Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1015

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 1010

←

Archive 1013

→

Talk page ban by Beyond My Ken

In this edit to my talk page Beyond My Ken made the following comment:

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.
Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This was after I made some comments on his talk page warning about his edit warring behaviour on two different articles.

As I have felt unfairly attacked by this editor in the past, I would have avoided placing any warnings at all, had it not been for the following notice on his talk page BMK is attempting to hold himself to a 2RR limit. Please contact him if you see him going past that.

As a matter of courtesy, I don't intend to make any more comments on this user's talk page, but as I am unable to clarify this directly, could someone tell me whether or not this is a unilateral ban he has imposed himself, and whether I am at risk of any administative sanctions if I place any comments at some point in the future. Additionally I was wondering whether there is any guidance I should read which would be helpful in this situation. Lmatt (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is a unilteral ban that I have imposed on you only in respect to my user talk page. You are not banned from responding to me on article talk page, on the talk pages of other users, on noticeboards, or anywhere else on Wikipedia, only on my talk page. These bans have been consistently upheld by administrative action, and users have been blocked from editing for violating them. My personal policy is that if I ban someone from my talk page, I will not post on theirs, unless similarly required to do so. I have, however, just posted an explanation on your talk page. That should be the last you'll hear from me there, although I will, of course, continue to monitor your contributions when necessary to protect Wikipedia from disruptive or harmful edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lmatt. The way Wikipedia editors communicate with others is via talk pages. On article talk pages, no one particular editor controls things so only the Wikipedia community can decide whether to ban someone, etc. and pretty much posts are only removed/edited only when it's a serious/policies guideline violation like some of the examples given in WP:TPO. Individual user talk pages are, however, treated a bit differently. Even though nobody technically owns their user talk page per WP:UP#OWN, they're given the right to manage the page as they see fit as long as they do so in accordance with WP:BLANKING. Editors typically only "ban" other editors from posting when they feel that nothing constructive is going to come from any further interaction from them; they technically cannot prevent you from posting per WP:NOBAN, but they can just simply ignore or even remove what you post. So, if you find yourself in a situation like this, then the best thing to do is simply to refrain from posting anything on their user talk page, except when required to do so. Even though the "ban" might technically be more of a "strongly worded request" at this point, you'll gain nothing by continuing to post comments and may in turn lead the other editor to seek a more formal ban against you or even formal sanction for being disruptiveor tendentious. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability requirement

Capwell Wyckoff was an author in the 1920s-1950s.

He wrote series - mysteries that were very popular. Think Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew type stuff.

He was also a Presbyterian minister and travelled through the backwoods of Arkansas and Kentucky as Sunday School missionaries.

His books sell on eBay and one of the rare titles in good condition with a dust jacket will sell for hundreds of dollars when they are available which is seldom.

We would like to see an article on his books and life included in Wikipedia.

Does this sound like something that would be considered for publication? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8fultom (talk • contribs) 05:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gr8fultom. That depends entirely on whether or not you can find multiple reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this author, his life and his books. Start by reading Your first article and by gathering such sources. The most common type of sources for author biographies include book reviews, newspaper and magazine articles about the author's career; and for better known authors, biographies and studies of their work written by literary critics. Your job will be to cite those sources and summarize what they say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I couldn't find much in an internet search, and a Google Scholar search turned up zilch (honestly a worse sign than the internet search in this case). If he's as popular as you say he was, you may be able to find articles in old magazines or newspapers, but finding these sources is not necessarily going to be easy.

The eBay thing is generally not a good sign for an author, as that would necessitate that the author's books are rare. On the other hand, if his books are a significant enough collector's item in their own right, you may be able to find something about him in publications that cover collecting/eBay/etc. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Editors are editing and removing my articles and demanding quotations of sources when they are already quoted.

Certain editors are not fairly assessing the context of my quoted articles and are deleting arrogantly without consultation, can this be part of an organised watch group to suppress Fijian historical facts?Saqiwa (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Saqiwa Welcome to Teahouse. I believe Nakorotubu District is the article you mentioned about and @DrKay: is the editor/admin who deleted your unsourced content. Pls note no "derogatory comments" were made to you by DrKay as you have mentioned in Kudpung talk page as the warnings placed on your talk page are standard messages. If you have a look at the history page HERE, DrKay has provided the reason of the removal of the content. Do note unsourced content can be removed without consultation of any editor as content claimed needs to be support by sources whereby they can be verify and "all content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." - see WP:PROVEIT. Please see independent and reliable sources info and requirements so you may know the guidelines. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Saqiwa. Just want to add that a Wikipedia article is not really owned by anyone or anything per Wikipedia:Ownership of content and wmf:Terms of Use, except perhaps technically by the Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia and the servers which host the content on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects. So, neither those you create or edit Wikipedia articles nor the subjects of articles have any final editorial control over articles or their respective content. Moreover, Wikipedia encourages editors to be WP:BOLD in creating or editing articles; so, no real prior approval is needed (except in certain limited cases). Wikipedia hopes that editors will create articles and edit them in accordance with its various policies and guidelines and further hopes that other editors will boldly fix mistakes or other problems so that articles are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. So, it's generally a good idea to assume good faith with respect to edits made by others, even if the edits revert or change one of your own edits, and try to understand why the edit was made (i.e. what policy or guideline is being applied). Understanding why an edit was made can make it easier to figure whether there truly was a problem and how to fix things if there was. Editors often disagree on whether an edit is a problem and when that happens it's best to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to try and figure things out. Assuming that others are only editing so as to suppress Fijian historical facts is not really a good way to try and be WP:HERE. Wikipedia's purpose is not really to present Fijian historical facts, but rather only content about Fiji which can be verified through citations to reliable sources and which is deemed relevant to its readers by the Wikipedia Community. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse,

Thank you for your explanation. The editing would have been more acceptable if they were consistent with the guidelines. I cannot understand the inconsistencies by Dr Kay (and supporting editors) who have been inconsistent in 'deleting big volumes' of proven academic write ups/sources of Nakorotubu district and other contributing articles but yet have replaced the articles with 'wrong names of places' and 'a global institution that contains incorrect names' (e.g UN report with wrong names of the 7 Nakorotubu sub districts ). After contributing for the last 4 years on the Nakorotubu district and other articles, the sudden and increased interests and inconsistent editing implies that there are more external factors to consider from the reasons of the editors. Particularly when I as the author of the Nakorotubu article for the last 4 years was threatened by Dr Kay not to ever change the Nakorotubu article again or I will be blocked from editing on Wikipedia. This is really unfair and sad, someone with limited research knowledge and work on Nakorotubu to ban me from contributing on such a topic that I have contributed to for the last 4 years. There is definitely something more than this, perhaps the sensitivity of the Fijian historical facts exposed?

Saqiwa (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Saqiwa. If you're involved in a disagreement over article content, then the thing for you do would be to discuss things on the article's talk page. So, if you have concerns about the content of Nakorotubu District (i.e. you think it's wrong in some way), then you should start a discussion at Talk:Nakorotubu District and see what other editors think. You could even try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fiji for input. Basically, you were bold and tried to improve the article, which is OK to do; however, another editor disagreed with the changes you made and reverted them. So, you should now follow WP:BRD and try and resolve things through discussion. By discussing things, you can explain why the changes need to be made and how they comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you can establish a consensus through discussion, the changes will be made; if not, they won't. If you can show that the changes you made can be supported by citations to reliable sources, then others are likely to agree with you; on the other hand, if the content your adding is unsourced or appears to be some kind of original research, then it's going to be really hard to establish a consensus in favor of adding it. The fact the someone is disagreeing with you on article content does not automatically mean they are wrong or that there are some "external factors" influencing their edits anymore than it means that you are wrong and there are "external factors" influencing your edits. You'll have a much better chance of resolving this is you don't assume bad faith with respect to others.

The warning added to your user talk page appears to be the last in a serious of warnings. If you make an edit which is challenge by another editor, you might receive a mild "level-1" warning advising you not to do so again. The warnings, however, tend to become more strongly worded if you keep repeating the same edit or keep doing the same thing. The last warning was a "level-3" warning added because you apparently keep adding unsourced content to the article despite being previously advised not to do so twice before. It's not a warning that says "not to ever change the article again"; it's a warning to not re-add unsourced content to the article again.

Finally, It makes no difference how long certain content has been in article if it's something which doesn't comply with relevant policies and guidelines; it can be removed at anytime by another editor. The best way to prevent that from happening is to make sure the content you add is neutrally worded, encyclopedically relevant to the reader, and can be verified by citations to reliable sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Saqiwa:. If this process of resolving disagreements about edits seems onerous, it is. It's so simple to make an edit, but once there's a dispute, then the veil of simplicity falls apart. It becomes about familiarity with a complicated set of intricate rules, applying intimidation effectively, and persistence. For normal people, the level of satisfaction plummets, and along with that, willingness to continue participation.

It's probably fair to think of editing Wikipedia as a form of multiplayer game... so if you view editing Wikipedia as a game, then having all these rules could be just great! But if your primary motivation is to improve Wikipedia, you will eventually encounter this frustration ... and it becomes difficult to simply give in, because the more effort you put into your position, the more you are likely to believe in your position and the more you have invested. Short of re-inventing Wikipedia, I have no solution to offer. Fabrickator (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that sounds an awful lot like WP:BATTLEGROUND, one of the things that Wikipedia is not.

Saqiwa, continuing to assume bad faith on the part of your fellow editors is almost guaranteed to result in a poor outcome for you. Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they have an ulterior motive, especially something as unlikely as wanting to suppress Fijian history. As far as content age, pages like the one in question that have "fewer than 30 watchers" ([1]) may have content for years that nobody concerned has seen or taken the time to object to – that doesn't mean someone can't legitimately object to it. I looked at what I think is the content in question (here) and it definitely has issues, including due weight and sourcing. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Teahouse members, Ok I rest my case, thanks for reminding me that I will get frustrated if I want to improve information on wikipedia but just to treat editing and contribution on wikipedia as a form of a game with rules. Saqiwa (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

what to expect after adding "expert needed" tag

I added the "expert needed" tag to Fleet Marriage, though I didn't add a project because I wasn't confident about the right way to do that (both how to identify an appropriate project and exactly what markup is used to specify the project... my best efforts to interpret the documentation leave me scratching my head!).

Is there any next step to take? I understand this article may sit here with this tag for an extended period of time (years?), but kind of wonder what's the point?

This article was tolerable (though not without its flaws) when it was re-written in 2005, but over time, much of the material was deleted after "need citation" tags were inserted and nobody bothered to provide citations. The effect of these deletions has been to lower the article quality. I think this is termed an "exercise in futility".

But if nothing's going to happen in the way of actually identifying an expert to fix the problems, then I'd consider two other possibilities:

revert substantially all of the deletions made due to lack of citations
just delete the article

Please advise. Fabrickator (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Fabrickator, you can read the scope of a WikiProject on their project page. To find, guess/determine, and add a WikiProject to an article, I find the most effective way is to go to an article on a most closely related topic. In this case, when I was new, I would go to Talk:Marriage, and copy the code for WikiProjects from there, and prune it to fit the requirements of the article that I'm editing. I can see two WikiProjects from Talk:England would also fit the subject. You get the idea.

You can try boldly reverting it to the last best version if you think an article has deteriorated over time. Just be sure to leave a courteous edit summary, and add a new section to the article's talk page notifying editors that you have reverted it back a long time, for such and such reasons, and see whether it stays, or gets reverted, or whether someone comes to join the discussion. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Unsure whether to merge or not.

I asked SuggestBot to give me a list of articles to work on. One of the articles (Carlton Tower and Portman Hotel shootings) had a merge template on. However, there has been no discussion on the talk page about whether or not to merge the article, and there are also discretionary sanctions applicable for the page as well. What should I do? LampGenie01 (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

LampGenie01, A merge template, or any other, is not an instruction, but a proposal/heads up. If you go through both articles, check the sources on both, and determine that a merger is better, that makes a consensus of two with no user having objected to it in the last seven months. If you disagree, you can ping the original proposer and discuss it with them. If you are OK with possibly having your effort reverted, you can BOLDly merge it and wait and see if it gets reverted. You can also initiate a discussion yourself on the talk page, and notify all the WikiProjects (on their talk page) listed on the articles' talk page, and see for a week or so, if anyone comes to contribute to the discussion. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Asarlaí (talk · contribs) made that tag here. I am not sure I agree, it looks like a fair WP:SPINOUT, a small spinout, but logical and complete. Asarlaí is a very experienced editor, although he doesn't talk much. If you like the idea of doing the merge, I suggest you should discuss it on the talk page, and ping him. If you don't, if you agree with me, then remove the merge tag. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice guys. I pinged Asarlai on the talk page to try and initiate discussion and will see where that goes. LampGenie01 (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Phishing in talk page?

Hi, I was notified of this edit [2] on a talk page, and it just looked very suspicious to me. Are you aware of this sort of thing? Thanks! – egaudrain (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Egaudrain. I don't think it was phishing, but I removed it. Please see WP:FORUM. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328. – egaudrain (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding Sections

Hello Teahouse friends,

I have been wondering how to add sections like profiles appearing on the right side of the page and also contents box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qproperties (talk • contribs) 08:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand your question, so you may need to clarify it. One of the things which often appears on the right hand side of a page is an infobox. For information on the table of contents, see WP:Table of contents. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Article Creation

Hi there,

I have a conflict of interest on a Wiki article that I believe is worth being created. I have put it into the Requested Articles section, but it was been there for a very long time!

The business is called Ethique and it is the worlds first zero waste full range beauty brand. It began in New Zealand and has since grown and is available across the world.

The founder of Ethique, Brianne West, has her own Wikipedia page, but that also needs updating. Both Brianne and Ethique are up for many awards in New Zealand and possibly more in the US and England within the next year.

I can attempt to write an article and submit it for approval - but after reading all the Wiki guidelines, I feel it is strongly suggested that I get someone else to write this.

Is there a better way I can go about having someone else create this article?

I'm happy to put suggested changes on Ethique's page without changing anything myself (due to conflict of interest).

If anyone is interested in attempting to write about it (it is VERY interesting and such a good business), then let me know and I can send through some sources to get you started :)

Thank you in advance!

Mazthecat (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Mazthecat, after making the necessary disclosures on your userpage, you can create the article through Articles for Creation. Once the article is in mainspace, you need to use the Edit Requests feature to request edits. Editors generally have a bad experience with COI editors trying to push bias, so I suggest you keep your edits as neutral as possible, have every request supported by reliable sources, and make each request quite brief. If it's likely to take a long time to review, it's likely that many editors who come across the request will skip it. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I endorse Usedtobecool's answer, Mazthecat, but I'd like to reinforce one point: have every request supported by reliable independent sources. Don't put anything in the draft that is sourced only to the company or its founder (whether on their own web pages, or in interviews or press releases). Wikipedia is basically not interested in what a subject says about themselves, only in what independent commentators have chosen to publish about them. --ColinFine (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Help needed with a university article.

Hi. First of all I'm not that familiar with the Wikipedia lingo so "explain like I'm five". Anyway I recently discovered that Government College University (Lahore)'s article had VERY limited/old info. I've updating the page for the last day or two, but then I found out that the article is not according to the article structure that WP has for university articles. (It has C for quality status) Being a student of said uni, I feel like its my duty to update/uphold the standards of the article. I realize that this is a MASSIVE do-over of the existing article. I trying to re-write the article according to the structure of this article, which is a good article. HOW DO YOU GUYS THINK I SHOULD PROCEED WITH THIS? Being a uni student, I know the whole deal about citations, plagiarism and neutral POV for papers. Do I just start to edit the page or make the to-be article in my sandbox and when its done, replace it? ---AsmiGCU (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, AsmiGCU. You should pitch your proposal on the Talk page of the article. If nobody responds within a week's time, then feel free to be wp:BOLD.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

My practice is to move a section of an article into my sandbox, work there, "Publish changes" (which means save), and check my formatting and referencing. I then copy the content into the article. This process is perhaps better than replacing an article in its entierity. David notMD (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a good hobby?

Hi everyone,

My name is Jim and I am thinking about registering an account. I have been looking for a good hobby to distract me from issues at home including a retarded child and unattractive wife. Of course, I have discussed my interests in joining Wikipedia with my family so they are aware that it could potentially consume a lot of my time and energy. What has been the experience of other editors here in terms of time commitment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B10E:E27:3D4A:B54E:DD8E:C632 (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jim. For some people, contributing to Wikipedia is little more than a fleeting interest, or even a joke; for others it has grown to become an all-consuming passion to build this great encyclopaedia. That can occupy as much or as little time as you wish, though we would never advocate it as a means to hide from one's real world challenges. Perhaps I could share three completely contrasting pages for you to read and consider? These are: Wikipedia:Tutorial, Wikipedia:Wikipediholic and Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia (and especially a subsection called WP:NOTHERE). Regards fron the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

One thing that I particularly enjoy is that there is no pressure as to when and where you edit. I feel like when I come on, I’m expected to conform to the policies but, apart from that, I don’t feel as if I’m expected to do anything else. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

To be brutally honest, if you have an addictive personality, be prepared for the possibility that it will take over your life. And since the community is very diverse, and has a fair number of editors who like to write and enjoy debate and argumentation, you should also be prepared to be annoyed, exasperated, frustrated and so totally fed up that you'll want to leave. And you will leave ... for a while, until you find yourself drifting back in, and before you know it you're hooked on editing again. (This is a fairly common pattern for many long-term editors.) So, if you have a thin skin, I wouldn't recommend Wikipedia as a hobby. However, that being said, the feeling of participating in a project that is helping to provide accurate information on an extremely large range of subjects is a wonderful one that keeps us all hanging on through the highs and the lows. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, "retarded" is no longer acceptable language in polite society, and the more you think of your wife as unattractive, the more unattractive she'll be to you, but, then again, she may see you as unattractive as well, or boorish and ill-mannered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec) My concern about your question is the way that you talk about your own family. I suspect trolling. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, so did I, but I've been taken to task so often for being uncivil, I hesitated to say so. In any case, my original response -- before I re-read the question and noticed its nature -- was a heartfelt one, so perhaps it will be useful for any real potential editors who happen to read it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That is an excellent point, BMK. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it ("brutally honest") was well written and it matches my own view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Here at the Teahouse it's right that we should always assume good faith, even in the face of the obvious. But if they are indeed a troll, we can be safe in the knowledge that they'll be the ugliest member of their family. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

where can i find my projects? Please help I want to finish it

I can't find my draft I made yesterday — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdjfhshshs (talk • contribs) 13:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean Draft:Kids anime or some other draft? Dbfirs 13:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

All pages which you have edited are listed on your contributions page. Click the "Contributions" link at the top right-hand corner of any page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Helping you find this question again: @Kdjfhshshs:. Mathglot (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Article assessment request

Hello. Is there a way I can request to get an article reviewed? I would like to get Islamic Society of Baltimore assessed. I have been the prime editor of this article since around mid-2017, and I would greatly appreciate an assessment. Melofors (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Melofors, you can request assessment in the pages of WikiProjects. Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Assessment#Requesting an assessment seems to be where you can add a request for your particular article. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Help with major edit to an existing article

Hey everyone,

I've had help from this page before, but still looking for some more guidance. I'm trying to add content to the Bug-a-Salt article. This article existed before I decided to edit, so I am not the editor. I do have a COI and I did state this on the talk page. I've created an edit request on the talk page of the article, and I've gotten some help but I still need some assistance in editing the content. I understand that the content needs to be a Neutral point of view and not overly promotional, so I'm trying to do my best to do this and I'd love some assistance. How can I refine the content so that I can update the article within the Wikipedia guidelines? If anyone can lend a hand and help edit the content further, I'd greatly appreciate it! Tayloreyelash (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Universities in Naples, FL

In an article about Naples, Florida, Kieser University is not listed as one of the local universities. We would like to edit the content to include it. It is located at 1336 Innovation Blvd., Suite 2, Naples, FL 34108 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.192.31.129 (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you a representative of the university? If so, you need to review conflict of interest and paid editing. There would probably need to be an article about your university before it could be written into the article about Naples. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Keiser University exists as a Wikipedia article, but it is identified as located in Fort Lauderdale, with only a small branch campus in Naples. David notMD (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

How long should hyperlink titles be?

There does not appear to be anything here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking about whether unjustified, unnecessary and really quite excessive amounts of words in a title is acceptable. I realise that the idea is to make Wikipedia accessible, but do we need to be writing sentence-long link titles to plainly explain every article we link to? Thanks for your advice, Vitreology (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Vitreology, WP:SURPRISE comes to mind. Sometimes, the flow of prose dictates expressing a linked article as a phrase. How many words to link depends on exactly which and how many words linked together would give the reader the impression of what the linked article is going to be about. For example, I keep needing to express 2013 Nepalese Constituent Assembly election as "the second constituent assembly election, in 2013." If I linked "election" only, it wouldn't be specific enough to prevent surprise in readers, "constituent assembly election" has the same problem. Linking "second constituent assembly election" is the least number of words, as I see it, that's specific enough. So, linking "the" as well as ", in 2013" would be unnecessarily long. That is the common sense judgement I make, I am not aware of other specific policy/rules on this either. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool Thank for your reply. Can I please get your opinion on the first sentence here? Thanks, Vitreology (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason why the link shouldn't simply be the title of the linked article. If any reader does not know the meaning of incubation period they can simply click on the link.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, in the general case, WP:JARGON says to Avoid excessive wikilinking (...) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations. In that particular case, I think "incubation period" is simple enough for us to expect a random reader to have a vague understanding of what it means, so wikilinking is OK, and I changed the sentence accordingly. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Vitreology, My thoughts, the subsequent comments here notwithstanding, would be that, in general, I agree that Incubation period is enough, and definitions can be added in parenthesis or as appositives if deemed necessary. However, since it's a medicine-related article (a sensitive subject) which has other instances of the same kind of thing, I would suspect that there could be written/unspoken consensus to do so within that project, and wouldn't revert Doc James (who's from what little I understand, essentially a Wikipedia God, for his contributions to the project, and possibly the most valuable contributor to medicine-related articles) without seeking an explanation first. Of course, that's just what I would (not) do personally, Wikipedia has no editor hierarchy when it comes to content. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDMOS "The lead of an article, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors or ambiguity." Have put the term in parenthesis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It is an easily understood term that does not need to be patronisingly "explained". Two users changed the text; Doc James arrogantly changed it back, apparently considering that he alone has the final say. I have seen him behave in a similarly disruptive manner elsewhere. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is identical to my experience with Doc James so far. Take this [[3]] as an example. If non-admin users behaved the way he does they would be promptly disciplined. A heck of a lot of 'blind eyes' are being turned to this matter. I wish admin were brave enough to hold Doc James to the same standards as the rest of us. Vitreology (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This isn't an appropriate place for this conversation. His talk page would be the first place to go to with your concerns, the second place would be WP:ANI. If you think he's being protected by admins because of his repute, the place of last resort would be WP:ARBCOM. FWIW, I don't see a problem with the edit that you linked, but I might not have the context that you do. In any case, you could always open a talk page discussion when you disagree with a particular version, as Doc James has done with the other article. Follow the WP:BRD cycle and you'll always have a high ground in any dispute. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 20:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:The Hague Institute for Global Justice

Are there any experienced editors available to provide input at Talk:The Hague Institute for Global Justice#Questions and comments on proposed changes? Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 23:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Please help me to improve the page I have created

Hello dear Wikipedia users, I have created a page for a Georgian international football player and I could only add the general information. I have also added reliable sources that can confirm this information. The page is for Luka Gugeshashvili. please help me to make this page more complete and attractive. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachana28 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Bachana28! Thanks for creating Luka Gugeshashvili. I've removed the proposed deletion on the page. You can improve the page by adding sources. These can be in languages other than English if you can read them, and then add a translated-title= field to the citation. I can't read Spanish, but https://es.besoccer.com/noticia/el-granada-firma-al-portero-luka-gugeshashvili-664293 looks like a useful source. Newystats (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Creating a page

Hello- I've created a new page but it has been awhile since I've initiated one. It seems to me that new pages in the past were flagged and reviewed. Is this still the process? And, if so, will this be done automatically by bots for any content appearing new during the past 24 hours? I'm just wondering if I need to flag it in some way for review. Thanks in advance. Chris — Preceding Wikipedia:ccxsen comment added by Ccxsen (talk • contribs) 01:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ccxsen, Greetings. I believe your article is Gary Kielhofner which you have created on September 16, 2019. We have about 5K new page waiting to be reviewers and the backlog is about 6 weeks. Kindly be patient. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Can i create a wikipedia page about my company? Is it notable?

Hello I have a digital graphics company named Vecras Creations Private Limited https://vecras.com We have clients worldwide and we wanted to create a wikipedia page describing about our company? Can i create a page about my company on wikipedia? Will it be considered notable or not? kindly guide Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monisha02 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Monisha02. You're going to need to assess whether the company satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If you think it does, then perhaps an article about the company can be written. However, before you try to write such an article yourself, you should take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Basically, a Wikipedia article is written about a subject, not for a subject, and the subjects of Wikipedia articles don't have any type of final editorial control of article content. Moreover, article content is really only intended to reflect the what independent and secondary reliable sources are saying about a subject, not what the subject has to say about itself, and this coverage can be both positive and negative as long is it in accordance with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. You can find out some more about this at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Monisha02. A Google search finds that your company has not been covered in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That means that it lacks the WP:Notability required to have an article about vecras in Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Image Upload

How can i upload image in wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krnitin10 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Krnitin10. Wikipedia:Uploading images will explain it all for you. Please read it carefully.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Krnitin10. You haven't given a lot of details, but perhaps you'll find Wikipedia:Image use policy and Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1 helpful. Uploading a file to Wikipedia is technically not too difficult to do, but you need to make sure the file is uploaded under a license that Wikipedia accepts as explained in Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files in order to avoid the file being deleted. Read through the pages I've linked above as well as c:Commons:Licensing and if you have a specific questions feel free to ask them below or at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Created Page not visible in Wikipedia

I have been trying to create a page for Kalli Purie by just putting the basic information about her without nay links and promotional stuff. But I cannot see that page when I search Wiki even though the page shows as contents saved after every change. Can somoen understand if I am doing something wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalli Purie (talk • contribs) 12:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You didn't create an article, but instead created a user page which did not comply with the purposes of a Wikipedia user page. This was deleted for reasons explained on your user talk page, but you recreated it and it has now been deleted again for the same reason. If you want to create an artice you should not create an autobiography, but if you wish to create an article on another subject you will find advice at WP:Your first article. There is further advice in the welcome message which you received on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Kalli Purie You may have confused creating an article with creating an account. If you are not Kalli Purie, you will need to change your username as soon as possible, which you can do at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Daz 3D

This program loads your computer with hidden files and there are no provisions made in the program for uninstall of the program or the files it creates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:7017:8B00:885B:59E4:C1B0:633C (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@2603:9000:7017:8B00:885B:59E4:C1B0:633C: I cannot identify what you want to ask at the Teahouse. However, it seems like advertising. See WP:NOTSOAPBOX. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 23:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I assume they wanted to add a warning to DAZ 3D wrt to this problem but without reliable sources documenting this, there is nothing to add. Regards So Why 13:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

How to create a wikipedia page?

I have edited a page or two, but i want to create a wikipedia page. Please guide on the same. Also, i want create a page of notable person, Dr. Vijay Singh Niranjan aka Dr V S Niranjan an officer of IAS cadre in Government. Can I create page in his name --Niranjanvivek (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Niranjanvivek. If you feel that Dr. Vijay Singh Niranjan meets Wikipedia:Notability (people), then it's possible for an article to be written about him. Basically, what Wikipedia is looking for is describe is Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything; so, that's what you're going to need to assess. If you do find significant coverage about Dr. Niranjan, then take a look at Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners for some general advice on how to properly write and source articles. Since you've never written an article before, my suggestion to you would be to create a draft and then submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation when you think it's ready for review. You're not required to do this, but poorly written and sourced articles often end up getting deleted (sometimes even quite quickly) which can be pretty discouraging to the article's creator. Creating a draft and submitting for review will give other more experience editors a chance to assess it and offer suggestions on ways to improve any problems they might see. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Niranjanvivek: Adding to the above advice, I was wondering whether you are actually Dr. Vijay Singh Niranjan, or related in some way to them? Your username suggests you might be. If so, we have a very strongly prejudice against people trying to write about themselves. Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography to understand why you are unlikely to succeed, and this page to learn about conflicts of interest. Genuinely notable people sooner or later tend to get written about by other people; LinkedIn is a better place to promote oneself. Sorry I can't be more encouraging. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

If you are not Vijay Singh Niranjan or a relative or have a personal connection, then the appropriate path is to create a statement to that effect on your User page. Then, as Marchjuly suggested, create a draft and submit it via Articles for creation. I do see that at Garautha you had previously added content unreferenced about VS Niranjan and other people with the last name Niranjan, so either a disclaimer or a statement of a conflict of interest is needed. David notMD (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Edit a Template Protected Page

Hi,

I wanted to check in on the article's progress for Holly Ham's page that I created. What edits should I make to get it published? I can certainly find a citation for the third position and include that in the article. Thanks!

WashingtonDC123 (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The submission status on your draft says: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,356 pending submissions waiting for review." You can continue to improve the draft while you are waiting for the review. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And you need to improve it, WashingtonDC123, because there is a distinct lack of independent sources. Please understand that Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything said or published by the subject of the article, or their employers, associates, or alma mater. The only source currently referenced in Draft:Holly Ham that even looks as if it might be independent is the Education Week article; but on examination, it appears to be based on a press release and Ham's own LinkedIn profile. Wikipedia is only interested in what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them, in a reliable place. Having found some independent sources, you then need to go through draft deleting (almost) anything which is not reported in an independent source. (The only exception is uncontroversial factual information, which can come from a non-independent source. But that should be only a few percent of the content). It is especially difficult for you, having a COI (thank you for declaring it) because to write an article you basically need to forget everything you know about the subject, and base the article only on what published independent sources say. --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding references

How do I add references in the text so that they appear at the end in a proper bibliography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judy1957 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You'll find it explained in WP:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Living kidnap victims named and illustrated

In the Ariel Castro kidnappings article the living victims are named and illustrated. I thought Wikipedia is not a tabloid or newspaper to spread information identifying living crime victims. Don't crime victims have a right to privacy?
NewageEd (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NewageEd. There are a lot of factors to consider when considering whether or not to name criminal victims in an article. Among those factors is the degree of sustained media attention. In this case, the attention was intense, prolonged and worldwide. Another factor is whether the victims have spoken about the crime. In this case, one spoke at the kidnapper's sentencing hearing, all three released a joint video statement, and there have been various other statements from the victims in the time since their rescue. Though they do not seek to be public figures, I am unaware that they are trying to suppress their identities. Another factor is that law enforcement often asks the media to publicize names and details of kidnapping victims. Accordingly, I think that it is appropriate to mention the victims in this specific case, and in some other cases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow Cullen³²⁸, that's a real eye opener; I wouldn't have thought any of those things you mentioned (or all of them as a whole) would be a factor in the decision to name living criminal victims in an encyclopedia; especially . . .

1. speaking at the kidnapper's sentencing hearing (WP doesn't interfere with Court proceedings by threatening exposure of those who appear)

2. your unawareness that they are trying to suppress their identities (you would have to be aware that they were NOT trying to suppress)

3. that law enforcement often asks the media to publicize names and details of kidnapping victims (They had no business asking for that after-the-fact in this case, besides WP is not "the media").

As for victims statements made after being rescued; victims are not in an emotional condition to make a legitimate precedent of publicizing their identities.

As for media attention being intense, prolonged, and worldwide; if they behaved badly by identifying the victims doesn't mean WP should also. However, Wikipedia could include how intense and prolonged coverage was in various parts of the world and mention which media were indiscreet.

If Wikipedia is a kind of a cross between an encyclopedia and news media, I'm unable to reconcile that with the Pillars, Policies, and Guidelines. I'm going to have a difficult time learning this stuff. Thank you Cullen328 for sharing that information. - NewageEd (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@NewageEd: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We write what others have written about. There is a presumption in favor of privacy (cf. WP:BLPNAME) but there is no censorship when the material is widely available. In this case, all three women made statements a significant time after being rescued, so there is no reason to assume they were not counseled wrt the effect of their statement. But the main reason is that all three women - to this day - are using what they lived through to help others: Knight publicly appeared on Dr. Phil in 2016 promoting her book about her capture, i.e. clearly wishing to be publicly known as one of the victims. Berry hosts local news about missing people, using her own story to get an audience. DeJesus uses her ordeal to publicly advocate for missing people. If these women wish everyone to know what they went through, why should we remove their information? Regards So Why 13:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you So Why for the clear explanation. Now I see that their information being permanently in the public domain means that the victims can't really change their minds at a later date; and keeping their information in Wikipedia will help the victims help other victims by expanding their audience. - NewageEd (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Interactive map

This article gets an interactive map in the infobox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Avenue_Mall

But this one does not, even though I just copied the infobox source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Initramfs/sandbox

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Initramfs (talk • contribs)

Hi Initramfs. Template:Infobox shopping mall#Mapframe maps says: "A Mapframe map is automatically included if: There are coordinates specified on the page's Wikidata item". The map would appear even if {{Infobox shopping mall}} was used without any parameters. Click "Wikidata item" in the left pane of the article to see 1st Avenue Mall (Q19804184) where the coordinates are stored. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Wrong info in "Booth Lusteg Wikipedia" article on Google

There has been wrong statistics in my father's background and history info in the Wikipedia article. His name is Booth Lusteg How can I correct it? The site is called boothlustegtribute.com Thank you Lisa Lusteg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtlisa (talk • contribs) 19:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Courtlisa, welcome to the Teahouse. If you could mention which information is incorrect, we may be able to help out. I would thoroughly not recommend editing the article yourself as you have a strong conflict of interest. The website you have mentioned doesn't appear to be a reliable source, so I don't think we can use that website to verify the information you would like to change. Nonetheless, I still think I can help if you tell me where the information is incorrect, as mentioned. Best wishes, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Courtlisa, I see that you have now made some edits to the page about your father. Any controversial edits should be suggested on the talk page because of your conflict of interest, but the minor ones you have already made are probably uncontroversial. The article urgently needs better references. Can you find some independent WP:Reliable sources? Dbfirs 20:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Updating information on a Wikipedia page

I noticed that information for my municipality is not correct. How do I go about editing this information or is there a contact that I would be able to provide the information to for them to update? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.1.250 (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Assuming that you have not done any Wikipedia editing to speak of, and that you presumably don't want to get involved in the morass of Wikipedia editing protocols, my suggestion would be to create a new section on on the "talk" page for the article. If at all possible, please provide a reliable source for the information. Also, I'd advise you to establish a Wikipedia account, so that you aren't identified just by your IP address.

Now be aware, this will not necessarily cause anybody to modify the article itself. In my experience, it is quite likely that nothing will happen for years and years and years. But you've done your part ... if the Wikipedia organization can't figure out how to accept and evaluate this kind of input, that's on them, not on you. (Probably somebody will tell me I've got it all wrong, I'll just have to take such assaults to my reputation and try to survive. Fabrickator (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@216.201.1.250: and @Fabrickator:, the OP can markedly increase the likelihood of some regular editor making the desired changes if, having waited a couple of days and coming to a concensus with anyone who wishes to debate the changes on that Talk page, they or any other participant place an appropriate 'request for edit' template in the section, as detailed in Wikipedia:Edit requests. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.210.107 (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

What specific Wikipedia article are you talking about, and what information in that article do you believe is incorrect? Carl Henderson (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

How do I delete my account?

There are too many rude people on this site. It's giving me excess stress and I want to leave. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Vigilante Girl: - per WP:FAQ, you cannot delete your account, but you're free to abandon it at any time. See WP:VANISH for more information. Thank you! -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 18:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Or, Wikipedia:Retiring allows you to put a RETIRED banner across your User page. David notMD (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

All headers open on every wiki page

I've used Wikipedia for a long time, just reading articles on my phone, but for some reason recently on every article I read every sub-header has been open by default and won't let me close it like I used to be able to by pressing the arrow next to the heading title, making the pages quite difficult to read and navigate. Is this something I've done wrong or a strange new feature of the site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.104.136.17 (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps at the foot of the page you have switched from "Mobile view" to "Desktop view"? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, IP Editor. Here's what you need to do to fix this: In Mobile view, click the menu button on the top left of the page, and go to 'Settings'. I'm sure you'll find the 'Expand all sections' button has been enabled (blue when enabled). Simply slide it left to disable it, and you should now be fine. Perhaps you'd let us know if this resolves it? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)