Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 999

Archive 995

←

Archive 997

Archive 998

Archive 999

Archive 1000

Archive 1001

→

Archive 1005

Joseph Benti addition to Studio City page removed

My question is concerning an addition of a notable person 'Joseph Benti' which I added to this page, that was immediately removed by BeenAroundAwhile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_City,_Los_Angeles#Notable_people

Here is the following cite that I wrote which was removed:

• Joseph Benti, CBS news journalist and anchorman

Prior to joining CBS network news in NYC, Mr. Benti started his career in Los Angeles working for KTLA which was owned by Gene Autry. I have included a Radaris link, which shows the Dona Dorotea address: https://radaris.com/~Emanuel-Benti/1061252293

The Wiki Studio City article does not specify that the reference of notable people must show their Studio City address in the article. Also, Mr. Benti does not use his first name, which is Emanuel. It was my opinion that the links to his work covering the assassination of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy were vastly more important than a reference to his home address.

However I will add a third reference from Los Angeles Magazine, June 1983 called "Second Chance Daddies" which references Mr. Benti's Laurel Canyon home. Included in the article are Harvey Cantor, the great civil rights photographer Steve Schapiro, Roger Gimbel, Al Campbell, and Harvey Korman. Five of Mr. Benti's children all attended and graduated from schools in Studio City that include: Carpenter Avenue Elementary, Walter Reed, Campbell Hall, and Corvallis High School (now Bridges Academy).

I have rewritten the article to include a third source from Los Angeles Magazine.

• Joseph Benti, CBS news journalist and anchorman

References

The advice in such cases is at WP:Write the article first. If you draft an article with appropriate sourcing, & get it approved through the Articles for creation process, you could then link to the new article from the list of notable people. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

References

User:David Biddulph: This is not an article. It is an edit to an existing page. Yosemite4 (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Yosemite4 what do you specially need help with. It looks like you have had help on your talk page previously about this topic. ThePacificMan (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Also some of those references don't make sense to the topic..ThePacificMan (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, Yosemite4. As I told you on my talk page, there is widespread general consensus among experienced editors that lists of "notable people" on Wikipedia be limited to those people who are already the subjects of existing Wikipedia biographies. Those lists should consist of blue links, not red links or unlinked names. So, the first step is to write an acceptable Wikipedia biography of Benti. You can find advice at Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there ThePacificMan Here is another reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Early_Show

He was anchorperson of the first hour-long network news program in history.

Now, as a point of discussion. William Shatner, who we all know as Captain Kirk, or the spokesman for Priceline.com, has one reference to a wikipedia page that says nothing about William Shatner. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_City,_Los_Angeles#cite_note-72 Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FYI_(American_TV_channel)#The_Biography_Channel

Yosemite4 (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a place to discuss this matter at Talk:Studio_City,_Los_Angeles#Joseph_Benti BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

William Shatner is a very famous actor and his Wikipedia biography has 108 references. Joseph Benti is the subject of a completely unreferenced Wikipedia article that was deleted in 2007. There is a very big difference. If you want to add Joseph Benti to lists of notable people, then write an acceptable, well referenced draft article for him through the Articles for creation process. Please be sure to let people know that you have a conflict of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Benti addition to Studio City

I have asked that all discussion be submitted to the TEAHOUSE page article and not a relentless surge of private emails. The following editors have removed my submission without checking the edit. [User: David Biddulph] who lives in Britain and has no knowledge of Studio City.

Here is my edit:

• Joseph Benti, CBS news journalist and anchorman

I don't think it is fair to threaten me which is what this fellow did via my talk page. Please comment on the submission which now links to a Wikipedia page.

<excerpt from user's talk page redacted, as it isn't needed here>— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosemite4 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

References

This isn't needed and just because someone is from a different country doesn't mean they don't know about that article. Please stop resubmitting. ThePacificMan (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yosemite4, Teahouse isn't the place to discuss content. Please take it to the talk page of relevant article/s. And please refrain from making ad-hominem comments on fellow editors. Where an editor is from, has nothing to do with what they could know of, nor does what an editor knows have anything to do with editing an encyclopedia. See WP:Verifiability.

As to what you characterise as threatening, those are automated messages generated to alert users who repeat unconstructive actions. The messages get more terse every iteration. This is done to impart upon users the seriousness of their actions when the first messages which are friendly reminders don't seem to work. Please note that, eventually, those messages will run out and when that happens, an admin action may be sought. Some people have a particular distaste of automated messages and will leave a personal message like Cullen328 did. But, leaving an automated message is not a threat, even if it appears offensive to you. If you find it offensive, reply to them there and say so. The trick is to address the relevant conduct before it has to get to the level of needing harsher warnings. And David Biddulph's message was polite in any case, you may be thinking of someone else.Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 07:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove all conversation pertaining to Joseph Benti

You Wikipedia editors won. You actually have made it so I can't remove it. Clearly intended to destroy.

I want the personal material that I placed, removed from the TEAHOUSE. It is clear I have violated your standards and did without any direction. Remove the material.

My deletion is my edit. I came there for help and was debauched by a bunch of editors more concerned about being right than helping. It is clear that noon is interested in helping. No one even bothered to read my four submissions to the Studio City page. This is a bunch of men complicit in destroying a woman and hiding behind their screen names to do it.

Yosemite4 (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you be so kind as to direct me to this incodent/edit in question? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 08:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I can see the discussion, but I’m not sure what part you’re referring to. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 08:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Willbb234 It no longer matters.Yosemite4 (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Yosemite4, your attacks are out of line. I'd redact them before more people see them. Please see WP:AGF. You are sorely mistaken if you think that that kind of attack will distract/deter people from acting to protect the encyclopedia and the community from disruptive behaviour such as yours. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 09:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Please remove all my sections referring to Joseph Benti - you won

Please remove all of my input concerning Joseph Benti. I submitted four revised entires based on input I received in private messages. And not one of them was answered.

What a swamp. Everyone hiding behind their screen names.

Yosemite4 (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

All sections are automatically archived by a bot, at the appropriate time. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 09:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

As noted at the top of every edit window, "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." Posts will not be removed just because you want them to be, sorry. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Citing foreign references/sources

Hi,

I'm working on writing a Wikipedia page, I've started to collect all of my sources (according to the notability, etc.), and I was wondering if I can use notable sources of articles that are NOT in English. How can I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merelmar (talk • contribs) 09:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Verifiability#Non-English sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Freud-Hitler

Hi! I read an old news that Sigmund Freud suggested in 1895 that Adolf Hitler be committed to a mental institution and that's not mentioned in "Early years" of the Hitler's article. Should it be included? I don't want to edit an already Good Article. Thanks. --CoryGlee (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you have the news source that says that? That is the first step in determining if it is something that is worthy of inclusion into the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Where is your reference to a published reliable source for this? - David Biddulph (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @David Biddulph: and @Sir Joseph:, I was reading this This and sources in Spanish such as this La Nación. --CoryGlee (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, your first piece doesn't make the connection, just suggests it, so that would not be able to be used. The second piece, is an opinion piece, so I'm not sure, considering that I am reading a machine translation, and it's an opinion piece. But we would usually require more scholarly sources, especially for something like this. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

In 1895 Hitler was only 6 years old. So, this is unlikely that anybody would consider committing him at such a young age. This looks like just a piece of fake news. Ruslik_Zero 10:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

how to add a reference

Greetings!

I tried to search for that help topic but found none. I need to put a ref link (the list at the bottom of the page) to the EDIT I put in. I can't seem to edit the reference list. Can anyone help me out on this?

Thank you!

Ray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagganath69 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

See Help:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Nesting Infobox Academic in Infobox Officeholder.

The article I am having trouble with is Marie Smallface Marule. I was trying to produce a infobox similar to those on Francis Collins (scientist) and Robert C. Robbins (medical). When I try to nest/embed the academic infobox, I run into issues. Thank you! Thsmi002 (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thsmi002 there doesn't appear to be a set standard in implementing that. I tried the other parameter I knew and it worked. There may be templates in which neither of these work, who knows? Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 14:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool:, thank you! I forgot about the "child" parameter. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to Teahouse

How can i send new users invitation of teahouse when they creat an account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayson78740732156 (talk • contribs)

If you use Twinkle, you can use that to leave a welcome template on their talk page - they include an invitation to the Teahouse, as well as other useful links to help get them started. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Is Mount Major, Victoria, Australia notable?

I recently visited Mount Major, Victoria, Australia, which is near Dookie, Victoria. I was surprised to find there was no article about it on wikipedia (there is an article on a different Mount Major in the U.S.A.)

I would like to write a short article about it, but I'm not sure whether it's notable enough. I can't find much information about it, apart from brief mentions of the geology and location. e.g. http://greatershepparton.com.au/assets/files/documents/community/recreation/Walk_in_Greater_Shepparton_guide_-_final_version_May_2013.PDF

What's the verdict? Is it worth an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Explodingbrain (talk • contribs) 15:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Explodingbrain WP:GEOLAND says that named geographical features are often notable, provided that information beyond simple statistics can be found. In practice, pretty much any article about a named geographic feature is retained, per WP:MAPOUTCOMES. The source you link isn't quite a solid-gold RS, but I can't see anyone quibbling about that if you want to write the article. Quick check on Google also threw up this which should give you a bit of info about it's geology to work with, looks like there's more out there. I think you're good to go. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Explodingbrain. Welcome. Yes, I would say that it definitely is, as it appears to be a genuine geographic feature. Providing you can prove that it actually exists (and your one source does do that), you're good to go. You'll need to distinguish it from other Mount Majors, if these exist (I've not checked), and add some coordinates via an Infobox if you can. Let us know if you need further help. Working on a draft is the best way, via Articles for Creation. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Move Burn (Hamilton song)

Is this copyvio? -- CptViraj (📧) 15:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

They're attributed direct quotations, with links to their sources, so I don't think they're COPYVIO. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha, i've confirmed other sources, i think article is ready, accepted. Thanks! -- CptViraj (📧) 15:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Cursor jumping when copying or cutting text

Hi - I realise I'm kind of forum shopping here, but if anyone has any insight into the issue discussed here it might save me a chunk of time experimenting with uninstalling and reinstalling a bunch of scripts. Basically, whenever I copy or cut text when editing anything on EnWiki, my cursor jumps to the top of the page, forcing me to scroll down to find where I was again. It only happens on EnWiki, not on (for example) meta, or in other applications, and Schazjmd has said they've got the same problem. I suspect it's something to do with a script I've got installed, but I've no idea which one, so unless anyone has any tips I'm going to spend a bit of time uninstalling all my scripts and then reinstalling them one by one to see if I can get to the root of it. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Just an update on this, in case it rings a bell with anyone. Through some experimenting, Schazjmd and I have determined that it's something in preferences that seems to be causing it, rather than a script - he was able to stop it happening by disabling the 'Syntax highlighter', which is odd because it happens to me and I don't use that. The only way I've been able to stop it happening is to switch off the 2010 editing toolbar, which is probably too big a sacrifice. If anyone has any suggestions... GirthSummit _(blether) 14:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Its not really forum shopping, but it can dilute discussions if you raise an issue in more than one place without linking to the main location for that discussion. I hope anyone contributing will do so at your original post. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Is the link in my first sentence above not sufficient? Sorry if I've misunderstood you, are you saying I should have displayed the actual location rather than using a pipe? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Doh - completely missed that! Take your pick of excuses from a) my tiny phone screen, b) bright sunlight, c) my declining eyesight d) my inability to read tiny links properly e) my stupidity. (or all of them!) Nick Moyes (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: No worries - it's an interesting point though, using small words in lower case to represent important links in a discussion perhaps isn't the wisest idea, I'll think about that in future. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Page "Gramophone" is badly needed

• EN pedia
  • Gramophone - more or less a redirect (UPDATE: formally a disambiguation page)
  • Record player - redirect
  • Phonograph - messy
• data
  • d:Q7112808 - via "Record player" to "Phonograph"
  • d:Q116434 is subclass of d:Q7112808 - directly to "Phonograph"

Two data items (one is subclass of the other) point to same page at EN pedia. And EN pedia is the only one lacking a usable page "Gramophone". This is not great. Taylor 49 (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello there! You can Be Bold and improve the articles yourself. Other than that, I don’t really understand what you are saying. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Gramophone is a disambiguation page, not a redirect. If you are suggesting that there is a primary topic, the place to discuss that would be the talk page of the disambiguation page. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Cugnot's 1771 fardier à vapeur

Taylor 49 has a good point. The relevant link on the Gramophone disambiguation page is to Phonograph, which covers what used to be called gramophones and are now called record players. I have to click "page down" eight times before I find a picture of anything resembling a modern record player. Using the title "phonograph" when it hasn't been current for sixty years is absurd. And the image at the top of the article should be of a modern device, not one made in 1878. Sensibly, automobile redirects to car, which has an image of modern cars at the top. If it were titled "road locomotive" and had this image at the top, it would be laughable. Maproom (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Apparently this has been discussed several times with contradicting results: [1] the "approximate consensus" is very weak [2]. I am saying that a consensus about terminology (what "phonograph" and gramophone" are supposed to be) is needed and should be followed for all affected pages on all wikies (EN wikipedia, wikidata, commons). The existing situation is desperate (EN wiki the only one lacking a page about "gramophone", messy terminology with "gramophone" ?? "phonograph" ?? "turntable" ?? "record player". How are "phonogaph" and "gramophone" supposed to relate to each other?

• perfect synonyms ?
• "gramophone" is a hyponym of "phonograph" ?
• "phonograph" and "gramophone" are hyponyms of "device recording or playing sound stored as physical deviations of a groove located on a cylinder or disc"

I am proposing following solution:

• "phonograph" and "gramophone" are hyponyms of "device recording or playing sound stored as physical deviations of a groove located on a cylinder or disc"
• move Gramophone to Gramophone (disambiguation) (needs sysop's super-power, I can't "be bold" and do it myself)
• move Phonograph record to Gramophone record (needs sysop's super-power, I can't "be bold" and do it myself)
• create a page "Gramophone" as a primary topic about "modern" gramophones ie devices playing black "vinyl" discs
• reduce page "Phonograph" to the original invention using cylinders to record and play sound
• do something about LP record (more or less a dupe of Gramophone record/Phonograph record)

Arguments:

• all other languages distinguish between "phonograph" and "gramophone"
• there are 2 separate items on wikidata (and I would oppose an idea to merge them)
• the term "gramophone" is most precise (as opposed to "phonograph" that is the original invention, "turntable" that can be a Railway turntable, "record player" is confusing and can play pretty anything (sound __record__ed on magnetic tape, etc)
• the disc with the sound stored should have same name as the device playig it ie "gramophone"
• "vinyl" is a bad name since early gramophone records vere not made of Polyvinyl chloride and even worse, vinyl is NOT the same as PVC, thus saying "vinyl" instead of "Polyvinyl chloride" is slang
• Deciding_on_an_article_title: Precision Conciseness Consistency - "gramophone" is the best word

see also Talk:Phonograph_record#Requested_move_17_August_2019 -- Taylor 49 (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it's a UK/US thing. Almost everyone here in the UK calls the things with turntables that you play records on "record players", and has done so for at least 50 years. The word "gramophone" is still understood, particularly in the context "wind-up gramophone". I suspect few of my fellow Brits even know what a phonograph is. So it's weird that en:WP's article on these devices is titled "phonograph". It even has a section Phonograph#Phonographs in the 21st century, which makes me wonder if it's a joke. Maproom (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

New article

Dose anyone want to help make Draft:List of animated shows by episode count Fanoflionking 18:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Is Eno the Emu notable?

I was thinking of writing an article about Eno the Emu but found it hard to tell if he was notable. There seem to be a good number of sources, including some non-local ones: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/07/eno-the-emu-north-carolina-wanted https://www.travelandleisure.com/animals/eno-emu-loose-in-north-carolina https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/01/us/emu-north-carolina-trnd/index.html And some more detailed local ones: https://chapelboro.com/town-square/eno-the-emu-eludes-authorities-draws-national-headlines https://www.cbs17.com/news/eno-the-emu-spotted-in-hillsborough-still-on-the-run/ There doesn't seem to be very clear notability guidelines for Eno the Emu and other people or animals who are known, but not for doing much except existing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Existence_%E2%89%A0_Notability#Don't_create_an_article_on_a_news_story_covered_in_109_newspapers also seems like it might affect it. Mcavoybickford (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure Eno would be notable. If we were to treat them as if they were a human, WP:BLP1E would apply - Eno's only notable for a single event, i.e. escaping. So, probably not (sorry Eno!). Others may have other views. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

As a suggestion, perhaps if Eno himself is not notable, his escape and the subsequent efforts to catch him might be. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.24.56 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I do think that WP:BLP1E does indicate that it would be a close call on notability, but the fact that it is now in a marketing campaign means that it might not meet criteria 2, and so be notable enough. I'm also not sure if the fact that it has been locally reported on for more than a month affects it. It would probably have sections about identity, escape, sightings, capture attempts, marketing campaign. If not, should it be a section of the Chapel Hill article? Mcavoybickford (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking about this a bit more, in terms of other notable famous animals. Knut (polar bear) was notable, and he didn't even escape, but he was in the public eye for quite a while. The Tamworth Two are probably closer the mark - I remember that being in the news for quite a while though, and their deaths were also reported nationally because they'd become so famous. If this story maintains the public eye for a while and Eno continues to receive attention, perhaps they will become notable. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

​ I see from the new pages feed that you've gone for it. I'm in two minds about this - I'll wait to see what others think. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Q

I haven't been here in a few years and I want to know what policy changes have been made since then. I also want to know if Arbcom is nicer than it was in 2016? Thanks. 1YoudKnowIfUNEW (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: This user has been indefinitely blocked as a WP:SOCKPUPPET. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieving a draft paga

How can I retrieve my page draft? I just submitted it a few minutes ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.Migeotte (talk • contribs) 01:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Th.Migeotte If you are referring to Draft:Thierry Migeotte (Sound Engineer/Producer), it is still there. It does not go anywhere when you submit it. It appears that you have not yet submitted it, though. 331dot (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

If you haven't already, please review the autobiography policy; it is strongly discouraged to write about yourself(though not forbidden). 331dot (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

How to create a wiki page without an error?

How to create a wiki page without an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uthayakaren (talk • contribs) 02:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

"Error" is a relative term. The best articles result from following the rules and recommendations of Wikipedia. In addition to the useful links posted on your Talk page, also please read WP:Citing sources.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Writing An Article On Pawan Singh National Rifle Assciation

Hi, I am writing an article on pawan Singh. Kindly,can anyone guide me that the coverage links which i have with me do they match the notability criteria. As i have gone through the coverage links, and they are appropriate. Mentioning below the coverage links:

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/more-sports/shooting/pawan-singh-is-first-indian-to-be-elected-in-issfs-judges-committee/articleshow/66921388.cms
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/more-sports/shooting/pawan-singh-becomes-first-indian-shooting-jury-to-get-selected-for-olympics/articleshow/68860992.cms
• http://www.sakaltimes.com/sports/pawan-singh-first-indian-issf-judges-committee-28618
• http://www.punekarnews.in/former-india-shooting-coach-pawan-singh-to-conduct-training-to-create-future-shooting-judges/
• https://nrinews24x7.com/pawan-singh-becomes-first-indian-shooting-jury-to-get-selected-for-tokyo-olympics-2020/
• http://newsonair.nic.in/Main-News-Details.aspx?id=356234
• https://m.dailyhunt.in/news/india/english/news+bharati-epaper-newsbhar/grabbing+talent+on+international+dais+pawan+singh+is+first+indian+to+be+elected+in+issf+s+judges+committee-newsid-103390945
• https://onlinetyari.com/latest-news-articles/pawan-singh-first-indian-to-be-elected-to-i80120.html
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/west/pune-based-gurukul-gun-for-glory-determine-to-make-shooting-a-recreational-sport/articleshow/12704704.cms?from=mdr
• http://beta1times.sakalmediagroup.com/sports/pawan-singh-appointed-%E2%80%98competitions-manager%E2%80%99-7852
• https://www.newsbharati.com/Encyc/2018/12/4/Pawan-Singh-ISSF-judge.html
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/pune-news/india-has-chances-of-winning-more-medals-in-2020-tokyo-olympics-says-pawan-singh/story-Al8t0ECaog8STq1hFU8B8J.html
• https://realtime.rediff.com/news/-national-rifle-association-of-india
• https://www.fresherslive.com/current-affairs/articles/pawan-singh-is-the-first-indian-to-be-elected-in-issf-judges-committee-16813
• http://chandigarh.hubshooting.com/search/jui-pawan-singh/1
• https://www.channel1.in/pawan-singh-first-indian-to-be-elected-in-issfs-judges-committee/

Kindly someone have a look, and let me know. Regarding this.--Arjunsingh5478 (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

We are all volunteers here. I, at least, have better uses for my time than to go through all 16 links above and check which of them help to establish that Singh is notable. I suggest that you choose the four best of the links, and just post those for someone to check. Prefer sources with in-depth discussion of him, not just generated from a press release, and covering more than his appointment to one particular rȏle. Maproom (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted articles

Hello, I recently created Pembroke Aircraft Leasing 4 Ltd and Kieran Corr and they both got deleted for no reason. What happened. ThePacificMan (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You asked, and were answered, at #Hello above. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC) Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No I didn't. ThePacificMan (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You did, and if you continue to disrupt this forum, you will be blocked.331dot (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok sorry I don't understand what Nick Moyes is saying.ThePacificMan (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, ThePacificMan. I'm sorry if my explanation to your question above (Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)) wasn't clear. What particular bit would you like me (or others) to try to explain differently? I'm afraid we do expect editors, when pointed to other guidance pages to go off, read and attempt to understand them themselves and then to come back for assistance if they're still confused. Some of those explanations can be quite confusing to begin with, so you will need to commit to trying to understand them. The messages on your talk page really should explain what was the cause of their deletion. I need you to read them carefully and follow the blue hyperlinks to relevant policies and guidance pages. Having done that, if you help me understand what you don't follow, I'll try and help you in return.

In essence, this encyclopaedia will only accept articles on topics that meet our Notability guidelines. Drafts or pages that are considered promotional or non-notable do get put forward for speedy deletion, and those pages are liable to be deleted, well, pretty rapidly. I know it's darned frustrating, but it's nothing personal, and it's happened to many of us (including me). Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I have read some stuff on my previous question and my talk page. I still don't understand what reliable and non-reliable sources. To everyone on Wikipedia I'm sorry for my messages on this page yesterday. ThePacificMan (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, ThePacificMan thank you very much for that apology. Let's put it all behind us and move on. If nobody replies to you, I'll try and explain what's meant by it, but I'll have to wait till I can sit down at a keyboard and compose a good reply. That'll be at least sometime around 22:00 UTC tonight, or possibly tomorrow. Sorry about that. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

That's ok there's days when we're busy just like me today :) ThePacificMan (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@ThePacificMan: Right, I've got 20 minutes before I have to go out for the day. Understanding the difference between reliable and unreliable sources is key too contributing to Wikipedia, so I'm glad you asked. Because we're an encyclopaedia of notable topics, not a collection of biased opinions or promotional guff on every single thing under the sun, we have to source everything that we collate here. And those sources have to be reliable. By that we mean the sources we cite have to be independent of the subject and be written by people who can be trusted. These would include newspaper editors, established book authors, news media with good editorial control (i.e. not the biased fake news type websites). We need to provide sources that other users can go off and find, believing them to be reliable. (See [[WP:RS|this guideline on reliable sources). Companies or people usually like to promote themselves in a way that makes them seem better than they are, and to hide all the bad stuff. So we don't regard those companies or people (who we term 'primary sources') as reliable. So if we write about a company, we need to pay little attention to their own website and PR material. Instead we judge whether a company or thing is notable by whether or not other people (authors, journalists, scientists etc) have taken notice and written about them in a format that we would accept as 'reliable'. The opposite of a 'reliable source' is an 'unreliable source'. Here, we'd include company websites and social media accounts, user-edit forums and user-edited websites (such as IMDB for films), Linked-In CVs, and so on. These are primary sources and can't be fully trusted to fairly portray the topic. You can imagine that my own website profile would be unlikely to tell you about my imprisonment for fraud and embezzlement, drug taking and that murder charge. My website would be deemed an 'unreliable source' as a place to go to get true information about me. In contrast, a good quality newspaper that reported on my trial and imprisonment would be regarded as a reliable source to add to an encyclopaedia article about me, provided it was written in a neutral and accurate way. Thankfully I'm not notable enough to have an article here, so none of my personal secrets have yet come out. (only joking!). On the subject of 'truth' - one complication is that what we do cite here doesn't necessarily have to be 'true' - it just needs to be verifiable from a reliable source. Because Wikipedia must be written in a neutral tone, it's quite acceptable to present two sides of a story (indeed, we encourage that) providing that both sides to a topic are not using unreliable sources as evidence.

I realise you've some frustrating experiences trying to write about real subjects which have been rejected because the sources aren't seen (by Wikipedia eyes) as reliable. That's not to say they don't exist, but simply that, for organisations, three reliable sources are our requirement for meeting notability for companies. If we didn't have that, every single company under the sun would be trying to create a page about themselves here, and we'd simply become a business directory. (No time to proof-read - happy for anyone to tweak what I've written if I've included errors) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all that information. So flightaware, flightglobal and bbc news are secondary sources and reliable because they are made by other people other then the company itself. ThePacificMan (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@ThePacificMan: I'm not very familiar with the first two sources you listed. Doesn't Flightaware track airplane movements? The one thing I didn't say is that 'reliability' is dependent upon context. Yes, all are secondary sources (except about themselves, of course), though reliability isn't the only things that's required. Sources are needed that cover a topic 'In Depth' if 'notability' is to be demonstrated. Otherwise, all sources are doing is simply 'verifying' that something exists. This is especially important when it comes to companies and organisations. Many things exist - I exist (you can find me in the phone directory), just as you can find my local widget manufacturer or travel agent company, but that doesn't mean we're all 'notable' in Wikipedia's eyes. I'm not sure if this'll help with the things you're interested in writing. In relation to Draft:Caroline Islands Air, I do appreciate that small nation's topics can be hard to produce good sources for, whereas bigger countries have much less of a problem. Sadly, this is currently something we have to live with on Wikipedia. Sources don't have to be online, however. Have you looked at the content and sources on the German wiki article (see here). There are other (albeit not very strong) sources such as this, this and this. Maybe this'll help; I'm not sure. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes they do help. Thanks ThePacificMan (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

How may I add a new page ?

With thanks Dr.S.M.Rasel Faruk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasel Faruk (talk • contribs) 09:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see Help:Contents. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Avoiding 3RR for LuLaRoe page

Hi Tea friends,

I hope you're well. I have just done two reverts on LuLaRoe as an IP user has been changing the company's listing from Multi-level Marketing to Pyramid scheme without additional citations. Many of the other companies on the List of multi-level marketing companies are described as MLM or Direct-selling, it is rare for "Pyramid" to be in the lede even though there is a Ponzi/Pyramid category heading. I remember the difference between these terms being extensively discussed somewhere, but my concern at the moment is also that I don't want to engage in an edit war. As they are unregistered, would we still progress to a discussion on the talkpage? What is the best way to proceed?

Thank you for your advice and time! SunnyBoi (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi SunnyBoi IP's are just like any other editor and they are going to be expected to engage in WP:DR when there are disagreements over article content. At the same time, you wouldn't be considered exempt from WP:3RR just because the other person is an IP, unless one of these applies. So, you should try and engage the IP in article talk page discussion and see if some sort of consensus can be established. Even if the IP elects not to participate in the discussion, other editors interested in the subject matter might. If through article talk page discussion, a consensus is established to in support of "multi-level marketing", then the IP will be obligated to adhere to it even if they don't agree; if it's established in favor of "pyramid scheme", then the same will apply to you. Ignoring such a consensus is going to be considered WP:DE (absent any serious policy/guideline violations which would happen by implementing the consensus) even for an IP account.

Now, in this particular case, it might depend on who reverted whom first; if the IP was WP:BOLD and made their edit to change things to "pyramid scheme", then you would be perfectly OK in trying to apply WP:BRD if you disagree; it would then be up to the IP to establish a consensus for the change. If it was the other way around, the burden would fall upon you to establish the consensus. It looks like the IP has been reverted by another editor; so, this version should probably be considered the WP:STATUSQUO. The IP should now try and establish a consensus for their preferred version, which is probably going to require some pretty good sources cited in support since the claim seems quite contentious. If the IP continues to revert as before, then that would be WP:EW; you can warn them about this on their user talk page, but if the reverting still continues you can either seek help at (1) WP:RPP or (2) WP:AN3. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking a bit closer at this, it seems similar edits were previously made by different IPs; so, perhaps trying to discuss things with the IP is not going to go very well. The previous edits were reverted by an administrator named C.Fred so maybe he'll watch the article in case the IP comes back again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Using either of the terms Pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme is effectively an accusation of criminal behaviour, whereas the term MLM does not have that implication. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Has my page been submitted for review?

Hello,

I submitted my page for review yesterday. I see now a grayed rectangle on top of which is written "draft article not currently submitted for review". Does that mean that I did not submitted the article correctly? Also, I am trying to edit the draft. Where is the "edit this page" tab? It says that it is on top of the page...

Regards,

Thierry Migeotte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.Migeotte (talk • contribs) 10:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Th.Migeotte: I assume this is about Draft:Thierry Migeotte (Sound Engineer/Producer). It seems that you have not submitted it for review. You can edit it by clicking on the tab labelled "Edit" at the top of the draft.

I have several comments on its content:

• You appear to be trying to create an autobiography. This is strongly discouraged.
• There is no need for the disambiguation "(Sound Engineer/Producer)" in the title. en:Wikipedia has no other article about a Thierry Migeotte.
• There are numerous direct external links. These are against Wikipedia policy, and should all be removed.
• The references are all clustered together at the ends of the paragraphs. Each reference should be immediately after the statement which it supports.

Maproom (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will definitely make the appropriate changes. The external links were to support facts. How else should I do to confirm facts?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.Migeotte (talk • contribs) 12:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The way to confirm facts is with reference citations, not with misplaced external links. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

And when adding citations, make sure you give full citation details, not WP:bare URLs as you have provided in your existing references in the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose

Wikipedia shows the death day of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose on 18 August, 1945. But his death is still mysterious. There is no conclusive evidence that 18th Aug is Netaji’s death anniversary. How can Wikipedia provide such controversial information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhayan Mukherjee Tito (talk • contribs) 12:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion on that topic is at Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose#Wrong information about death. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for editing

I was hoping someone could edit a draft of my article. I am looking for advice about meeting requirements for notability. Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Albus89/sandbox/Griffin_Anthony

-- Albus89 (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Albus89: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The notability guidelines for musicians are written at WP:BAND. Anthony would need to meet at least one of the listed criteria to merit an article. As the draft is now, I'm not really seeing which one of the criteria he might meet based on the sources that are there at the moment. I'm afraid no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, unless there are other appropriate sources out there. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

331dot, thanks so much for your time! Albus89 (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Does every species need a page?

Sometimes when I read about a particular genus, it'll have a list species in the genus - and often almost all of those species will be a red link. So I assume that means they need an article, right?

But the thing is, there are so many species, and often so many of them are so similar that writing separate articles about them would almost be like copying and pasting. Or sometimes, the article can't grow beyond start-class because the species has been very recently discovered, or is quite obscure or hasn't been researched much.

Thanks for any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watermelon-lemon (talk • contribs) 12:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Watermelon-lemon, the short answer is an emphatic yes. We want articles about every know species. Indeed most would be a bare stub merely noting it's existence and a brief statement on the who when and where of it's discovery/definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodger67 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

An example of a similar page on Wikipedia

Ryan Hewitt (record producer) If this is not exactly the same type of page as the one I am trying to create... I am truly confused

Thierry Migeotte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.Migeotte (talk • contribs) 12:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Th.Migeotte Please see other stuff exists. The article Ryan Hewitt (record producer) is also poorly sourced, however he is a Grammy award winner so notability has been established. Theroadislong (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight. Could you please remove me entirely from Wikipedia. My disappointment goes beyond the impossibility to write an informative page. SO many questions that will never be answered... SO many music albums on this site (for I suppose non promotional purpose). Anyway, No more for me even if I had the possibility to.

Regards,

Th. Migeotte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.Migeotte (talk • contribs) 13:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Your draft has been deleted; if you no longer wish to edit, simply stop using your account(accounts cannot be deleted, primarily for legal reasons). 331dot (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Annual readership template - not sure if broken?

Hi Tea friends,

I am having trouble viewing the images generated from the Annual readership template used on article talk pages. When added to a talk page, it displays a graph of daily page views for an article over a period of time. I've tried it in a few browsers but it doesn't seem to be viewable, so wanted to ask if it's a "just me" problem or if the template might have gone skewiff? Not viewable on the talkpage for Wear it Purple Day, or on the template page itself. I can see the example on the template page's talk page, though!

Hopefully this is my silly mistake but would like to find out if the problem is between my chair and keyboard, or if others find the template broken too.

Thank you for your help! SunnyBoi (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

For some reason it looks as if you may need to purge (&action=purge). --David Biddulph (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

How weird! Thank you so much, it is working now! SunnyBoi (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

are category sections not allowed in sandboxes, and if not, why not?

Header pretty much sums it up. cheers Tarkiwi25 (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Categorization#User pages. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tarkiwi25: In a word, no. I'm assuming you're drafting an article in your sandbox and want to be ready wuth the right categories for when it goes into mainspace? The last thing we want is for multiple, half-finished drafts appearing in Category listings (I've made that mistakes in the past). But you can inactivate the categorisation by adding a colon immediately after the opening pair of square brackets [[:Category:New Zealand]]. This keeps the link working, but doesnt include your page. Once live, just delete the colons. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You can also use the draft categories template, which makes the categories show up on the page like they normally would, but prevents the draft from appearing in the category listings. You can do that by copying and pasting this and putting it at the end of your article:

{{Draft categories|1= [[Category:Insert category here]] [[Category:Insert another category here]]}}

Hope this helps. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

add reference to another Wikipedia article

This is harder than I can manage for now.

What I would like to do:

Under the Wikipedia entry "Pollution" there is a subheading "Cost of Pollution" See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

I would like to add at the end of "Cost of Pollution" this reference: "See also under Wikipedia "Energy subsidies." "Energy subsidies" is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

Thanks for any help.Ed2291 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ed2291 and welcome to the Teahouse. We never use Wikipedia links as references, nor as something to link to at the end of an individual section. So, if you can't WP:WIKILINK the page within the text, the only way is to insert it at the end of the page within the 'See also' section. This section is for related topics that haven't yet been linked within the article, but which we think users might find of relevance. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that what Ed2291 wants to do is not to add a reference (though they call it that) but to put a link in a "See Also" section. That's easy, you could just do

== See also ==
Energy subsidies

but I don't know if it's acceptable to have a "See also" subsection for a section rather than for a whole article. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Maproom: Yep, that was what I assumed Ed2291 wanted to do. Thanks for adding the demo. I do not feel it would ever be appropriate to create multiple 'See also' sections. Distantly related topics should all be collated together into one 'See also' section, just above the 'References' section. More guidance at WP:MOSLAYOUT and WP:SEEALSO. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ed2291: Let us know if you would like one if us to add it for you; editors learn more if they try doing things themselves. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

" insert it at the end of the page within the 'See also' section." Yes, that is exactly what I wanted to do if you think it is appropriate. I have nothing to add to the "cost of Pollution" or the "Energy subsidies." I just think that the cost of fossil fuel energy subsidies should be considered in the costs of pollution.

"Let us know if you would like one if us to add it for you..." That would be great! I am 66 and barely computer literate. Thanks for all you do for Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed2291 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I am truly confused

I am told that my page looks like an autobiography. Well, written by someone else it would certainly have the exact same content that the content I just put in. Also, I am very confused to see many other pages from people in my field looking exactly like mine. They sure asked someone to write it for them. Now what difference does this make? This is truly confusing, discouraging and disappointing.

Thierry Migeotte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.Migeotte (talk • contribs) 12:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Th.Migeotte I'm sorry you have not had a good experience. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet our special definition of notability. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, and has no interest in what people want to say about themselves. In order for you to be successful in writing an article about yourself, you would essentially need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources that have no connection to you say. The vast majority of people cannot do this, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. If you have reviewed the notability criteria written at WP:BIO and truly feel that you merit an article, you can request that others write it at Requested Articles.

I would also note that others in your field meriting articles does not automatically mean you would too; see WP:OSE. Each article is judged on its own merits. It may help you to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Th.Migeotte, when I said that Draft:Thierry Migeotte (Sound Engineer/Producer) "appears to be an autobiography", I didn't mean to criticise the way it was written. It was done much better, much more neutrally, than most attempts at autobiographical articles. I was just judging from the similarity between the subject's name and your username. Maproom (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

--Th.Migeotte (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Thank you for the vote of confidence. Two albums I worked on were Grammy Awards nominated material, one of which won (Mala Rodriguez "Bruja"). I was unfortunate enough to have been not credited on both albums. This said, I contacted Universal Music Group today regarding "Bruja" to claim credits for engineering and mastering the album. I hope that they will do what is necessary to fix the problem. I will do the same regarding the other album shortly. Would credits on "Bruja" change anything regarding my chances have an article on Wikipedia? Would it be even better if another person well established in my industry were to write the article for me? I am being 100% honest and unbiased regarding my career. Even if someone else writes the article about me, that person would need all the help he or she can get in order to avoid making mistakes before publication. Yes, why me more than someone else? as I was asked. Fair enough. Nevertheless, my career has been unusually fruitful on many levels, rarely experienced by other professionals. However, I may be mistaken and in this case I surely apologize. Also, I am truly sorry for adding information on the "Bruja" page. I went a bit backwards on this one.

Respectfully, --Th.Migeotte (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC) 2A02:2788:868:F1D:F8EF:69CB:4428:6569 (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)