Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 474

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 470

←

Archive 472

→

A top 1000 user has called me "troll" in an ANI

Extended discussion

I think I'm going to break the record for the most difficult and controversial question ever asked here, but, hey, at 60 edits so far, I'm still an inexperienced user.

Here's the thing: Three months ago I created this proposal to rename the article Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings, which lists dozens of sources which are not third party at all. My proposal met very strong opposition from several users, including an editor listed in the top 1000 contributors list. These editors engaged in uncivil behaviour. I asked them in several occassions to change their behaviour, but they continued behaving in the same way.

I reported the issue in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and also received strong opposition there, including opposition from an administrator. Quite shockingly, Bubba73, the editor listed in the top 1000, said that I am a troll! Nobody complained about that, and other editor even supported his attack. If you check my proposal or the ANI report you will see that I have been very respectful in every comment I made.

When I filed the ANI report, I wrote a notification in the talk page of each user involved. One of the users removed my notification from his talk page almost immediately, saying that I am a vandal. However, when I checked his talk page today the notification was there again, and the entry in the history list showing that he had removed my notification had disappeared.

So, finally, to my questions: In general, I could use all the advice in the world in this situation. It's growing a bit too big for me, but I don't want to give up. The title of the article is completely deceiving! Also, apart from general advice, I'd like to know how to find evidence that I was called a "vandal". Even though the user removed the entry from his history, there must be a log somewhere which shows what he did.

So this is my request for advice. Piece of cake, ain't it?

Elendaíl (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

My advice, for what it's worth, Elendaíl is to Drop the stick. You clearly feel that something is terribly wrong. You have argued your case, in the right place, and don't appear to me to have garnered any supporters. Wikipedia works on Consensus, not on being right. --ColinFine (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid i must agree with ColinFine, Elendaíl. While I wouldn't say you are trolling, as that implied malicious intent, and i think your intent here is to improve the page, I do think you have push this rather too far. The local consensus is pretty clearly against your proposal, nor have you been able to persuade any significant number of people at ANI that those who oppose your view are engaging in misconduct. If you really think that your view is still correct, your only recourse as far as i can see is to seek wider participation in hopes of a different consensus, perhaps through an RfC. But frankly, i don't think you will get a different answer through an RfC, although there is no way to be sure in advance. I have noticed the dispute before, but have not chosen to enter it. Now i have posted there, adding to those who disagree with your move. I really think that dropping the matter is your best choice at this point. DES ^(talk) 21:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the removed-and-then-not-removed notification, Elendaíl, whose talk page was that on? I'd like to understand what could have happened there. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with Cordless Larry: It's impossible to check out the matter of the user who you say removed your notice calling you a vandal, Elendaíl, if you don't tell us who it was. Bishonen | talk 22:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC).

That would mean making a very serious public accusation without evidence. I'm not willing to do that. I can, however, discuss it in private. Elendaíl (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to remove notifications from their talk pages, Elendaíl, so there is no accusation here. All you would be doing is helping us understand what happened. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, let me get this straight. Do you mean that an experienced editor who insults a newcomer in public for no reason whatsoever is backed by the community? Is that the way Wikipedia works? Elendaíl (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No they didn't say that, Elendaíl. If User:Rude insults User:Meek, and then either User:Meek or User:Uninvolved warns User:Rude not to do that again, then User:Rude is full entitled to remove the warning from his talk page, as the warning should remain in the history. Such removal is construed as user:Rude's having read the warning. Therefore saying later that "User:Rude removed a warning" is not making an accusation of any improper behavior. The warning was itself a public accusation of a violation of WP:CIVIL, but there is no extra implication from mentioning the warning, particularly when seeking help or understanding. DES ^(talk) 22:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that comment was intended as an insult. They were explaining why they stopped replying to you, thinking that you were just trying to get a reaction. In Wikipedia parlance, this is a troll. Bradv 22:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Of the four users you sent identical or nearly identical notices to, one (Dr.K.) reverted, in this edit. The notice is not there now, and i see no evidence that it has ever been there since the reversion, nor that the reversion has been in any way hidden. Could it be that you somehow looked at a prior revision of User talk:Dr.K., Elendaíl? DES ^(talk) 22:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I should add that Dr K did NOT say that you were a vandal. The full edit summary was: "Reverted good faith edits by Elendaíl: I know that you are an inexperienced editor but please make sure your learning curve becomes a bit faster." Not the most hostile edit summary I have ever seen here. It explicitly concedes your good faith, which is exactly what a vandal lacks. DES ^(talk) 22:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  - Considering that I got slapped by an ANI notification essentially for no reason, including unsubstantiated allegations about my lack of civility during the ANI report, I think my edit-summary struck the right balance between AGF and mild admonishment. If this user thinks that I called him/her a vandal we may have language issues at play here. Dr. K. 23:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue with the entry removal has become secondary for me after the responses I have received in this thread. I will create a new entry for that topic shortly to avoid mixing up things here.

What really matters to me is the question I asked earlier. If you want to get technical Bubba73 violated about a dozen policies with just one sentence. If you don't want to get technical, he insulted me, used a pejorative term towards me and attacked me (Wikipedia definition), whatever. I don't want to discuss words. My question stands: Do experienced editors who display this kind of disgraceful behaviour towards newcomers get the support of the community? Is that the way Wikipedia works?

Elendaíl (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I politely remind everyone that the Teahouse is the place to learn about editing Wikipedia, not a venue to engage in discussions that should be taking place at WP:AN/I? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I won't comment on other editors writing here. Regarding me, I'm a new editor in a place that might or might not be friendly, trying to become accustomed to Wikipedia culture, asking questions, and also hoping to develop good community relationships at some point. Unfortunately, my last and most important question hasn't been answered yet.

Elendaíl (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It hasn't been answered because it doesn't make sense. Please read the section below, as numerous editors have explained to you that the premise you are describing is impossible. It's fine to be new, but plugging your ears and refusing to listen is not. --Tarage (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

How do I find an entry removed from a history list?

I create this thread to avoid mixing up things in "A top 1000 user has called me 'troll' in an ANI", the thread where this question was posted originally. I put it below my original question because this one is less important, at least for the time being. I quote from my original question:

"One of the users removed my notification from his talk page almost immediately, saying that I am a vandal. However, when I checked his talk page today the notification was there again, and the entry in the history list showing that he had removed my notification had disappeared. [...] I'd like to know how to find evidence that I was called a "vandal". Even though the user removed the entry from his history, there must be a log somewhere which shows what he did."

As I said, I'm not concerned about the fact that this editor removed my notification. That's perfectly fine. What is not so fine is the fact that his explanation for doing so was that I am a "vandal". And what is not fine at all is that he (or somebody else, of course) removed the entry of what he did from his history, i. e., from the history of his talk page. This suggests that he didn't want to leave traces of what he had done. It also suggests that this user has a great power in the system. I don't think that any regular user can remove an entry from their history. I imagine that only a system administrator can do that. And, of course, doing something like that doesn't look good at all.

Note: Although I am using the form "he", I don't know if we are talking about a "he" or a "she". Elendaíl (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

As explained above, Elendaíl, it would help greatly if you could tell us which user's talk page this happened on. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's make sure I understand the situation clearly first. Sorry for repeating myself, but I do think that this is a very serious accusation and before I do it I want to make sure that I am aware of its possible consequences. This user removed (or asked someone to remove) an entry from his history list, therefore hiding information from everyone else in Wikipedia. The purpose of that removal can not be known for sure, but it is highly likely that he wanted to deceive other users. It also looks like this user must have hacked the system in some way, or asked a powerful system administrator to do so for him, in order to achieve this. Unfortunately, I don't have any evidence to prove this. Can I get a guarantee that no action will be taken against me for disclosing the name of this person? Can I also get a guarantee that I will be supported if I receive an attack from other users (which will almost certainly happen) based on this disclosure?

Elendaíl (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You left ANI notices for four users. [1] [2] [3] [4] One of them removed it with a very polite edit summary. [5] Nobody called you a vandal. Bradv 00:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Elendaíl. I suggest that you read the essay WP:DROPTHESTICK and follow its advice. Move on to something productive. Rehashing this matter in a variety of places is unproductive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The history of your contributions, Elendaíl, reveals exactly four editors to whom you sent a notice. Three of them did not remove it, and the notice was still in place when I checked recently. The fourth reverted your addition, but did not do anything to hide the fact of the reversion or remove it from the history. Details are in the thread above. Are you saying that there was a fifth user to whom you sent the notice? If soi, who was it? Or is it possible that you, an admittedly inexperienced user here, mistakenly misread the history of the revert? If so, be assured, the notice was removed from the page, but remains visible in the history, and nothing deceptive was done. In that case you would be well advised to drop this. It is pretty much impossible to remove an edit totally from the history. Even using WP:Oversight a small group can see the log, and only that same small group can do such deletions. If an admin uses revision deletion, any other admin can see the log involved. DES ^(talk) 00:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

From what you say I understand that it is possible to hide from regular users events that were at some point in the history page. It is not possible, however, to hide those events from administrators. I also understand that you, as an administrator, have searched the logs for the event I described and haven't found it. From that you have drawn the conclusion that either I notified a fifth user or I didn't see what I think I saw. Correct?

As a former software engineer, I can tell you that it is indeed possible, even relatively easy, for the programmers or the system administrators who run the Wikipedia servers to hide anything they want from anyone they want, whether it is a Wikipedia administrator or not. If I had access to the Wikipedia servers, I could write myself a program to hide anything I wanted from any Wikipedia user.

I know I saw what I saw. However, if not even an administrator can find evidence for it, then this horse is deader than the horse of Julius Caesar. Since it's impossible (for you and me) to find evidence, there's no point in pursuing the matter any further. And I'm afraid I see no point in giving names either.

As an epilogue to this exciting espionage story (seriously, I'm starting to feel like Jason Bourne), I'd like to note that a few hours ago an intimidating warning appeared in my talk page: "This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice". When I visited the talk page of the user who made the warning, it turned out it was a child whose account had been impersonated by a hacker a few minutes earlier. But I have to admit I was thrilled for a couple of minutes. Now, million dollar question: If you want someone to hack a Wikipedia account for you, who should you ask to do it?

...........................................................

Yep, you got it! A Wikipedia programmer or system administrator!

Elendaíl (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Elendaíl, your participation here is rapidly becoming disruptive. Please cease and desist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, "this horse is deader than the horse of Julius Caesar" and "there's no point in pursuing the matter any further" means that I'm finished here. While I'm sure it would be fascinating to know how you think I'm being disruptive, now that I know all I wanted to know, there's no point in going on with it. By the way, I love your talk page link ;)

Elendaíl (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

1. You are overly paranoid. 2. The editor in question was pretending to be a different user, using a username one letter off. You can post fake signatures easily. They were banned. 3. No one has hacked anything. Drop the stick. --Tarage (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as no one has really answered your question. There are (as far as I am aware) 3 ways for revisions to be "missing" or removed" from a page history. The first one is a glitch which happens on extremely high traffic pages that see a lot of editors. The most notorious one is WP:ANI. During periods of high activity, one editor may make a post at exactly the same time as another. Normally this would result in one of the editors receiving an edit conflict notice but they would be able to subsequently post their text. At ANi it is known that at times, an edit will actually vanish leaving no trace. Most editors' talk pages are unlikely to see that level of traffic even Jimbo Wales's. The second and third are privileges within the realm of administrators and certain users called Oversighters. Administrators are able to perform a revision deletion or revdel for short. However, even if an admin were to perform a revdel, there would still be a blank entry in a page history showing that a revdel had occurred. Other admins would still be able to view this. The final action performed by Oversighters is obviously versight. This is where the edit in question is completely removed from the page history, however other oversighters would still be able to view the revision. Nothing as ever deleted on Wikipedia, whether you can view it is merely a functoin of acecss level. Revdel has very strict limitations on how it can be used, see WP:REVDEL. Oversight is even stricter and only a handful of users, including those on Arbcom, have that level of access, see WP:OVERSIGHT. Misuse of either Revdel or Oversight results in severe sanctions including stripping of admin privileges perhaps even site banning in extreme cases. Blackmane (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

copyright ?

I see in the Tea Room that an article from a "reliable published source", containing the name, date, location and page number inside the issue, can be reprinted in Wiki.

In this case a 1983 Great Britain Weekly Stamp publication with an image on the cover showing a page number reference to the article inside the issue. I own a copy of this publication and the article inside gives detailed historical information that I have not been able to find any where else.

So the question: Can a copy of the cover image and a reprint of the article text be uploaded to this Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postage_stamps_and_postal_history_of_Palau#cite_note-1

I can provide a PDF of the articles text and an image of the publications cover for you to review. Let me know please. Thank you, RosemaryRosemary De Figlio (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Rosemary. I'm afraid you have misunderstood a little. Wikipedia articles should be full of references to reliable published sources, but in most cases it would be a copyright infringement to upload a scan or the text of the source. You are welcome to insert a citation to the item you have, as long as you give enough information that a reader could in principle find it (eg through a major library) - so title, date, publisher, page number etc. If sources happen to be available online, it's good to include a URL to them, but there's no requirement that they be on line.

Covers of magazines are almost always copyright, and cannot be uploaded or displayed in Wikipedia except under the conditions of the WP:Non free content criteria - which include that the use of the image would significantly help understanding of an article. So a cover may not be uploaded just to substantiate a claim. --ColinFine (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Colin, that's clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosemary De Figlio (talk • contribs) 18:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Romeo Mancini and an enthusiastic inexperienced editor

Is some experienced editor willing to take a look at Draft: Romeo Mancini? Its author, User: Anna Lisa33, has submitted it seven times and it has been declined seven times. The most common reason for the declines is that it is not in the neutral formal tone required for an encyclopedia. The author has often been given examples of promotional or non-neutral language, and has deleted or rewritten the specific example each time rather than changing the tone of the article as a whole. It now occurs to me that there does not seem to be a notability issue; the artist does seem to be notable (and is the author’s hero). The problem is style and tone. Therefore, perhaps it is more reasonable to ask another experienced editor to rework the article than to ask its author to do that. (The author has been advised to ask for help here, but just because she doesn’t act on that request doesn’t mean that someone can’t act.) Is someone willing to rework the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. I agree that this artist appears notable, and so I took your hint and made about 25 edits to the early sections of the article, to improve prose, comply with the Manual of style, add wikilinks, and ask for references. I encourage you and other editors to help improve this draft. This is potentially a good article, but it still needs quite a bit of work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look at it in more detail this afternoon. The artist does look notable and should have a biography here. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

How to report potential conflict of interest?

The article on the company called 1QBit sounds like a self-advertisement (I just remarked this in the discussion page). I wonder if there is any way to report a potential conflict of interest, e.g., by placing some template? Marozols (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Marozols: You might insert either {{advert}} or (if you're pretty certain about the conflict of interest) {{COI}} at the top of the article. Deor (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Creating an article out of a redirect?

Say if I want to create an article by the name "John Kozlovsky" but that name already redirects to another article which isn't related to the one I want to create what should I do?*Treker (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi *Treker. It depends on several factors including what is considered the primary topic for the name. If you have a real case in mind then please state it. Help:Redirect#Creating and editing redirects explains how to edit the redirect but it may be the wrong thing to do in a given situation, and if it's done then it may require additional actions like providing navigation to the old target and fixing incoming links to point directly there. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Creating and editing redirects page PrimeHunter.

I don't really have a plan on creating any such article right now, I started thinking about it because a young wrestler from a very famous wrestling family debuted recently and I it came to mind that he might need an article in the future but it's way to soon to do right now. I searched for his name and it redirected to an article about a band so I was wondering what might need to be done in the future.*Treker (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, *Treker. I would add to what PrimeHunter has said that if a person without experience of it wants to try the difficult task of creating a new article, I would always advise them to use the Article wizard to create it in Draft space, where they can work on it without interruption. When they think it is ready to be released, they can submit it for review: if the reviewing editor accepts it, they will sort out any issues with the name of the article or existing redirects. --ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've actually never used the article wizard myself but I've made an article for a wrestler before and I'm in the process of working on one in my sandbox right now about a female wrestler from the 50s.*Treker (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

request for re-grading of article CS Pacific

Dear wikipedians, I have recently created an article about the cable ship CS Pacific and I think it should be re-graded as it contains enough citations, a combinations of different primary and secondary sources. Unfortunately I haven't been able to sort th etrouble with the picture but I hope this is not an obstable. Thank you M0KLB (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Convenience link: CS Pacific. Maproom (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@M0KLB: (edit conflict) if you think you have improved the article to the state where it meets one of the higher grade assessments then you can either re-assess it yourself against the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Assessment or you can ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships for someone to assess it.

Regarding the image, the only licencing information you put with the image when you uploaded it was that it was from someone's private collection. Are they the person who took the image? In which case they need to email us with their consent for the image to be used (see WP:CONSENT for the email address and model wording for the consent. Nthep (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

USING WIKIPEDIA

Hello, This is Sanover Tasneem. A very new and young editor you can say. I have a question about wikipedia. Its like that, I am so new in this field and i dont know how to add information to any article on wikipedia.and also how can i create page of my own self, and how can i include my details on it so that a wiki page is created of my name? Kindly help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.195.87.27 (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! We appreciate your eagerness to contribute; however, we would strongly discourage writing articles about yourself. Wikipedia is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia whose content is built on three fundamental principles we call the "core content policies". They are that Wikipedia articles:

must be verifiable (meaning that readers should be able to check that what is being written is true),
written from a neutral point of view (meaning that all opinions and viewpoints on a topic are represented fairly and without bias), and
must not contain original research (meaning we only write about what reliable sources have written about).

Jointly interpreted, these three policies form the backbone for almost every other content policy or guideline we have here.

Writing an autobiography, or an article about yourself, is strongly discouraged, because the topic deals with something you would be too closely connected with. With regards to yourself, you have what we call a conflict of interest ("COI"). Editors with a conflict of interest in a topic area often have an unintentionally distorted view of that topic area, and this conflict of interest has a significant potential to go against some of our core content policies. For example, you might unconsciously over-embellish yourself, or perhaps omit verifiable facts that may be negative or controversial—this would violate neutral point of view. Alternatively, you might inadvertently add details that haven't been published in reliable sources—a violation of verifiability and no original research. Because of this potential, the Wikipedia community strongly discourages editing in areas you have a conflict of interest in, and that includes creating autobiographies. If you believe that your accomplishments are notable as per our notability guidelines, then someone else may eventually write an article about you in due time.

Before creating new articles, I would recommend getting started by editing existing articles to get a feel for the place. I would also recommend creating an account to better establish yourself within our community. Check out the The Wikipedia Adventure for a small game that will show you around. If you have any question, feel free to ask again at this Teahouse. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Creating a page for a new tv show

Hello! I'm a producer for a new television series on PBS. I'd like to make a page for this series, but I'm not sure if I should take any extra steps given my association with the program. What's the best way to move forward? I was thinking of writing the article in my talk page first, and then reaching out to the editors of a similar series's page. Is there a more efficient way? Thank you! KN28 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, KN28, and thank you for asking about this before going ahead. The best thing for you to do is to wait until an impartial editor unconnected with your series finds it interesting and important enough to want to write about it. If the series is successful this is likely to happen quite quickly. You could also try adding a request in an appropriate topic area at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, KN28 and welcome to the Teahouse. In such a case you clearly have a significant conflict of interest, and you would be considered a paid editor. Our preference is that in such a case you not create the article at all, instead waiting until someone else does so. If you do choose to go ahead, or if you later choose to edit an article on the series created by someone else, you MUST disclose your connection with the subject, as described at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. If after doing that you wan to try to create an article, you should first consider whether the topic is currently notable. Wikipedia uses that term is a rather specific way. We generally consider a topic to be notable if multiple independent published reliable sources have each discussed the topic in some depth, say several paragraphs each at a minimum. This means that blogs and fan sites will not count, neither will press releases, nor any news stories based largely on press releases, nor will anything from you, from PBS, or from anyone else affiliated with the series. Unless you cna find published sources that pretty clearly establish notability, don't bother trying to create an article, it won't work. If you have such sources listed, then read Your First Article and Referencing for Beginners, Then use the Article Wizard to create a draft under the Articles for creation project. Once you think your draft is ready, submit it for review. An experiened editor will review it, and either accept it or decline it for further improvements. Please remember that all articles must be neutral, stating facts that can be supported by the cited sources. No marketing-speak should be used. Any opinions and quotations should be clearly and explicitly attributed to a named person or entity, and should be supported by a direct citation. Do not reuse text posted on the web except for short, attributed quotes. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 22:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, justlettersandnumbers and DES. Both of your replies were very helpful. It sounds like the best thing to do would be wait until an impartial editor chooses to take this on. As time goes on, I may also submit a request for an article as I see more impartial sources creating content about the show. Thanks again very much to you both!

KN28 (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

How do I refer to the names of organizations that have changed names over the years?

I'm writing a biography of a physician who lived 1847-1922 and I'm still in my unsubmitted sandbox. He was one of the founders of what was then called the National Conference of State Boards of Health. The organization changed names several times since 1884 and is now called the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers.

Likewise with the National Confederation of State Medical Examining and Licensing Boards which in 1912 merged with the American Confederation of Reciprocating...Boards to become what is now called the Federation of State Medical Boards.

Because he helped found the organization, I feel it's important to call these by their original names.

However, is it the Wikipedia style to call organizations by their current names? Should I address the issue of different names in the text of the article or include the name changes in a footnote? Drvalsummers (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Drvalsummers (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC) drvalsummers Drvalsummers (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drvalsummers and welcome to the Teahouse. I believe you should refer to it by the name it was at the time, you could do something like "He founded the National Conference of State Boards of Health (now known as Association of State and Territorial Health Officers)". Joseph2302 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, if you leave a space at the start of a line, then the Wikipedia code makes the text look weird. So best not to. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drvalsummers, you use the name that is correct for the time you are writing about, you can mention the current name parenthetically or in a footnote. However, if we have an article about the organization there might well be a redirect from the old name to the article under the current title, in which case you don't need to mention the current name as the link will go to the correct article anyway. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Doger67 Looks like none of the organisation names mentioned have Wikipedia articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

contest speedy deletion

Help me" i created my first article it is nominated for deletion.please let me know what should be my next step??"14.139.82.107 (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, it would help if you could log in and tell us the name of the article. Theroadislong (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles need to satisfy some requirements to be accepted. I would recommend giving Wikipedia:Your first article a read, as it does a good job of explaining those requirements. (The page is quite long though. The best way to "learn the ropes" is to gain more experience editing existing articles, getting a feel for how things are done, before creating your first article.) For future articles, I recommend using the Article Wizard, which will help you decide if the topic you are writing about is suitable for Wikipedia, and at the end of the Wizard, you have the option of drafting the article, then submitting it for review by a more experienced editor. That way, if the article has problems, it won't be deleted; you will instead have an opportunity to fix the issues (or choose a different topic to write about if the issue is with the topic itself). This is general advice; as Theroadislong mentioned, we might be able to give you specific help if you give us the name of the article that is nominated for deletion. Mz7 (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

When you created the article, you had a different IP address than you do now, because there is no deletion message on your IP address's talk page. Creating a registered account has several advantages, including providing you with an edit history. I suggest that you create a registered account. If the article still exists, please tell us where it is, and one of us may be able to move it into draft space for you so that you can work on it (unless the problem is in the topic, such as that you are trying to write about yourself, your company, or your band). (You can still work on an article in draft space about yourself, your company, or your band. It is just discouraged and likely not to be accepted.) Read Articles for Creation, which describes a review process that is helpful for new editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that 14.139.82.107 already has an account (IPs can't create new articles), but forgot to sign in when posting this question. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

My oversight. They have an account. Please log in and identify the article. Please remember to log in. Forgetting to log in is an easy mistake, but you should be able to configure your browser so that you routinely log in. Please log in and identify the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Access to Wikipedia

Can everyone in the world visit Wikipedia freely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Hu U.S. (talk • contribs) 10:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Tony Hu U.S., and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia allows anyone to access the site, but there are some countries in which access to Wikipedia may be subject to censorship. See Censorship of Wikipedia on this. North Korea isn't mentioned there, but I imagine it would be pretty difficult to access Wikipedia from that country. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Linkin page

How do I redirect my wikimedia page to my user page and make it fluid like my other foreign userpage redirects? Here is the link to my wikimedia page https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Ilikeguys21 Ilikeguys21 (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ilikeguys21, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what you want, probably because you don't know the right terminology. A redirect is a page that automtically takes the user to another page without having to click anything. None of your user pages are redirects, pages cannot redirect to other wikis, and users have no "wikimedia page". https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Ilikeguys21 is your user page on the MediaWiki wiki. If you want a global user page which is edited in a single place but displayed at different wikis then see Wikipedia:Global user page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I have many global userpages. What I want is this. When you go to my profile, you can see that I have global userpages. They say something like cn.user.Ilikeguys 21 or something like that. Clicking on it takes you to my global userpage. I want the mediawiki link to my mediawiki page I posted on here to look the same and do the same thing as my global userpage links but I can't figure out the coding correctly because when I try it, It just takes me to a page that says no mediawiki user is registered with that name? Thanks

Ilikeguys21 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Global user page tells you that the global user page would be at "metawiki", not "mediawiki". Try creating meta:user:Ilikeguys21. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I did create a metawiki page now but I need the formatting for my mediawiki page to be the same as the metawiki page that you did for me Ilikeguys21 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The meta page now shows for any wiki for which you have not created a local user page, for example af:user:Ilikeguys21. It doesn't show at mediawiki because you've set up a local user page there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 14:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ilikeguys21, your global user page will not show up on any project where you have already created a user page, such as English Wikipedia. If you want the content now at User:Ilikeguys21 to show up on all projects you'll need to add it to meta:user:Ilikeguys21, and then ask for your local user page on other projects to be deleted. On en.wp you can do that by just blanking the page, or you can add {{db-g7}} to it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Losing a impotent part of Air China

There is a stuped user that just deleted all of the bacic of one of the most importent thing in that was in that article please block that user from editing I think it was User:49.150.162.43 bt it may not be that user but I think it is thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.34.184.214 (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello person editing from 117.34.184.214. The content removal was reverted by another user. I have left a note on the talk page for the IP address that removed the content, using the template {{Uw-delete1}}. I don't know that this was an important part of the article, or whether the content is correct or not, but don't assume the person who removed it had bad intent. They may have had a good faith reason for the removal, whether valid or not. The problem is that they did not leave any edit summary to explain any reason for why they removed the content, and since it's not obvious, in such situations we normally revert and leave a message like the one I posted.

You also left no edit summary when you changed the page, which you should in any future edits – it just makes everything so much clearer and cleaner when we have some inkling of why an edit was made. Calling the user stuped [sic] adds nothing and just makes drama more likely. As to not being sure which user made what change, that mystery will become completely transparent to you if you learn how to use page histories.

Lastly, we do not block unless there is some sustained course of misconduct and the person has been sufficiently warned but continues, or their edits are very egregious and leave no room for doubt as to bad intent. See the blocking policy. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Help with Disambiguation

Hi. I've written an article on a doctor called David Sanders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sanders_%28gastroenterologist%28). There are several people with that name with wikipedia articles. I'd like my article to be one of the ones listed when you search for David Sanders. How can I best achieve that? Thanks.

Spmorton (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've added David Sanders (gastroenterologist) (note that you got the link wrong) to the disambiguation page David Sanders. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Help to find my old account

I remember my password, but forgot the username. Few years ago, I didn't like all the articles about criminals, serial killers, gangsters, old west murderers. There was a page where Wikipedia policies were discussed. I asked Wikipedians to delete all pages of serial killers, high school shooters, mafia bosses. One user replied that Wikipedia articles are written according to Notability, not for being good guy or bad guy. Another replied that "Then we have to delete pages Hitler, Stalin, Laden , Margaret Thatcher, George Bush, as all are considered bad guys. I have searched archives of village pump, Teahouse questions, but couldn't locate the discussion. Now in 2010, whether the page was called Village Pump or something else? That discussion has my username. 2A01:B840:111:1B8:F48E:8F8D:9D5E:6A9A (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, You might have luck with Users Search box for users by name or official capacity

There may be some ideas at How to easily recall a username.

Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit Source button

Hi! I have a question about the edit source button at the top of my User page and Wikipedia articles which I edit. Before, when I logged in to my account, there was always an "edit source" and an "edit" button on on my userpage and the Wikipedia articles which I am allowed to edit. Now, there is still an "edit" button, but there isn't an edit source button. I was wondering if someone here could help me. Thanks. Peterye2005 (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Peterye2005: this is a recent technical change. As a registered user you can control it in the editing section of your preferences page, it's the dropdown in the last box entitled "Editing mode". If you want to switch between traditional editing and the visual editor, which is what the change is about then please see the guide at mw:Help:VisualEditor/User_guide#Switching_between_the_visual_and_wikitext_editors Nthep (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I tried submitting an artical about me from Guitar player Magaine

I had tried to hyper link and it appears I got confused. I wanted to be known as a reputable source. Please help me out? I am featured in Mike Varney's Spotlight on New Talent in this issue. Publisher: Guitar Player Magazine http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/B001UC8WSE Oct.(1990) ASIN: B001UC8WSE Jamie LebishJamielebish (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jamielebish, and welcome to the Teahouse. Can you help us understand the issue by telling us what article you wanted to add this source to? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jamielebish. I assume that you are referring to what you wrote in your sandbox, and submitted as a draft article. There are a lot of problems here. First of all, please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. In the vast majority of cases, it is a poor idea for an editor to try to write an autobiography. On to the specific issue regarding Guitar Player magazine. You are linking to an Amazon.com listing for the sale of a used copy of a 26 year old issue of a magazine. This is the wrong way to provide a reference. We give the the title of the article, the author of the article, the name of the publication, the date of publication, the city of publication, the page number, sometimes the volume number and issue number, and a link to a URL of the actual content (if online), not a link to a website selling used copies. See Referencing for beginners for more information. The core issue is whether or not you are notable. Please read WP:NMUSIC for our notability guideline for musicians. If the only coverage of you in reliable sources is a "new talent" mention 26 years ago, then it serns very unlikely that you are notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Trying to find information about K-POP

I was on Wikipedia a couple of months ago and I came across a page that I can't remember the name of. All I know is that it listed the names of K-POP Boy and Girl Groups in a table with the year they debuted, the company they are with, how many members there are, sub-units and if they disbanded. If you could please help me find this page again. Thank you. (2601:409:400:1CF0:8DF0:AE0F:1501:E966 (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. I suggest you begin with List of individual K-pop artists and follow the various wikilinks. Try our recently improved search function and you will find quite a few K-pop list articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

need help in editing

hi, i wrote article Rupak Kulkarni who is notable flautist.i also gave reference of internet sources showing his notable career.flutist with similar achievements are already on wikipedia but but still my article was denied . can you help in editing it? i can provide links or newspaper articles if needed. best regards, Amit wikiuser_music Wikiuser music (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You have lots of references, but they seem to be mainly publicity sites. See what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources, especially for biographies. Dbfirs 19:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wikiuser music. Please read about the neutral point of view. Language in your draft like, "Rupak has given experience of the sensuality of Krishna’s instrument "Bansuri" to his audience. His recital is always a experience combining Dhrupad and Khayal Gayaki, melodious Aalap and scintillating Tatkar." That is marketing/promotional language which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Wikiuser music. The bit you perhaps haven't realised is that Wikipedia has no interest in what Kulkarni, his family, his friends, his associates, or his publicists say about him. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with him have published about him. If there is enough independent published material, then there can be an article, based almost 100% on those independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hi im a new Wikipedia user and joined Wikipedia, i have a question that if we find references from a book, (not from web), so, is it allow To give reference from book? ~MMAKB~ (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ~MMAKB~, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you can cite a book (providing that it meets our reliable sources requirements). There is no requirement for sources to be available online. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry:, OK. THANKS ... ~MMAKB~ (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

Just a query on the Article for Deletion process. Am I correct in thinking, that if an article is nominated for deletion, it should be returned to its elongated form before being nominated, rather than stripped back to become a stub article? Obviously any information that is complete rubbish should be removed as per normal, the sky is green etc, but would have thought text that perhaps requires expanding or citations should remain with ^{[citation needed]} tags.

Case in point is London Buses route 251. The article as it stands has been stripped of all cites. Yet prior to the latest round of revisions by the nominating editor it had six.[6] Granted one was no good (#2), but the other five were ok.

Given that the nominating editor seems a bit 'trigger happy', redirecting this and many similar articles to List of London bus routes and then nominating for deletion if anybody disagrees with his opinion that articles are not notable, even when adding cites as User:2.26.13.66 did, is there a policy on what state an article should be in when nominated? As it stands voting editors may form the impression this is a non-notable stub article, rather than a more detailed article that requires work. ThamesTst (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Stripping down actually should not make a difference in the nomination discussion. If anything, it would be a good idea for someone who wants to keep the article should strip it down to the best independent sources that focus specifically on the subject, so as to demonstrate notability. If there is no independent and reliably sourced information, there should not be an article. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ThamesTst. I have no strong opinion about whether or not the article about this specific bus route should be deleted or not. In general, I do not think that individual bus routes should have articles here on this encyclopedia. But I do agree with you that it is bad form for an editor to strip content and references from an article, and then nominate the article for deletion. It is best to let other editors evaluate the article in its most fully developed state. There is no rule against it, though. There is also nothing wrong with pointing out the removal of content and sources, and asking editors at AfD to take a look at an earlier version of the article. Just be factual and policy-based, not argumentative. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi ThamesTst - just to be clear, it does not appear that the editor who nominated the article for deletion was the one who stripped the article back to its stub version. That was done by the IP when they reverted an attempt to convert the article to a redirect. After the IP's reversion, the other editor then nominated it for deletion. Second, the citations which were added are fine to show the veracity of the facts of the article, but since they were not independent, they didn't help to show why this particular bus route is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Difficulty

Hi, i want to add a picture to my articles but I don't know how, please tell me tips.

But Now I want to add pictures to my article Sundaymar Dam, please help. ~MMAKB~ (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, ~MMAKB~. Before answering your question, can I ask whether you used to edit under the username of ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~? It is quite unusual for usernames to start and end with a tilde, and there are similarities in your editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry:, what mean? I added tilde at start and end because during account creation, it says that your name is too similar to another user name, it,s the reason of my tilde. ~MMAKB~ (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. It's just that we recently had a new editor editing articles on Pakistan called ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~, and I thought of that when I saw your name and edits. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry:I see the account of ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~, and is a blocked user. His contributions is telling that he was of jatt caste.

Im also from Pakistan, from city of Islamabad. But it doesn't mean that all Pakistanis are same. ~MMAKB~ (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It turns out that that user also used an account called MMACB, which seems too similar to your username to be a coincidence. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

User now blocked - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gadri. Don't sock, kids... Cordless Larry (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

mobile wikipedia gives wrong picture

I have a complicated problem :(

I was looking at Thunderbirds (TV series) and on the mobile android app it shows an unrelated image, [7] how can i change it to a more appropriate one?

the picture is not even used in the article. WillemienH (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi WillemienH
That picture appears in both the mobile and desktop versions, and it is clearly in the edit page - I suggest you read the caption:-
"Some of the aircraft sound effects were created by recording the RAF's Red Arrows aerobatics display team in flight" - Arjayay (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

While that's true the issue is why is it this image which is being displayed on the mobile app rather than the image in the infobox, which on the desktop version is what we expect as the "lead" image. This isn't the first time this has been reported and there is a thread on mediawiki about it. Nthep (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Odd - It was in the "right" place (i.e. positioned as the desktop article) not in the infobox, when I borrowed a friends Android phone to check, before commenting - Arjayay (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Its not appearing in the infobox on the app but as the main header image which I think is WillemienH's point. Why this image rather than any of the others in the article? Nthep (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@WillemienH: I don't have an Android device but I guess you refer to the images shown in search results at mobile like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbird#/search. They are chosen automatically by the software and cropped to a square. I don't know the details but I guess the first image in Thunderbirds (TV series) is dropped because it's non-free and displayed in the article with a fair-use rationale that doesn't apply to a search results page. The second image has a 2.4:1 width to height ratio which is bad for cropping to a square. The third image is chosen. It's free and has a 1.5:1 width to height ratio. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

How do you handle the past, present and future?

I was trying to improve the article European Quidditch Cup, when I saw this sentence: "EQC 2015 will be held on 18–19 April 2015 in Oxford, UK.". I changed "will be" to "was". But now the European Cup 2016 is starting in a few hours, and I'm confused: In what way should I handle an event that has to come, but will soon be over? Should I just make it past tense already, so it will be correct in two days? Thanks in advance! Fornyrðislag (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fornyrðislag. Your question has interesting implications because the sport of Quidditch began as a fictional sport in the Harry Potter novels, but is now a real world sport. When discussing the plots of fictional topics, we use the present tense, even if the fictional work was written in the distant past. In other words, it is always "now" when discussing the stories of Homer, Shakespeare and Jane Austen. See WP:TENSE.

On the other hand, when discussing real world events, we use past tense and future tense as we would in ordinary conversation. Even if an event is only a few days in the future, use future tense when describing it. Simply return to the article and change the tense when the event has passed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, sir. Indeed Quidditch has more to it because of the fictional aspect. In this case it was all about the real world events. This answer was very helpfull. As I rarely have much to add to an article, I can now at least keep it up to date. Fornyrðislag (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect tagging

My edit (deletion revert in this case) was incorrectly tagged as adding email address which the article clearly didn't contain (possibly due to the inclusion of MSN.com). How do I report this bug to an admin? Omkay256 (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Omkay256: Someone else might be able to give you an official answer, but when I've done something similar, I made a comment on the talkpage to explain. PermStrump(talk) 20:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Omkay256: this particular edit filter will pick up a lot of things and due to the way it works it sometimes will return false positives. It is only an advisory filter so I'd ignore the tag as being irrelevant in this case. Nthep (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Omkay256. Since this results from abuse filter 247, I think Wikipedia talk:Edit filter would be the best place to note the issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Omkay256: A Ctrl+f browser search of @ in your diff shows the external link http://forum.dlang.org/thread/l37h5s$2gd8$1@digitalmars.com. Without the colon I think it would satisfy Email address#Syntax, and colons are allowed in certain other circumstances so I wouldn't blame the edit filter for this. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter and everyone else for responding. I did a search for @ but I must have missed it. Given its presence, it seems reasonable for the filter to err on the side of caution. Omkay256 (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrong name on 2 photos

I uploaded two photos this morning, and mislabeled them. I don't feel totally stupid because googling the more historic church, which only has a HABS photo, the modern photo that shows is of the church on Route 13/courthouse road whose photo I uploaded. However, it turns out the parish has two historic churches, and the one whose pictures I took last Monday and uploaded this morning is the slightly less historic one about 9 miles away from the HABS photo one (which is three plus hours away from where I live, so I can't just go and take another one to replace the HABS one). I revised the historic one's wikipedia article to show both churches in the parish, and corrected the captions. However, I don't know how to correct the name (or don't have authority). The photos which I labelled this morning as Hungars Church should be of Christ Church Eastville, and frankly I included the less pretty one in order to show the road mentioned in the text. I could upload a third to show just the front or something, but that wouldn't correct the incorrect name problem on the 2 files uploaded today. Thanks for your help.Jweaver28 (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jweaver28, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you uploaded the images to Commons as is sugested, You can request a rename at Commons:File renaming Otherwise, you can place {{rename media}} on the image, or ask an admin or a File mover. (You would need to specify the curent fiel name and the one you want.) Or you could simply upload another copy at the correct name and ask that the copy at the incorrect name be deleted. DES ^(talk) 03:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)