name) since the 70s. I am working on an article about him, but believe the title should be changed and there should be a "...formerly known as Michael Beckwith Hiltner," in the bio section. From what I've read, it's not so simple to change this. Would someone share what my options are, if any? I want there to be a fleshed out and acurate article that reflects the name he's had for the last almost 50 years.

Thank you, Ash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelvie (talk • contribs) 02:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy: Article title is Michael Hiltner, not MBH. David notMD (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Corrected original post to reflect accurate article title. Oh, the irony! Aelvie (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Aelvie, the relevant information to your query is at the WP:NCP page, particularly the WP:SPNC section. Since it's quite clear, and is a hassle to summarise, I recommend reading the page itself. If you still have questions after reading it, we can discuss it further. As to the particulars of what your options are, it always starts with beginning a conversation at the most relevant page. If no one objects, it could become as simple as a BOLD page move to the new name. Otherwise, standard WP:DR procedure applies. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 13:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions

hello, I have edited an Arabic page but it says it is" Flagged Revisions" I would like to know the reason please and how I can fix it. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temlal Rozi (talk • contribs) 13:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Temlal Rozi: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As your account has no other edits to the English Wikipedia other than your above comment, I assume you are referring to a page on the Arabic Wikipedia; you will need to address any issues with your edits to that version of Wikipedia there. Each language version of Wikipedia is its own project, with its own rules and processes. If I am in error, please clarify. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Temlal Rozi: Hi and welcome to the English Wikipedia Teahouse. Please note that we cannot answer questions about other projects here, each language Wikipedia has their own rules and procedures. If you look on the left side of this page (at the top), you will see a box entitled "languages", there you can find a link to the Teahouse on the Arabic Wikipedia. You might also want to read meta:Flagged Revisions. Regards SoWhy 13:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages of Draft articles?

Most Draft articles have no content on the Talk page, but I've seen a few. What happens if the article goes through successfully? Does the article start with a blank Talk page, or does the content carry over? David notMD (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Article is moved to the mainspace to preserve history of contributors, talkpage follows wherever the article goes, history and all. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 15:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

My edits - Are they trolling?

I was reading User:Jimbo Wales and saw a word in a sentence that added nothing it. I removed it with an edit summary of better. User:Serial Number 54129 reverted the edit with no explanation as to what was wrong with the edit. I restored my edit and used a better edit summary, "unexplained revert, no need for either of these words, they add nothing to the sentence" Serial Number 54129 again reverted the edit without explaining why. I went to User talk:Serial Number 54129#User:Jimbo Wales and asked for an explanation why they reverted the edits. The response was that user pages shouldn't be refactored. I discussed that doesn't apply to that page as Jimbo has specifically said that he wants people to edit his page. Their response is that you can edit but the edit might not stand. I responded that I accept that but not that no valid reason is given to revert the edit. The response is a huge picture of books. With that being their only response I removed the word again. This time the revert had a reason, "rm trolling". As this was their 3rd revert in 3 hours, I left an edit warring template on their talk page and explained I was not trolling but making an edit I thought was an improvement and no one had countered. Those two edits were reverted by User:Bonadea with an edit summary of "Well, this is certainly trolling". I left a message for Bonadea asking how that is trolling (they have yet to edit since they reverted the edits). Then over an hour after Serial Number 54129 made their last revert, they left a warning on my talk page calling my edits; "test edits". I would like someone else's opinion. Are my edits trolling? And if you feel they are trolling, please explain how they are trolling. 155.178.180.12 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

If you make one edit, and it's reverted, that's not trolling. If you make it three times, and it's reverted each time, then you aren't listening. As Administrator Iridescent advised you, in the case of this particular paragraph the wording was carefully chosen by him to address particular issues (that sources differ regarding his name and date of birth, which causes obvious issues when it comes to being the figurehead of a project based on only reflecting sources), and probably shouldn't be changed without good reason ([1]). Not me, not Larry Sanger, and not you. Incidentally, Bonadea was referring exclusively to your edits on my talk, which by then was patent trolling. ——SerialNumber54129 17:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, I want someone else's opinion. 155.178.180.12 (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

When you make stylistic changes to the prose on a user page, you have not improved it. By insisting on repeating that change, you become a pest. Please do not persist.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, what would you have done if I had logged into my account and made the same edit. ~ GB fan 18:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Filed against you at WP:ANI, GB fan, probably. After all, logging out and making disruptive edits is not exactly approved of. I'm far more lenient with transients. How goes the retirement? ——SerialNumber54129 18:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, What I am asking is if I had made the exact same edit from my logged in account as I made from the IP, what would you have done. Would you have reverted the edit with no edit summary? I have not made any disruptive edits, I am not avoiding scrutiny. I made an edit that improved the sentence and you disruptively reverted without explaining why. ~ GB fan 18:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You keep telling yourself that. You really think you know better than Iridescent? One does not "disruptively" revert an unnecessary edit to another user's talk page. ——SerialNumber54129 18:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say that the revert was disruptive. I am saying reverting without an adequate explanation why you are reverting is disruptive. ~ GB fan 18:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Would you have reverted the exact same edit made by this account without explaining why you were making the revert? ~ GB fan 18:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

So, to clarify, you thought it would be a good idea to log out and then edit the most high-profile user page on the project? Incredible. ——SerialNumber54129 18:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I logged out over a month ago except for a single edit. I was reading and noticed the extra word and removed it. I did not log out to edit the page. You still haven't said if you would have reverted without explanation if my account had made the edit. To me that indicates you wouldn't. ~ GB fan 18:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP user, as per our article on the subject, Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation... If you would like to further explore the topic, you can raise the question at the reference desk. The Teahouse can only tell you what you can do with the issue you have encountered. When someone reverts you for the first time without a summary, you are within your rights to revert it back and ask for an explanation in the summary. But, if it's reverted again, you have found yourself in a content dispute and are advised to follow dispute resolution procedures, even if the other user doesn't give a reason for the revert. At the very least, this gives you a highground if you end up having to seek third party intervention. You should not violate the WP:3RR rules, and can report the other user to WP:AN3 if they do. Keep in mind though that, in a highly vandalised page like User:Jimbo Wales, experienced editors of good repute might have a valid case for violating 3RR, as vandalism is an exception to that rule. The WP:TALK could be invoked and work in their favor as well, despite the fact that the user specifically asked you to edit (Note that the user has also said that vandalisms will be reverted promptly by watchful others.). Now, with regard to the content dispute, per WP:BRD, you should take the matter to the talk page of the relevant page, which is user talk:Jimbo Wales. Taking it to the editor's talk page had better be done only if the editor doesn't respond to a call for discussion on the relevant talk page. Note that a user talk page could be watched by many of their friends, and you might find yourself a minority pretty quickly. Alternatively, they might have pissed off a lot of disruptive editors in the past, and the opposite might happen. As such, that is not a neutral ground for seeking consensus over a dispute. When and if you can't resolve the dispute between yourselves, you can ask for a third opinion, and if that doesn't work, you can start a formal Request for comment. Refer back to WP:DR for full details and procedures. If the other editor is uncivil or displays disruptive behaviour during your attempt at dispute resolution and consensus building, you can seek administrator support at WP:ANI. I would add that WP:POINT and WP:IAR also exist and should be kept in mind when you enter a formal process in Wikipedia. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 19:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

User:GB fan, if you are indeed the one who was asking the question as an IP, I would remind you that the Teahouse is a place for novice editors to seek guidance, and definitely not one to make a wikipolitical WP:POINT. I advise you to seek resolution through the channels I advised of above, which you might already know of as well. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 19:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Whilst the Teahouse has been specifically designed to make it easy for new users to ask questions, it is not solely a place for novice editors to ask questions. In fact, anyone can ask a question. Also, this (to me) seems WP:NOTPOINTy (making a point is different that disrupting to show a point). --MrClog (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree you have a point, but I also stand by my original remarks, LOL! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 22:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I would just like to weigh in here for a moment and make some commentary on the actual stylistic consequence of the removal of the word that is at the heart of this matter. The editor changed the sentence People sometimes assume that "Jimmy" is just a nickname for "James" to People sometimes assume that "Jimmy" is a nickname for "James", and I would register my disagreement with the suggestion that the word "just" there is a word that, to paraphrase the poster, adds nothing. I would actually suggest that it in fact adds nuance. Compare for example the circumstance where you say that somebody "is a lyricist"; if you were to append that sentence to say that the same somebody "is just a lyricist" you have immediately signaled your view that a lyricist is a lesser thing than some other quality of thing. In exactly that way this sentence signals that a nickname is actually understood to be considered to be inferior in some sense or to some degree to the name that it is derived from, and that this person in fact does not consider their name to bear such a badge of inferiority to the name from which people might incorrectly assume that it was derived. StewBrewer (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@StewBrewer: If "somebody 'is just a lyricist'" that would mean that he only write the words as against a lyricist/composer or singer/songwriter, I don't see it as demeaning lyricists. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

This may indeed be true, but even if it is not taken as demeaning, it is still setting it apart from the other thing. I would continue to maintain that the sentence has a different meaning with it from without it. StewBrewer (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Log in and Synchronization

Since a while my Tablet Fire HD (Fire OSD 6.3.0.1) stopped synching with my Android one smartphone. The moment I log In Wikipedia on my Fire tablet I get the message “logged in”. Unfortunately, Wikipedia keeps showing “LOG IN”. I guess I’m not properly logged in and thus synchronization does not work? This worked in the beginning. Both devices update OS automatically. It is impossible to know this problem started after a certain update. Thank you for helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dqcrob (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Clear your browser cache to log out. If on a PC do the same and then flush your DNS. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 17:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

page deletion

Hi,

Hope you're well.

I have edited the AdviceUK page on Wikipedia, however it has been deleted for copyright reasons. The text has been used from our website and it is our context, it is not copywriting. Can you please explain why this has been taken down?

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Kind Regards,

Aashish Parmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by AParmar2019 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aashish. Even if you own the content, you cannot use it on Wikipedia as it would still be copyright (you would hold the copyright) and Wikipedia requires all content to be copyright-free. You would need to donate the material under an appropriate license, and you can find more information about that here: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

Also, I can't see the deleted page so I'm not sure what the background is or what you mean by 'your website', but it's worth noting that if you work for an organisation that is related to the page you are editing, then you should be aware of our policies on conflict of interest and paid editing. I hope this helps Hugsyrup (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, AParmsr2019, even if you donate the material, it is most unlikely that the content of the organisation's website will be suitable for a Wikipedia article about the organisation. A Wikipedia article should be almost entirely based on material which people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject. What the subject of the article says or wants to say about themselves is almost irrelevant. Most of the factual content of the website will be inadmissible unless it is also published in independent sources; and the way that material is presented is not likely to be neutral. --ColinFine (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I seem to be incapable of typing your user name right. Repinging again AParmar2019. --ColinFine (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Publishing About A Comoany.

I have a company registered in London. I want to put my company details on the wikipedia for better understanding about my company. But when i placed my article Wikipedia have deleted my article. How can i put my company information on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UKTASK (talk • contribs) 17:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the user, who seems to be only here to promote their company. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Bishonen | talk 18:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC).

Blocked on account of your User name (which can be remedied) and because Wikipedia is not media for explanation of companies. Rather, what is essential is content written about the company by people completely unrelated to the company. Without seeing what you wrote, guessing that the company has not reached that level of notability. David notMD (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Street success

Oh what a blessing, oh what a lesson that the street could bring don't wanna miss it just like child lean a.c.d 123 as I step to the street o Lord have mercy, street success Lord never make me ckik buket gat make money filled ma pocket (yeah) street might be hard but never too bad just wanna find away to succeed now, street is rugged money matter you get I get that's it better you been through I been through you know how it is money talking buisness — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zealmoses (talk • contribs) 18:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse is a place to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia, and your User page is a place for you to provide information about yourself that will help people understand your qualifications and interests in being a Wikipedia editor. David notMD (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)