Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 289

Archive 285

←

Archive 287

Archive 288

Archive 289

Archive 290

Archive 291

→

Archive 295

Why did I get so much hostility today?

I tried to help with an article about the real life event of the chocolate shop hostage situation (on Wikipedia as 2014 Sydney hostage crisis), and in reading about it there were a lot of people talking about it being terrorism, when it was described quite definitively in news and analysis as not being anywhere near being terrorism. I then saw that someone had created a page on the hashtag that was used to stop backlash against the Muslim community, called "illridewithyou" and the page was nominated to be deleted. When looking at that, I discovered that the guy who had created the article had been blocked for 48 hours, based on the accusation that he had violated the Biographies of Living Persons policy. And yet he very clearly hadn't done it, certainly not with the edit that he made on illridewithyou. He was one word different to quoting word for word what was said in the article! And we are supposed to summarise! I put the edit back in, as it was so obviously a mistake, and I had 3 different administrators threaten to ban me over it. So I put it up on the Biographies of Living Person's Noticeboard and had goodness knows how many threats and quite horrific behaviour directed at me. I asked them to stop but every request to get them to calm down just seems to make it worse and get more people involved.

I just find this confusing, as when I was editing The Strain and people disagreed, I didn't get threats like this, and when I asked people to calm down, they did. So what is the difference? Why are people so hostile with this article and this topic? I don't see any difference to how I approached it, so it couldn't be anything I did wrong, so the question is why are they behaving like that? And how can I get them to stop it?

Or do I just restrict myself to editing TV shows?

That's all fine and good and all, but that article on the hostage situation is really inaccurate, as it seems to be quoting all of the worst media reports on it and ignoring the good quality ones.

Any help is appreciated. KrampusC (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings KrampusC welcome to the teahouse. I notice no one has responded. I think because it's not that clear what specific question you are asking. It sounds like you are saying that you think some other editors are wrong and (forgive my language) it's kind of pissing you off. This doesn't help but for what it's worth I can definitely relate. I can't tell you how angry I get at times when I see someone has reverted my hard work. Once I could literally feel my blood pressure rising -- and this was over an article about Frames in Artificial Intelligence! At times like that I ponder what I call my Cartman solution and usually just say (to myself): Screw you guys, I'm going home! Seriously, there have been more than one occasions where I was sure I was right about something but I just felt like I was getting dumber having to argue with the other person and just gave up. There are always other articles to edit. Or as one of my favorite unofficial Wikipedia articles says: sometimes the best response is to just not give a fuck. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you MadScientistX11 and thank you for responding. Please allow me to explain what the issue was.

The article on illridewithyou I noticed was nominated for deletion, and, on checking the reasons for it, it said that the reason it was going to be deleted, per the article 2014 Sydney siege, was because its creator, User:The Almightey Drill, had been blocked for 48 hours for a "massive BLP violation" on the illridewithyou article, and he had then responded in a very nasty way on his talk page. To me, looking at this, it didn't add up.

I am curious, in retrospect, if I should have just stayed out of it, but, as I said, the issue is that the mistake was so obvious that I felt that I should use Wikipedia's policy on "be bold" (WP:BOLD) to revert the mistake and ask the blocking administrator to consider unblocking the guy. I thought that I did it in a pretty nice way, but in response he threatened to ban me over it. He threatened me both on the article page, when he reverted me back, and then he, and 2 other administrators, threatened me on my own talk page = all over a single edit.

I thought that surely Wikipedia as a whole can't be like that, so I asked for an opinion on the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, since the rules clearly state that quoting someone themselves can never be a BLP violation. I then received 9 more threats in relation to my daring to question their authority (which, incidently, does remind me of Eric Cartman's "respect my authoritae"), and then I deleted the request on the BLP page. After that, I apologised to everyone for inadvertently stepping on their toes. They refused to accept my apologies, though, and 3 of them continued to harass and threaten me on my user talk page. I was just getting sick of the harassment, so I deleted it. I was then told that it was okay, so I deleted all of it. And I left the whole thing well and truly alone. If these people want to behave so immaturely, then go ahead. At the end of the day, I don't actually care if they have this part in the article or not.

I mean, it is important to include the part that the article's creator included, don't get me wrong. If that article exists, which I believe it should, then it is very important to include the fact that the hashtag's creator is a politician who admitted to making the whole thing up. The blocking admin admitted that that was not an actual BLP violation and was not the reason that he blocked the guy. But he then insisted that there was a secret second reason, but he refused to state what it was. There may well have been a secret second reason so horrific that it can't be shown, but then if that is the case, then why am I in trouble for reverting what he admitted was wrong? Why did I get, ultimately, 11 threats, for daring to question whether it was wrong, when the blocking admin himself admitted that he was wrong?

It reminded me of some people at my work when the boss says that something is true, even though we all know it isn't. Publicly everyone supports the boss, but then, when the boss isn't looking, we all admit that the boss is pretty freaking ridiculous. Like the time we were told that we were all going to have smaller places to work. We all nodded our heads and everything, then we called up the union to complain. Because if we complain in front of the boss, then we risk getting fired. So we'd rather have the union involved.

Unfortunately for Wikipedia, there is no union, so I guess that we just have to stay away from scary bosses.

Is that what we should do? KrampusC (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello KrampusC. I'm sorry that you feel that you were threatened and treated with hostility. I'm currently looking into the circumstances behind the situation, so I'll reply soon and try to explain why this may have happened. --Biblioworm 15:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Biblioworm. I can quote diffs for what people said, but, if I learned anything about how Charlotte Dawson dealt with her cyberbullying, I think doing so would be a bad idea, certainly in public. What I am going to do is to note my apologies to 3 of the people who, deliberately or accidentally, engaged in activities that fit the normal definition of cyberbullying. I wrote to them to apologise for accidentally offending them here: [1] [2] [3] and in response all 3 of them demonstrated an increased level of hostility towards me, including: [4], [5] and [6]. Not only has their bullying continued and escalated, in spite of my withdrawing from the situation completely, but they have tried to encourage others to bully and harass me too. In spite of the blocking admin admitting that my reverting him was not in violation of BLP [7] (as well as various other admissions), he continued to give me threats, and encouraged others to do so. He stated that the block against User:The Almightey Drill was not based on that reversion, but was based on some other, secret, problem, yet he threatened me in relation to that reversion only, and encouraged others to do so! If that isn't cyberbullying, I don't know what is!KrampusC (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@KrampusC: All right, I've looked over most of this, and this is the impression I get. A sentence stating (you know what) was added to the article. Even though there is some evidence to show that the woman editorialized or modified her story, it seems that people felt that it was BLP violation to say that she completely fabricated it, or made it up completely. With that said, I must say that I feel that you were jumped upon a little more than was necessary, especially seeing that you are a rather new user and probably not familiar with all of our policies. For example, instead of getting warned with the level 1 template (most appropriate for a new user, in my opinion), you got a a level 3 warning, merely a single minute after you had gotten your first "impending block" notice from Gnangarra.

Concerning the block of The Almightey Drill, I really can't do anything there, because Nick said that he issued the block mostly because of a serious violation that TAD had posted on a talk page. Since the revisions are revision deleted, and because I'm not an admin, I cannot see them; therefore, I'll have to take Nick's word for it and assume that it was very serious.

Indeed, Wikipedia can be a very strange place, where it can seem that experienced users love jumping upon good-faith newer users who probably don't know any better. I've been actively editing Wikipedia for a mere four months, much shorter than a lot of people here, (although I've been editing wikis for a total of around seven months), and I've already read, witnessed, and personally been through some things that just seem to be more difficult and overblown than they really have to be. There are some admins who misuse their power and influence (one had his tools taken away for that reason just two days ago), but unfortunately, there's really much you can do about it, aside from filing an Arbitration case (reserved for the most serious and repeated incidents). Now, there are also good admins who are friendly and genuinely want to help newer users. Also, here's a page that may be helpful if you get into any further disputes.

Even though this may be frustrating, especially if you really want to edit the page, this is probably the best thing to do if you want to avoid getting yourself into more difficult situations: "If in doubt, stay out!". If you want to learn more about Wikipedia and also have someone who will be around to help when you need it, you might want to check out the mentoring program. Regards, --Biblioworm 16:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you @Biblioworm: for your detailed response. The block against User:The Almightey Drill expired, after 2 days, by the way, and he hasn't been harassed at all over it. Just me. And a few other people who supported TAD (nice acronym! makes it a lot easier!) But mostly me. Based on what I read, I think that the blocking admin especially assumed bad faith, accusing me of being a meatpuppet, as did several others who supported him. As you would have read from the newspaper article, the politician herself admitted to having "editorialised" it, and, not only did I think that "editorialised" and "fabricated" sounded the same, but so did several other newspapers commenting on it. As I said above, the blocking admin admitted that that was not an issue either, and was not why he blocked TAD. Yet, perhaps because he didn't want to highlight what he had revision deleted, he didn't want to expand on the true blocking reason, so pretended that it was for that reason, even though it wasn't, and that led to me getting in trouble, even though I did nothing wrong. Another problem, as you will have noted, and as the guy who gave me my first warning eventually agreed, is that that guy was blocked, then there was a discussion about his block on the article's talk page, then the article was nominated for deletion, which, generally speaking, would be indicative of a bad faith nomination. I noted the timeline and questioned whether it was a legitimate nomination (of note, to date nobody has supported the request to delete it), and was accused of assuming bad faith and demands were made for me to revert that accusation! It was a factual statement, with reference to the timeline, and, given that the nominator commented on the talk page discussion, it seems preposterous to suggest that it was not related, or that the nomination was made genuinely. My argument was that if the AFD was made in relation to his edits, it should wait until the block had expired, as before then it is unfair. That's just simple logic really. You wait until someone has left before you talk about them, then say that they didn't vote? That's very bad. Now, I didn't outright say that he had made the nomination illegitimately, I simply referred to the facts. And he lied about it. He blatantly lied. And in lying he accused me of lying. It is just a little bit hard to take, to have someone lie to you and to everyone else while telling you that you are lying, when you aren't, and you can prove it, and they then have people blindly support them, and threaten you over it. It was just absurd.

Now, the advice you gave seems sound, but the issue is: 1) How can I get them to stop harassing me, and 2) What could I have done different in this case and hence what can I do different next time to prevent a repeat?

I don't think it is a good idea to launch a Request for Arbitration or to go to the Administrator's Noticeboard, when this is at least partially against an administrator (I don't know if the other two are admins or not but they might be) and given that his role as administrator was used as at least partial justification for his behaviour. I think that any response down that path would lead to even more trouble for me, and I imagine I'd probably get banned, drawn and quartered, as would any admin silly enough to support me over it. You'd be seeing little bits of me rolling down the street. My going to the BLP noticeboard was bad enough, as it was steamrolled so badly. Let alone if I went to an admin noticeboard. That doesn't seem sensible to me.

I guess I could just continue to stay away from them and hope that in the future they get bored of it and either stop it or pick a different target. Then if in the future, like months or years later, they start some abuse again, then I can call them on it. That's generally how you deal with bullies of all kinds, so it makes sense that that would be how you would deal with wikibullies.

And I guess as for dealing with it again, I should not boldly revert anything done by any administrator, ever, even if it is obviously wrong. What I perhaps should have done instead was to first discuss it on the talk page, and then, if I, as it seems I would have, got a lot of hostility, then I would leave it alone, or at least back off. The issue seems to be that I was bold in simply reverting it. I mean, I was clearly right in doing it, and had it been someone who wasn't an admin, and who hadn't banned someone over it, nothing would have happened. The issue seems to be that this was an admin doing it, and because, for whatever reason, he felt that it was a big deal. Or at least that blocking the guy was a big deal.

But he was only blocked for 2 days, and, in spite of some quite abusive messages by TAD, TAD wasn't blocked further. TAD also seems to have engaged in some sock puppeting, or at least it looked like that to me. Yet nothing happened to him. I would have thought that he would have got in trouble for that, not me for suggesting that the blocking reason was a mistake.

And I have edited for a few months, so I am not really new. I am just not prolific. I don't really like to edit just for the sake of editing. I only edit about things I know about. It seems to me a bit too irritating to have to research everything for hours before I add anything. I'd rather know what I was talking about, and know where the relevant parts are before I start something. I am not being paid for this, so why go to the extra effort? KrampusC (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@KrampusC: Sorry I didn't reply earlier. I missed that you had replied to my reply. Looks like I missed a lot of discussion in the mean time but I just wanted to reply to your last point: "I only edit about things I know about. It seems to me a bit too irritating to have to research everything for hours before I add anything" Think about how the alternative to requiring references would work. You write about what you know and Mr. Foo also writes about what he knows. As will inevitably happen you and Foo disagree. Now how do we resolve it? You talk about your expertise and Foo claims to have even more expertise. There is no objective way to resolve the debate. That is why we need to use good references. Because with references we can have a process to validate information. Of course we are still humans and any process won't be perfect. As I said in my first comment I've run into several cases myself where I thought the other editor was to put it bluntly an idiot and more than once I've just decided "this argument isn't worth the aggravation" and moved on to edit something else. Yes, it's true getting good references can be a pain in the butt and the Wikipedia process if far from perfect but I think it's kind of like democracy: it is awful except compared to the alternatives. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Look, I have decided that, with Wikipedia not seeming to have any real way to deal with cyberbullying, that my best course of action is to retire this account. I had a look at WP:SOCK and it says that, so long as I am not using 2 accounts at the same time, I am okay to do that, and don't even have to tell anyone what my new account is. So I am retiring this account. I won't participate in any of the discussions I had previously. I won't edit any of the pages that I edited relating to the cyberbullying, and I won't contact any of the people that bullied me. I will wait a while before starting a new account, and I am not going to tell anyone what name I choose to have. Anyone who has wondered what has happened to me can check my contributions and see what has happened. Having read through the rules on sock puppeting, it is okay to do this, so that, I think, is the right thing to do. Otherwise I feel that someone will manipulate the threats I received to use to hurt me in the future, whether I am silly enough to make a complaint to ANI or not. As for making a complaint to ANI, I went over it in my head, and I reckon it'd take some 20 hours or more to go through all of the diffs to present a neat little summary, and even then it'd almost certainly result in a similar kind of snowball as the BLP discussion did, which, in that case, escalated the number of people threatening me from 3 up to 11. Even if I did survive an ANI, I reckon it'd lead to me having so much harassment that it isn't worth dealing with. So it is time to disappear. I will decide sometime next year whether to use Wikipedia again, or not. I probably will, but we will see. My experiences before this were fine, but my experiences editing this controversial article, or, oddly, an uncontroversial hashtag in relation to a controversial article, has convinced me that I should steer clear of anything like this. I am not 100% sure what I did wrong, but it seems like it being controversial was probably a factor. My adding references or not is a moot point, by the way, since it was a solitary edit, which had references associated with it. My prior edits to articles had references and citations in them. I won't say goodbye on my talk page or to the people I talked to. They can always check my contributions and refer to it. As for the people who bullied me, I hope that they don't see this as a green light to do this to other people. I hope that they see it as a bit of sadness that they upset someone so much that they felt the need to hide. But I can't control how other people think. KrampusC (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm sorry to hear you have to do that. I have to be honest I didn't look at the issue you were complaining about that carefully. If people were truly bullying you then that is not acceptable behavior and... this is going to seem a bit inconsistent because earlier I was advocating "just move on and find something else to edit" which is what I think is almost always the best choice in these kinds of situations but if you really were getting bullied that is a different matter. Anyway, it's fine to get a new user ID if that is what you feel you have to do. Hope your future experiences are better. In spite of running into a few people I thought were idiots in general I think the community here is truly awesome, so much more collaborative than most sites. Hopefully your future experiences will be more like what most of mine have been. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey KrampusC, please do not retire your account. Please do stay, you do not need to create another account. I see that you are quite new to wikipedia, I joined about 2 or 3 weeks ago so I am a newbie. To be honest I have had my ups and downs as well but not as bad as what you seem to have gone through. Cyber-bullying is never acceptable. I am sure there is some process on wikipedia to escalate your problem so that it can be investigated. Also I have found that controvertial topics like the cafe shooting, israel palestine conflict, islamism, terrorist or islamist related articles are toxic ground. A lot of improvements could be made, but I found I would only be able to contribute once I am grounded in wiki guidelines/policy. I think rather than retiring and changing account you should spend time editing and getting familiar with wiki policy. You would also be able to do something about cyberbullying which you were talking about. Provided you are right about the bullying, you could do something to make it stop so that it does not happen to the next person. Please let me know if you change your mind or you can message me on my talk page. Mbcap (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

REF TOOL

I want to use wiki's REF TOOL Bar. Where do I find it? ladydeonne (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Howdy Lady Deonne. Welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. Go to Referencing for beginners and watch the first 5 minute video (click the "full screen" button so you can see the examples). You'll be referencing like an expert in minutes. Hope this helps, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 00:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Signature customization inquiry

Hi again. I noticed that some editors have special fonts on their signatures. I tried this once but it didn't quite work. I know there's a tutorial on signature customization, but it didn't cover fonts. Could anyone show me an example of a customized font and its code, or a table of the different fonts available for such endeavors? Maybe it's not available to new editors? I don't know. Thanks, Das Pig_talk 23:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Das Pig, and welcome to Wikipedia! This would be the code for the signature if you wanted a cursive font:

<span style="font-family:cursive;">[[User:Biblioworm|Biblioworm]]</span> <span style="font-family:cursive;">([[User_talk:Biblioworm|talk]])</span>

Also, here's a list of basic fonts. To change fonts simply replace the "cursive" with the name of the one you want. Hope that helps! --Biblioworm 00:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! DasPig _talk 00:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Das Pig

You can find useful information and examples of signature here

If you want you can customize them

Best wishes

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 03:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Question about article tone

Hi! There's an article that I was editing recently that reads exactly like a resume--no personal information, just degrees, theses, achievements, "clinical positons," and the like. Just bullet points; punctuated with a semicolon; like on a resume. Could someone propose this article for deletion or edit it or something? I mean, I think I can, just...can I have some advice on what to do with such articles in the future? That would be good. Thanks, Das Pig_talk 22:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, CaptainPiggles, thanks for noticing, and thanks for asking. There are several things you can do, depending on whether the subject is in fact notable, and on how much effort you are willing to put into it. The ideal, if you are willing, would be to search for the reliable sources, indepedent of the subject which have been written about him. If you can't find any, then he is not notable, and you can nominate the article for deletion using the Articles for deletion process. If you can find the sources, then you could rewrite the article based on the sources.

But often we don't have the time or inclination to do that much work, in which case the tags you've already added are fine. Actually, since it is a biography of a living person, anybody is entitled to remove any unreferenced information in it; but just doing so without doing any work to improve the article might be seen as unconstructive by some editors. --ColinFine (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help...Das Pig_talk 23:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll make sure to see what I can do about the article. Das Pig_talk 23:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

ColinFine, I did search around on the Internet for Mr. Kaidashev, but still, only achievements and awards turn up...he is listed in the "Minor Awards" in the "2001 Exchange Research Fellowship Award Winners" in the EAACI archives, but that's about it. The same archives listed forty-five different scientists and the like, and this is a hand count with the help of Ctrl+F (the narrow keyword was "Prof."). And Mr. Kaidashev was mentioned once for a minor award. It's quite obvious that he is not notable, because if he was, almost every other person—especially the ones that got major awards—on that list would have an article dedicated to them...perhaps another resume-like article. Mr. Kaidashev has an impressive and extensive resume, but as nothing about his early or personal life has surfaced, or any other reasonable information, this article is, I believe, pretty useless to Wikipedia. Thanks, DasPig _talk 02:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case, by all means nominate the article for deletion. --ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Why were my edits removed?

Why were my edits removed?Kermisch (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kermisch. I assume you are referring to your edits to the article on Argentine wine. According to the edit summary ([8]), an editor called User:Gadfium felt that what you had added were either unsourced or else sourced from a press release. If you disagree with his reversion of your edits, it may be a good idea to contact him yourself at User_talk:Gadfium, so that he can either explain himself and/or you can explain why you feel that they can be included. Wikipedia generally likes to have articles that are well referenced and some editors may removed information that, while they might be true, they are not certain are reliably accurate. I hope that that helps! KrampusC (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kermisch, I really did not understand which edits you are talking about? Can you please mention the article which you edited? Thanks! Ikhtiar H (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This is difficult because I have first hand experience with the material I submitted. I am a Argentine wine expert and I am actually the source and know these edits to be factual.Kermisch (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Howdy, Kermisch. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that content must be verifiable in independent reliable sources. Additions should usually be supported by in-line citations of a reliable source. From Wikipedia's standpoint, your additions were original research. With your knowledge, you know where information on Argentine wines is published. Watch the first 5 minute video in Referencing for beginners and you will know enough to quickly and easily add proper in-line citations to improve the Argentine wines article. Hope this helps, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 17:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

But you allow Laura Catena as a source promoting her father's contribution to the industry posted and cited by their US importer. Can I ask you to strike these remarks as well until I can write my own book?Kermisch (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Laura Catena authored books on Argentine wines and wine regions and, based on other independent reliable sources, is considered an expert. That you disagree with what she wrote does not invalidate her publications. After you publish books or articles that meet the criteria for independent reliable sources, your published material may be used to verify contents of Wikipedia articles. Published information is given due weight if there are conflicts between sources. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think she only wrote one recipe book. I have produced and directed a documentary on Argentine Malbec called Boom Varietal that played around the country, won 4 awards and is available on Amazon and Itunes. Can I or other people site sources used to make the film?Kermisch (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Kermisch. I don't know about sources used to make the film. Each would have to be checked against the criteria for reliable sources. The film or DVD of Boom Varietal may be used as a reliable source. To add a citation, use Template:Cite_AV_media. At times, even the cover or insert of a DVD can be cited using {{Cite DVD notes}}. Documentary films and educational DVDs are often reliable sources. You may also want to help improve the Malbec article and others. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 13:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Confusing redirects on Wikipedia?

I'm thinking that some redirects on Wikipedia may be confusing to viewers. For example, "Tapeworm" redirects to Cestoda and "Great Ape" redirects to Hominidae. There are many people who know what tapeworms and great apes are, but they have never heard of "Cestoda" or "Hominidae". And I am afraid that after they search "Tapeworm" or "Great Ape" into Wikipedia and be redirected, they will be like, "What the heck is Cestoda?" or "What the heck is Hominidae?" Please reply back, and also consider fixing the confusion problem. ApparatumLover (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, ApparatumoLover. Anybody who looks for "Tapeworm" is redirected, as you say, to Cestoda, which says at the top: "Cestoda (Cestoidea) is the name given to a class of parasitic flatworms, of the phylum Platyhelminthes. Biologists informally refer to them as cestodes. The best-known species are commonly called tapeworms.". I don't think it could be much clearer, and it would be wrong to title that article "Tapeworm", since it is wider than only tapeworms. This is an encyclopaedia, where people go looking for knowledge: this will often involve terms that are new to them. --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@ApparatumLover:Likewise, anyone who has just typed "Great Ape" in, and found a page titled "Hominidae", in which the very first sentence says "The Hominidae ... also known as great apes" is unlikely to think "What the heck is Hominidae?" I really don't see any problem. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Data erased (authentic)

My profile/bio was deleted "Guyon McCormack" by an unknown person/user deleted it. All of the info was authentic, verified, professional, and no violations. could I please have some help to bring it back and locked so people can not just edit or delete it?

Thank you, GM

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.174.41.131 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If by that you mean that you are the editor with an account named Guyon McCormack, and your user page User:Guyon McCormack was blanked, then the answer is that Wikipedia is not a social network site or a web host for publishing personal web pages or "profiles". You are welcome to contribute to the encyclopaedia, but if your only intention is to post a page telling the world about yourself and your career, then Wikipedia is not the right place for you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, the editor who removed the inappropriate content from the page User:Guyon McCormack, whom you describe as "an unknown person/user", was Dsprc, as was listed in the page history at the time when you posted your message to this page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Guyon McCormack also edited Guyon Patrick McCormack a day after it was created by User:Mccormackfoundation. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Twin Flames topic

Hello, My name is ArcAAngelous, it is my first time using wiki as an editor. I must apologies for being so quick to edit the topic without following Wiki guidelines, I'll make sure to follow the proper guidelines from now on. With that said, I have a question regarding sources and credibility with regards to this particular subject, Twin Flames. Are channeled messages considered to be valid sources? What about extensive personal experience? What exactly can be considered valid sources in regards to a topic such as this? The current information in wiki on Twin Flames is vastly incorrect, a very good try by contributing editor, none the less incorrect. I did read that the user is aware of the page requiring a whole rewrite however, how should we proceed due to the nature of the topic?

I can cite an channeled message from a self publishing site, well known and respected, assuming that may be considered a valid source? I could also write about my own experience on the subject having vast experience, even personal experience, on the subject. However, would that be considered a valid source and/or approach to this topic? I thank thee for your consideration and time. ArcAAngelous — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcAAngelous (talk • contribs) 02:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello ArcAAngelous, welcome to the TeaHouse. Not really sure what you mean by "channeled " messages. However, as to what constitutes valid source , you may want to look at this page as it talks about what is a reliable source. The quick summary is it has to be published by a reliable source, that source has to have "a reputation for fact checking and accurachy" this rules out email, faxes, conversations and chat room messages, as well as forums, personal experiences are also not considered reliable sources. Essentially, if what you want to add isn't printed in any reliable source, then it can't be added into Wikipedia either. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, ArcAAngelous. The criterion is that a random reader is able in principle to consult the source and verify the information. If the source is online, this is easy (though we require that the source be reliable, so not usually a blog or a wiki, for example). A major newspaper or a book from a reputable publisher is quite acceptable even if it is not available online: a reader could find it in suitably large library and go and consult it there. But a source that has not been published (so a reader could verify it only by asking a private individual for a copy, for example) is not acceptable. --ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you everyone for clearing that up for me. I did take a read at the links. Again thank you. Since the topic, Twin Flames, has such little reliable sources at this time I think it is best for me not to publish anything on wiki in regards to it. Other than that, thank you, I look forward to co-editing with everyone. ArcAAngelous (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Need help formatting

I'm not sure I quite understand piping (|) yet. Would someone format this for a Reference: Browman, DL. Cultural Negotiations: The Role of Women in the Founding of Americanist Archaeology. Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, 2013, 360 p.

And then format the same for a Selected Books section: Browman, DL. Cultural Negotiations: The Role of Women in the Founding of Americanist Archaeology. Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, 2013, 360 p. 68.7.39.60 (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Here it is: <ref name="browman 2013"> {{cite book |last1=Bookman|first1=DL |title=Cultural Negotiations: The Role of Women in the Founding of Americanist Archaeology |date=2013 |publisher=Univ. Nebraska |location=Lincoln |isbn= |pages=360 }}</ref> Just add this after your statement that is sourced by it, but please add the full ISBN number first. If you need to use it again in the same article, you may source it with just a simple: <ref name="browman 2013"/>Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, person with an IP and welcome to The Teahouse. A couple of corrections to the above (I hope N2e doesn't mind): if the information was on page 360, it would say "p. 360". So "pages=360" is not necessary. That is for the specific page number on which the information can be found. I assume "pages" is for when the text being referenced starts on one page and ends on another. Also, the ref name in this case needs quotes, so I took the liberty of adding those so anyone reading this will see the correct formatting.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Rules on off-Wikipedia discussion

Can you point me to the rules governing discussing/coordinating editing Wikipedia on other forums? Also about being too close to a topic to edit it? Jniech (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Jniech,

As far as I know, you're allowed to coordinate editing on other forums as long as it's not vandalism.

Being to close to a topic to edit it is called a Conflict of Interest and means that if you're too close to a topic, then your edits may be biased, which violates Wikipedia's aims to be neutral towards everything.

I hope this helped, Dathus (Talk | Contribs) 13:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jniech and welcome to the Teahouse. As stated above the rules about editing on a subject close to you can be read at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It is however perfectly ok for you to join in the discussion on the subject's talk page and suggest edits if those facts are supported by reliable sources that can be used in references. If you are discussing the Wikipedia on other forums, which is absolutely ok, you may want to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines so you know a bit more about it. Best, w.carter-Talk 14:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Based on what I read a conflict of Interest is “Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal”. What about nationality or allegiance to a country? Jniech (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jniech: Wikipedia:Canvassing can be a problem in some discussions of Wikipedia editing on external sites. Nationality or allegiance to a country is not considered a conflict of interest but it can cause problems with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Some editors want to portray their own country in a more positive way than neutral sources in other countries, especially when the country is in a conflict. Often these editors are probably influenced by biased domestic sources and think they are just spreading The Truth. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Creating a Fully protected page

How can I create a fully protected page. For example, I want to create a page for our company. But only the company members or a authorised member can edit that page. Mmhyamin (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't do that. If I'm understanding correctly, you're asking for a page completely under the subject's control. That's what a Corporate website does; not what Wikipedia does. Of course, I may be misunderstanding. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Mmhyamin,

On Wikipedia, you're not allowed to make or edit an article about yourself, your company or someone/something you're affiliated with, because then you could be biased in the article, which violates Wikipedia's aims to be neutral and unbiased towards any and everything. This is called a Conflict of Interest.

Also, fully protected pages aren't protected so company members only are allowed to edit them, it's to protect spam and vandalism or because a page is used a lot but doesn't get edited much.

Hope this helped, Dathus (Talk | Contribs) 13:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not strictly true that an editor can't edit their own page, but it's very strongly discouraged.  DiscantX 14:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me explain in somewhat stronger language. You clearly mean well, but you do not understand what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service, and does not have article ownership or control of articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV). Giving a company control of its own article would undermine NPOV. Wikipedia doesn't work the way that you are asking for it to work. As to fully protected pages, I partly agree and partly disagree with User:Dathus. Fully protected pages are an exception, and are almost always temporary. Protection is imposed on existing pages mainly to enforce a short truce in edit-warring. Full protection is rare against spam or vandalism, because other techniques, such as semi-protection or blocks, can usually be used instead. Pages are not protected because they are used a lot but not edited much. Also, no one except administrators can edit fully protected pages, because Wikipedia does not have article owners. Except in special situations, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Wanting to maintain control of your own article is not one of those special situations, because Wikipedia does not have article ownership. You asked a reasonable question, but it reflects a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

how does author add review information to article already in wikipedia

I am an author. My book has a Wikipedia entry but it is incomplete. I want to provide links to reviews in known publications. I think I create a new Section under Editing Talk at the book's entry and then supply the web links. What symbols do I need to use at the top?

I also need to correct one number, for which I can refer to another correct Wikipedia article.Helen Winternitz (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Helen Winternitz. Thank you for asking. I'm guessing you've read about conflict of interest, which is why you know about not editing the article directly. There is no particular way you have to format your suggestion - I recommend putting it in a new section of the talk page - (there will be a 'new section' or '+' button on the top, which will give you a field to enter for the title of the section). Note that simply adding links to the reviews to the article would not be appropriate, (there are tight restrictions on adding external links unless they are being directly used as references), but it may very well be appropriate to add some text to the article based on what the reviewers said, and using the reviews as references. I would be inclined to suggest that you propose some text to add to the "Reception" section, being careful to draw only on what the reviewers have said, and not on your own knowledge or opinions. If you read referencing for beginners you can format the references in your proposed text, and make the job of the editor who carries out your request easier. Alternatively, you may just include the references, and ask for somebody to write some text from them. Please sign your contribution to the talk page, as you have here.

You may have to wait for somebody to get round to the job though (if there is not much traffic on the talk page, you can add the template {{edit request}} to the talk page, which will put it on a list of pages awaiting this particular job); and please don't be offended if somebody hacks your suggestion to bits and says something rather different from how you chose to say it.

On changing a number: that sort of factual change you're probably OK making yourself - but it still needs to be referenced, and be aware that Wikipedia is not itself a reliable reference, because anybody may edit it: ideally the figure will be referenced in the other Wikipedia article, and you can use that reference. On the other hand, since you need to create an edit request on the talk page for the other matter, you might just as well put the numerical edit in the request as well. --ColinFine (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine. A couple more questions. From what I've read of Wikipedia guidelines, the editors don't like an author writing about her own book, even with supporting references. Am I wrong. I'd prefer to do the writing myself wile sticking to the information in the references. Also, while I'm working on gathering references and writing, is there a way to save what I've done to date on the Editing Talk?22:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.191.52 (talk)

When should I welcome people?

I'm just curious about when to welcome users, would it be okay to do any newly created users or should I wait until they do some edits? Thanks! ~HackedBotato (Chat with me ♽ Contribs) 16:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@HackedBotato: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I'm sure the new users would appreciate a welcome right away.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! ~HackedBotato (Chat with me ♽ Contribs) 20:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is to add a welcome template - normally with a link to the Teahouse unless I saw them here already - to anyone with a red-linked talk page :D. LouiseS1979 (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Many editors have their own preferences for when to welcome others. I personally wait for the account to have some positive contributions before I welcome them. This is because most templates say something like 'thank you for your contributions' and the last thing you want to do is to thank vandals for damaging Wikipedia. Also, many of the level one warnings include welcomes so vandals are welcomed, but are not praised for their misdeeds. Arfæst Ealdwrítere – talk! 23:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Editing error on my behalf

Hello, I've only just added information to the 'West Midlands fire service' Wikipedia thred, on the section where it says 'Fire stations' After the last box in the table its continuing on with the information and other threads, how can this be rectified? Also once the 'West Midlands fire service' thread comes up there was in excess of 7/8 different tabs for you to select, one being Organisation,another History, third Fire stations etc...the others have vanished....could you help please. Thank you. I for sure haven't deleted them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uk updates (talk • contribs) 20:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Uk updates, welcome to the Teahouse. A table end |} was missing after the table. I have added it.[9] Missing table ends can have odd effects when software tries to interpret the following text as part of the table. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance 👍 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uk updates (talk • contribs) 00:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Another question

Hi again. Some Wikipedia pages have Wikipedia:[page]. I think this format is unavailable to me, am I right? Are those links only able to be created by certain people? Thanks, DasPig _talk 21:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)(sorry for asking so many questions in separate sections)

Hi Again. What that reflects is a wp:namespace prefix. If you are familiar with programming languages like Ada or Lisp and the concept of Packages it's the same idea. But if not don't worry, it's pretty simple, you don't need to be a techie. When you have something like Wikipedia where you have thousands of articles you inevitably have homonyms. The same word that has multiple meanings. Namespaces are a way to deal with that. So for example there is a Wikipedia article on the concept of a Manual of style However, there is also a Wikipedia:Manual of style that reflects the MOS for editors. The default namespace (what you usually see and what you get if you search without a prefix) is the article namespace. The Wikipedia namespace (which can be abreviated just "wp:") is for issues related to editing Wikipedia. Most of the articles that we tea house hosts link to are in that namespace, e.g.,: wp:references wp:42 wp:Five pillars Another important namespace is the User namespace. When you see "User:" before an article name that means it is in the user namespace. One of the reason that is important is that user namespace pages don't get indexed the same way by Google and so are less likely to show up in searches which is what we want since they usually represent work in progress. As a new editor it's unlikely you would have reason to create new pages in the Wikipedia namespace but as far as I know there is nothing prohibiting you from doing so as long as there is a good justification. BTW, one neat trick for finding policies, reference guidelines, etc is to start by typing "wp:" in the search box and then the word of something you think might be in the Wikipedia namespace. You will get completion and see a list of articles in that namespace that start with the words you typed. In my experience that is a great way for new editors to get familiar with all the help and documentation pages. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi DasPig. The Wikipedia namespace (full details at that link) typically contains information about policies and guidelines, and various other behind-the-scenes projects, tools, and discussions. They can still be created by anyone, but you should make sure that creating such a page is indeed necessary before doing so. Sam Walton (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. DasPig _talk 22:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

To be completely accurate, Wikipedia: pages, like article pages and all non-talk pages except Draft:, can only be created by registered users. They are created in the same way, for example by clicking a red link like Wikipedia:This page is in the Wikipedia namespace but it has a silly name and you probably shouldn't create it. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Just for reference when I might need it, how exactly could I create Wikipedia: page from scratch (without basing the article off of a red link)? Thanks, DasPig _talk 22:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The same way you could create any other page from scratch, Das Pig: by entering it (including the prefix) in the search box, and when it tells you the page doesn't exist, picking the link that says "You may create the page [redlink]". --ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@CaptainPiggles: A technical page about the nuts and bolts of page creation (in all namespaces) is at Wikipedia:How to create a page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have removed the latter question, it seemed quite arbitrary and rudimentary. However, thanks for the advice. DasPig _talk 00:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

adding a picture

Hello. thanx for the invitation. ?: how to add a picture to an article that is yet without? Aka bekka (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Aka, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you want to add an image to an article, insert the following code into a page:

[[File:Example.jpg|thumb|300px|Caption]]

When actually inserting the image, replace "Example.jpg" with the name of the image you want, replace "300px" with your custom size, and replace "Caption" with the caption text you want. Happy editing! :) --Biblioworm 22:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Aka bekka, welcome to the teahouse. In addition to the good info that Biblioworm gave I just wanted to suggest that you review the rules for copyright issues for images You can't just insert arbitrary files you find on the Internet into a Wikipedia article. You have to make sure that the copyright for any particular image allows it to be shown legally on Wikipedia. The rules are kind of complicated. The easiest way to deal with those issues is to use images in the wikipedia commons. The commons is a companion site to wikipedia and contains lots of images that can be used freely anywhere in the encyclopedia. If you can't find what you need there then you need to look back at that article I linked to above and familiarize yourself with the copyright rules and figure out if you can get permission from the owner of the image or if there is a wp:fair use case that justifies limited use of the image in specific contexts. Keep in mind that just having someone say "I give you permission to use the file" is usually not enough. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Aka bekka:There is also the excellent User:Yunshui/Images for beginners. w.carter-Talk 00:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

how can i write an article of newsblog website that provides latest news live...

i want to write an article of the website that provides some categorised news to the peoples which are real and usefull ... i want that the article should be perfect and it should be not like an advertisement so please can anyone help me?Techsalad (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Techsalad: Hey Techsalad, thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. Before you get started writing, I think it's a good idea to consider a few things. First, can you provide reliable sources, like news articles, that talk about this newsblog website in detail? Maybe it has won some awards or gotten some other kind of recognition? It's important that every topic on Wikipedia have coverage from some kind of source that has some kind of editorial review and is independent of that topic. If you can find such sources, you can get started writing, otherwise, the newsblog might not be a suitable topic for Wikipedia right now. Let me know if you need any clarifications or help looking for sources. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

reformulate Text to a page just created, that was been tagged

How can I reformulate a Text to a Page created by me, that a gnome has tagged to be deleted, because she finds it is too similar to the Text of the source I used for the informations?MirisElocin (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings MirisElocin welcome to the teahouse. I assume you are referring to this article: Majestic_Theatre_(South_Broadway,_Los_Angeles) It was deleted due to detection of a copyright violation. Copyright is taken a lot more seriously at wikipedia than at most sites. Casual copy and pasting of text from other sites is almost never allowed. So we have automated tools to detect potential copyright infringements. I'm just a novice when it comes to these tools but from my quick look at the report for the Majestic it seems to me that this might possibly be a case of a false positive. Here is the report: https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Majestic_Theatre_%28South_Broadway,_Los_Angeles%29&url=http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/2422 I could quite possibly be missing something, I don't know much about these tools, but it seems to me that the similarities in text are essentially things like the address. I think the editor that deleted the article was @Lstanley1979: He is the editor you should contact about reverting the deletion. BTW, even if the material is not a copyright violation that doesn't mean the article won't be deleted. You need to establish the wp:notability of the theatre using good references. Also, it's never a good idea to refer to other editors as "gnomes". Civility is an important requirement for a Wikipedia:editor. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, MirisElocin and MadScientistX11. The flagged copyvio was word-for-word the same as the reference page, which was why I tagged it as a violation. As I said in the comment, if you do create an article that goes live, please don't copy text directly from the source or reference (which had a clear (c) notice on it, so it wasn't a CC-BY-SA licensed text, which would be compatible with Wikipedia's own licence). Please write article texts in your own words, as although it might have been a placeholder for a more expansive article, Wikipedia cannot host copied text, even temporarily.

If you want to write a replacement article on the subject, please feel free to do so - just use your own words and remember to make sure you have significant sources on the theatre's legacy to ensure it is a notable building. LouiseS1979 (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional comment - you've now changed things and I think I can take the speedy off. Just be careful when uploading articles - don't base them too closely on one source; instead, read the material and put things into your own words (even if you intend to go back and change it later), so this won't happen in future. LouiseS1979 (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Lstanley1979 Makes sense, sorry I must have misunderstood the report. Thanks for taking the time to explain it. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, MadScientistX11. I self-identify as a WP:WikiGnome, so I didn't really take offense at that :D. LouiseS1979 (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Lstanley1979. From this point forward I'm self identifying as a wp:Wikiogre! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

How to add a image on wikipedia

Hi I am new user... Please help me how to add a image.. And how to get confirmed to create articles... Wikipedia is addictive :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tushar Ganeriwal (talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Tushar Ganeriwal, to get auto confirmed generally your account must be at least four days old, and have made at least ten edits. So you'll just need to wait a couple more days. However if its a copyright free image I think you can upload to Wikimedia Commons straight away - start with the Upload Wizard here. Once you have uploaded a valid image, or found an existing one you thing fits an article the Wikipedia:Picture tutorial will show you how to add them to articles. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)