Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 841

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 835

←

Archive 839

→

Science reference desk posts keep getting reverted

I'm trying to ask a question on the science reference desk and it keeps getting reverted by multiple users. The other users claim that I'm trolling but I feel like I'm the one who is being victimised. One of the users has even sought to get me banned. I'm looking for a place where an impartial user can determine whether there is actually any evidence that I'm trolling (obviously in my opinion there isn't) so I can stop getting my posts reverted. One user unilaterally decided that I'm trolling (in contravention of WP:GF just because I asked a new question related to my previous one (you can clearly see they are different questions) and everyone else just pitched in keeping my question deleted. When I added my new question to the end of my last one that edit started getting reverted also. 185.230.100.66 (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Half of what happens on the reference desk is trolling by the standards of any other forum on Wikipedia. The rest of the project has little or no say over what happens there, and if they did, half the project would try to get the reference desks entirely deleted, myself included. I'm afraid if users have decided that your questions are inappropriate, then you will likely simply have to look elsewhere online to have them answered. Alternatively, if you have questions that are relevant to building a better free online encyclopedia, those are certainly welcome and there is no shortage of people willing to help. GMG ^talk 12:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

As a RefDesk regular, I must confess the above is mostly true. This being said...

The IP's contributions, in particular the science refdesk "silicone" questions, show that they have been asking questions and ignoring answers. The correct procedure would surely be make a case for a topic ban or block rather than to remove posts on sight (in violation of talk page guidelines), but I doubt this would be actionable. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I have not ignored the answers. The answers are contradictory and include "original research". I wanted help to find a reliable reference which is the supposed purpose of the reference desk. 185.230.100.66 (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Charts and Links

How do you make the chart-things and how do you link websites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GMarcus646 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi GMarcus646, welcome and nice that you want to make Wikipedia better. Could you link to an article with the kind of chart you refer to, just so we're sure we're talking about the same thing? A link to an external website is done this way: [http://wikimedia.se Example], which gives Example. Be aware that we generally avoid links to external websites in running text. /Julle (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding Donna Strickland

Wikipedia is edited by several millions of editors but the latest remarks over Wikipedia regarding the ignorance of Donna Strickland as a notable person doesn't mean that every wikipedians are responsible for the black mark on this encyclopedia. May be the press have mentioned that a draft submission was rejected at the Afc in May this year due to the notability issues but how these websites know these little things including the draft refusal. It's quite strange that I even thought this encyclopedia generally doesn't have a recognition. Can you explain all these things and who is actually responsible for the shame on Wikipedia. Is it to reveal that gender bias is still continuing in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.75.123 (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read the article's talk page, and particularly the section A selected timeline of the edit history of this article. Also maybe this. Maproom (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Long story short: no-one on Wikipedia suggested at any point that Donna Strickland was not a notable person, but rather that the draft article originally submitted (before her Nobel award) failed to demonstrate her notability. This reflects only on the inability of the failed draft's writers, perhaps due to inexperience with Wikipedia's requirements and procedures, which require study and practice just as much as any other specialised writing task.

No gender bias can legitimately be read from the affair, because a sizeable proportion of all those who have been awarded a Nobel subsequent to Wikipedia's inception, most of them male, did not have an article prior to their award. Most currently practicing scientists do not have an article, because independent reliable sources rarely publish anything about them on which an article could be based. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.102.65 (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Portal

I have no idea where this would be appropriate, but it sure isn't here. This is a forum to help new editors learn to use Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Abstract

Extended content

LOGOS (schema)

01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42
02	SOFTWARE										HARDWARE										OUTPUT										INPUT										F o r m a
03
04	No		cuál?								Σ		de adonde?								0		eso allí!!								AZ		qué?
05			☽	MATEMÁTICA									♁	INFORMÁTICA									☉	ARTE									°	IDIOMAS
06	X	E L E M E N T O	No	Recta y Plano							□	É T E R	C	No	Aplicación						▼	A i R E	0	Expresión							●	P I E D R A	AZ	Impresión
07				ARITMÉTICA										Σ	ASISTENCIA									CONCEPTO										SEMÁNTICA
08			Σ	Operaciones y Tablas									G	0	Método								1	Plaza									R
09				ÁLGEBRA										1	ADMINISTRACIÓN									DISENO										ETIMO
10			0	Ecuaciones y Fórmulas									A	2	Práctica								2	Museo									B
11						ANA								6			DESA									BELL										SINT			'
12			1	Gráficas y Àreas									T	AZ	Teoría								3	Zoo y Jardín									K
13				GEOMETRÍA										R	COORDINACIÓN									ESCÉNICAS										SEMIO
14			2	Formas y Cuerpos										B	Archivo								4	Tarima
15	Universidad del Valle, Colombia								UV		CIVILIZACIÓN										EVOLUCIÓN										CULTURA										C o n f i g u r a c i ó n
16	método experimental
17	R		cómo?								3		de que forma?								6		cuándo?								9		Quién?
18			Presentación										☿	INDUSTRIA									♄	CRÓNICA									♇	RELIGIÓN
19											♠	M E T A L	7	Salud							►	T I E M P O	AZ	Iluminación							▲	F E U E R	C	Destino
20			No.		Título								6	FISIO			X	PSICO					9	BIOGRAFÍA									B	MÍSTICA
21														Modelo										Progreso										Origen
22	1		Σ.		Resumen								5			ING							8			ANT							R			MONO
23	xp													Automatización										Desarrollo										Templo
24	p		0.		Introducción								4	MECA			&	TRÓN					7	HISTORIA									AZ	POLI
25	÷T													Medios										Desenvolvimiento										Santuario
26	ρ		1.		Contenido								3	CONST			→	PRODX					6	ASTRO									9	NATUR
27	Laboratorio													Herramienta										Concepción										Elemental
28	xd³										CUERPO										ESPÍRITU										ALMA										F u n c i ó n
29	m		2.		Materiales
30	÷t										2		con qué?								5		de que modo?								8		porqué?
31	Q		3.		Procedimientos								♂	NATURALEZA									♀	SOCIEDAD									♆	FILOSOFÍA
32	xd										♣	M A D E R A	6	Conservación							♦	A G U A	9	Tendencia							!	A L T U P R O F	B
33	M		4.		Indicaciones								5	FÍSICA			X	QUÍMICA					8	ESTAD			X	SOCIO					R	EPISTEMO
34	÷t													Laboratorio										Distribución
35	F		5.		Metodología								4			BIO							7			EDU							AZ			META
36	Informe													Campo										Mercado
37	xd												3	AGRO			&	ALIME					6	COMER			&	COMUN					9	PARAPSICO
38	E		6.		Observaciones									Taller										Personal
39	÷t												2	RECUR			→	PRODU					5	TRABA			←	SERVI					8	LÓGICA
40	P		7.		Resultados									Bodega										Contrato
41											PARTÍCULA										ONDA																				E s t r u c t u r a
42			8.		Análisis
43											1		sobre qué?								4		a donde?								7		para qué?
44			9.		Resultados								☽♁	AMBIENTE									♃	GOBIERNO									♅	ÉTICA
45	Anexo										◄	T I E R R A	5	Protección							♥	S O N I D O	8	Capital							?	L U Z	R
46													4	VER		SORGE			ENT				7	UNIDAD			X	FUERZA					AZ	METAÉTICA
47			AZ.		Glosario									Mantenimiento										Democracia
48													3			ECO							6			POL							9			DEON
49			R.		Registro									Adaptación										Empresa
50													2	HELIO			&	METEO					5	ECON			&	ADMÓN					8	AXIO
51			B.		Bibliografía									NIcho										Constitución
52													1	GEO			←	HYDRO					4	DEREC			→	JUSTI					7	TELEO
53			K.		Agradecimientos									_										Caja
54	Formúla										Estructura										Función										Configuración

Cloud forest (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Cloud forest - I don't know what this is, but it appears you also posted it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals/Design#Discussions_about_other_technical_issues, also without any clarification of what you want help with. It's too much info and out of place here. A simple link to your post on that page and a note explaining what you want from others would suffice. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I´m opening it to discuss.Cloud forest (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

To discuss what? What is it? GMG ^talk 20:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It´s STRUCTURE, FUNCTIONALITY and CONFIGURATION. It is a classification system.Cloud forest (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

For what? GMG ^talk 20:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

To open a portal.Cloud forest (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Has the Portal been shrived? I mean, you just cant come around here opening portals, without shriving 'em first. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 20:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Which is the procedure? Can I use the table as portal?Cloud forest (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I normally use the table as a sideboard and the desk as a table. But I thought we were talking about a Portal? -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 20:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I want to open a navigational portal with that table. A portal of portals.Cloud forest (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Gosh. Like a Cosmic Telephone Exchange thingy? -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 21:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

(without words)Cloud forest (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

contact member

I want to contact member Mcampany who commented on my new article on Nobuo Yamagishi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fundyfan (talk • contribs) 22:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Fundyfan: and welcome to the Teahouse. You can contact other users on their user talkpage (in this case User talk:Mcampany) or by "pinging" them in messages in other forums (see WP:PING for some "how to" information). GermanJoe (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyrighted Pictures

Hi, So I inadvertently created a page with a picture I was given permission to use on a specific page I was editing but not specifically authorized to upload for its own page (File:Epcu 001 lhp.jpg).

I asked for the post to be deleted immediately because I didn't know how to do it. Please check my Contributions page to verify
Can I upload pictures that were authorized for me to use on the specific Wiki page (Ephedra cutleri); how do I do that OR
Should I request from the owner the ability to upload the pictures for all to use on Wiki?
The Wiki Media Copy Rights page that says "Click here to ask your question link above" in the "How to ask a question" section doesn't exist on the page or I'm probably just flustered enough to completely miss it!

Sincerely, Wkraft33 (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wkraft33: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to improve it. Permission must be to reuse for any purpose. Permission cannot be only for one article or even only for Wikipedia. See WP:DCM for guidance on what licensing is needed. RudolfRed (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Dong-A got messing up without references

Oh no, I got issues on creating my new article, Dong-A. I tried to search in Google, but doesn't have reliable sources.Apollo C. Quiboloy fans (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Apollo C. Quiboloy. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable sources say about the topic. You should identify several high quality sources before you begin to write a draft. Create references to those sources, and only move a draft article to the encyclopedia when it is in acceptable condition. Please read Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

New here and got hit by a bot that did wholesale revisions to my edits

I just got hit by the following: User:XLinkBot to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_while_black and I really feel this "bot" just went and changed all my edits for no reason. I was trying to make the page better. I added internal links under the heading "see also" and relevant links to articles under the heading "further reading". My first urge was to make complaints, but I guess I should post here before I occupy the admins time and see if, maybe, I just don't understand Wikipedia's culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdfoley01 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sdfoley01 and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits are reverted because you tried to cite a wordpress website as a source. Wordpress is a blog, which should be normally avoided when adding external links (see WP:ELNO). That's why the bot stated that it attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The bot probably blacklisted wordpress. Regards —AE (talk • contributions) 08:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Abelmoschus Esculentus and thank you for the reply. I just checked and see my last edit was a link for a document hosted on Wordpress. I thought it was an important document, but I can remove the link, if needed. What I didn't understand was why all my edits were reverted. I had spent several hours sourcing documents and formating citations that I felt added to the page and, you can understand, was pretty disheartened when they were all gone. Overall, I would like to contribute to pages on Wikipedia involving current issues and think it is important that people using this site for research have access to solid academic references, but it makes me uneasy to spend so much time on something that can just disappear like that. On the plus side, I did undo the changes and they haven't been changed back again. Sdfoley01

@Sdfoley01: You've complained at several pages, so I will reply only here. The wholesale removal is a matter of choice. Both reverting the sole edit that added the link, and reverting all edits of the user who added (in one of the edits) the link have been tried as options. While arguably 'a bit more bitey' than the 'bitey' option of reverting only one edit, it was rather consistently found that this results in less damaged pages left over in case there are multiple edits to try and insert a 'correctly working link' ánd less edit-conflicting (where material that needs to be removed could not be removed due to consequtive edits by the same editor), and in case none of the edits are actually bad the editor, as per the message left by the bot on the talkpage of the editor, has to revert the bots' edit anyway.

Wordpress is indeed a blog, generally not useful as a reference nor external link. Specific documents may pass the bar, though even here I would argue that it is overdone, the article has 68 references and 8 further reading links, are more non-content/non-references really needed to expand with material that is not yet covered in that (and that goes to a certain extend to the other external links as well)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, @Beetstra:. I removed the link to the document hosted on Wordpress. I also removed the oldest journal article I added under "Further Reading"...so I only added three to that section. If you think it would be better, and since I'm the new person here, I'll remove one or all the others. I left the internal links under "See also" alone. I can understand your concern about having too many links on a page and that, really, content should be integrated into the text of the article. It was just a shock to me, after a lot of effort on my part, to see everything I did on the page removed at once. Sdfoley01

You got my interest by your very polite manner. I will help with the article as much as I can. Yours in Wikidom, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Proper replacement when replacing contraction "can't"

When I replace the contraction "can't", do I replace it with "cannot" or "can not"? Ben79487 (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Ben79487 Cannot is more common. I rarely see can not. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

"Cannot" is also clear in meaning. "Can not" is often ambiguous. Maproom (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

other people's editing

So I added something to this article, on apatheism As a pragmatic stance rather than a philosophical position, including the end section:

That apatheism poses a problem for proselytizers can be seen from the following site which in an excellent way demonstrates the frustrations of a proselytizer, though the involved parties there appear to have only good intentions - at least in accordance with their religious command.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P60/apatheism

someone took out the link, which makes that sentence be useless. I do not understand why it was taken out, and I do not understand what is the process for this, and how to perhaps discuss why it was taken out.Nnnooottt (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The link was taken out because it is not appropriate for Wikipedia, as explained on your user talk page. It does not meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. The editor who removed it missed the sentence you quote here, which is also inappropriate - Wikipedia does not promote external websites or discuss them in the article text in that way. Some more information is on your user talknpage now. --bonadea contributions talk 07:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

By the way, it's excellent that you have started a discussion about your proposed addition on the article's talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 07:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Help with archives

User:ClueBot III is archiving on the wrong page in my archives. It’s archiving on User talk:PorkchopGMX/Archives/1 instead of User talk:PorkchopGMX/Archive 1. Help! Porkchop GMX 00:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Your setup is a hybrid between archiving by date and numbered archives.Details of the options are at User:ClueBot III (though I think there is a typo at one point in the instructions). I think you need |archiveprefix=User talk:Porkchop Jr./Archive instead of |archiveprefix=User talk:Porkchop Jr./Archives/. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Change of email address

Hi I've changed my email address. Can someone please advise me how I can edit it on this site. Regards Andrew Wood

ps I do make a monthly donation to the site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyoko282be (talk • contribs) 09:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Special:Preferences has the option for changing your registered email address. (This is not dependent on any donations.) - David Biddulph (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Using a file

The following file File:No. COSMOS (star-chart).png can be used at WIkiversity but not in Wikipedia, why? Thanks. Cloud forest (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Cloud forest. You'll have to clarify what you mean by "can be used" and "not". Please explain what you were trying to do, and exactly what happened --ColinFine (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cloud forest: I see you have uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons after posting here. That solves it. Files must be uploaded to either Commons or the wiki they are used at. It is not possible to display a file which was uploaded to another wiki except Commons. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Help

Where can I get detailed explanation for <noinclude>…</noinclude> and <includeonly>…</includeonly> and similar tags. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 07:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Harshrathod50 and welcome to the Teahouse.
The documentation for this aspect of template language can be found at: Help:Templates#Noinclude, includeonly, and onlyinclude
I would add the additional guidance that editing templates that are already in use has to be done with a great deal of caution. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: Thanks for help. The page was indeed helpful but the template I want to edit is protected and requires some tweaking in the Lua source code and I don't understand Lua currently. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 10:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Signing with four tildes?

So on talk pages we have to "sign your posts by typing four tildes". But a lot of the times I see messages signed, it's not just with the name and talk page: there's a dash before it like this:

Comment? – Pretended leer (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

But is the dash a part of the signature or is it something typed before it? And should I add it to/before my own signature too? Pretended leer (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It's only part of the signature if the person has chosen to edit their signature in their preferences and put in a dash. (You have a link to your own preferences top right on every page.) Do just as you like wrt the dash. I don't think most people choose to have a dash. BTW I like your username, Pretended leer. Bishonen | talk 14:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC).

If you don't know what the dash signifies, please dont put it on. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 14:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This button

Hello Pretended leer, welcome to The Teahouse. Including the -- before your signature is personal preference, but I'd guess that most people that use it don't realize that they are. The dash is included when you click the signature button in the "old" wikitext editor. If you use the Insert toolbar, or type it manually, or use something else to write your message, you probably won't get the dash. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Two hyphens, one dash or nothing. I think I'll go with a dash with a space between it and the spaces. And another space before the dash. Thank you! – Pretended leer (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, there are more alternatives than those three, of course. But it's not important, as long as it's discrete and the function is clear. /Julle (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It's just a separator between the message text and the signature. Optional but makes things a bit clearer. In my standard setup the signature button above the edit window produces --~~~~. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It's particularly useful if the last word before the signature is a link, then the dash/hyphen separates them visually. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Removing Gurmukhi content /deletion

@Kashmiri and @TituDutta: Thanks for the invite; For Wiki -as a neutral platform not mismanaged, I want to submit my serious objections to the contents of the Gurmukhi; lets openly talk about the differences Talk:Gurmukhi and until then, in equal fairness, please keep this page out of circulation and suspended giving me an equal opportunity to submit my perspective. I think your understanding about supranatural origin of Gurmukhi has confirmed my apprehensions about your lack of knowledge that pre,colonial and post-colonial scholarship has not adequately addressed Sri Guru Granth Sahib as a Linguistic treatise, a treasure on the origin of human language for the welfare of humankind not just Sikhs. Thus no supernatural origin instead a logical sampling and transcriptions of languages and scripts since Gatha, Sehaskriti and more. Gurmukhi is what enshrines and illuminates Sri Guru Granth Sahib - Sikh religious belief is interwoven into the written living Word; Sikhs have fundamental right to religion; You or other may have time and opportunity to promote your religion or no religion, should that deprive others including Sikhs and termed as "not about your religious beliefs".CharanUOIT (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)CharanUOIT — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharanUOIT (talk • contribs)

Hello @CharanUOIT: and welcome to the Teahouse. I am just "pinging" the mentioned editors for you: @Kashmiri: and @Titodutta:, to notify them of this post, although such a content-related discussion is usually better started directly on the article's talkpage Talk:Gurmukhi. If you want to notify other editors about one of your messages, you can either use such a template or link to the user with [[User:username here]] added in your message (see WP:PING for more info) - otherwise your messages are probably missed by the other editors. Hope this helps a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@CharanUOIT: Are you really in higher education? :O [1]

On a more serious note, certainly you are welcome to voice your concerns regarding the current version. However, if you just continue claiming that Guru Granth Sahib is "a linguistic treatise, a treasure on the origin of human language for the welfare of humankind", without backing it with any academic reference, then you will not get anywhere. Because I am quite sure other editors will not bother debating your faith.

Still, your edits will be reverted, because your beliefs are not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

As an outsider to the topic (American Jew), I want to state that the page Gurmukhi has existed for many years, and will not be taken out of circulation, or suspended, or reverted to a draft (or nominated for deletion). The proper place to discuss is at Talk:Gurmukhi, where I see that no one has started a discussion. Which is what CharanUOIT asked for. Kashmiri's comments, perhaps more acerbic than necessary, pointed out that Wikipedia content must rest only on cited sources. David notMD (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks GermanJoe Kashmiri David notMD

Guru Granth Sahib Defines Gurmukhi-as a unique, unmixable, movement. ਇਹ ਚਾਲ ਨਿਰਾਲੀ ਗੁਰਮੁਖੀ (Page: 314, Pauri 25, http://www.khojgurbani.com/shabad/index/314 ) The meaning of Gurmukhi as a unique, unmixable, movement-methodology has been further clarified on the same page, Pauri 26 as ਵਿਚਿ ਸਚੇ ਕੂੜੁ ਨ ਗਡਈ....( no mixing in truth - how could mixed truth lead to filter insights?).

Please correct me, if wrong, from an academic perspective, this meaning of Gurmukhi comes close to what Shawn Wilson talks about “how …to live in both worlds…and what is the thinking behind what makes it possible.”(p.175)( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234754037_What_Is_an_Indigenous_Research_Methodology ). Gurmukhi is the language and script of this thinking. Further, he argues that we need to move beyond an “indigenous perspective in research” to “researching from an indigenous paradigm.”

If the word “indigenous” is replaced by “Sikh” that’s what is missing from this page. Sikh perspective is grounded in Guru Granth Sahib and validates scholarship within secondary sources. Further, Sikh scholarship talks about what Wilson says “how …to live in both worlds” so that research and scholarship could do “something better in the world”(p.175). @Kasmiri -I will answer other doubts, once the methodology of sourcing and validating Sikh contents from Guru Granth Sahib is mutually agreed. Guru Granth Sahib is for Sikhs what Shawn mentions "...from an indigenous paradigm." Thanks. CharanUOIT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello @CharanUOIT:, I really don't want to dismiss your concerns, but as mentioned above: the Teahouse is not a good place for such detailed content-related discussion. Threads here will get archived, and will not be seen by other uninvolved editors who might be watching only the article and might want to offer additional feedback. Please start a thread at Talk:Gurmukhi, briefly outline your concerns there and provide some reliable sources to support your arguments (ideally secondary expert sources) - everyone involved in a dispute is encouraged to start such a thread. At the end of the day, you need to convince other editors to form a consensus or to change existing consensus - otherwise the article is unlikely to get changed. If a talkpage discussion fails, please look into WP:dispute resolution for possible additional venues. I have no stance on the actual dispute either way. These are just general tips on how to proceed as constructive as possible. GermanJoe (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

breibart

another BS leftist controlled site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BDB5:6060:937:7101:B7D6:E562 (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I've heard Breitbart called BS, but not leftist controlled. Did you have a question about editing WP? That's what this page is for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

reliable independent sources

I need to provide more of the above - so does not include articles in national newspapers, magazines, radio shows etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzymiller (talk • contribs) 17:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Suzymiller. A reliable source has professional editorial control and a good reputation for accuracy. Please read Identifying reliable sources for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

DIAMONDOMINO

- i SUBMITTED MY INVENTION FOR INCLUSION IN YOUR ARCHIVES, would like to know the status - accepted or rejected. You have an article called PENTOMINOES which I have expanded from 12 [5 connected] SQUARE puzzle pieces to a set of 20 [5 connected] DIAMOND puzzle piecess. Why is not my invention acceptable for your archives???

Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Checkley (talk • contribs) 18:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Charles Checkley. I am sorry, but Wikipedia does not publish original research and is not a vehicle for you to promote a game you invented. Read Your first article for more information about what is acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Charles Checkley: welcome to the Teahouse. You asked the same question at the Help Desk earlier today and got replies which you can see here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 19:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

How do I report Spam?

Hi,

The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Knight_(actor) seems to have experienced major defacement from a couple of contributors. As bizarre and amusing as it now is - perhaps it should be dealt with? Not quite sure what the procedure is...

Thanks Beryl reid fan (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Beryl reid fan: welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for the heads-up! I reverted the vandalism to the article, but here's what you do, for future reference: click the tab labelled "history", which will show a list of all previous edits to the article. Find the one before the vandalism started, and restore it. (I see that you mentioned "a couple of contributors" which means that you'd probably already seen the history, but this is useful to know for other new editors as well.) More information here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 20:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you User talk:Bonadea, for your prompt and helpful response. Beryl reid fan (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict – wrote at the same time as Bonadea above. This is the part that might still be helpful, as it goes into slightly more detail.)

If you go to the "View history" tab you can either undo the latest edit, if that's the entire problem, or you can go to the last edit before the defacement started (click on the date and time to see the different versions). Then when you're at an old version, you can click "edit" and simply save to get that version back. Remember to explain what you do in the edit summary. (: /Julle (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Julle, very helpful also. Beryl reid fan (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Moving pages

How do you re-name pages?Xabier 62Z (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Xabier 62Z

Hi Xabier 62Z, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for wanting to make it better. We call renaming pages moving them. When your user is autoconfirmed (which will happen soon, if you just keep editing for a few days) you can move pages. You'll see the option near the "View history" tab. In the meanwhile, you can request moves at Wikipedia:Requested moves, but if it is a simple, uncontroversial move, it's probably easier to explain here what you want moved and to what new name and see if we can help you. /Julle (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Natalie Cole

In the article about Natalie Cole in The Discography Section both her We're The Best Of Friends and The Magic of Christmas Albums have been omitted. The song list from her I'm Ready Album needs to be updated to include Winner (Take All), Az Izz, Movin' On, and How Can You Stop?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.13.65 (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the list at Natalie Cole is just a summary. The complete discography, including the two albums you mention, is at Natalie Cole discography. If you see an error or have suggestions for an article, the best place to discuss it is on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

CN Span

I have been trying to add citation to the 2018 Pacific Hurricane Season Article and there is a cn span and I don't know how to get rid of it. It will always stay there; and when I tried last it got reverted not even 30 seconds later. Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Cyclone of Foxes: and welcome to the Teahouse. I am assuming you are trying to use Visual Editor to edit a Template:citation span inside the 2018 Pacific hurricane season article. The problem is that the visible text is included within the underlying template itself - so you can't delete the template without loosing the text. You can either switch to the source editor for a moment to fix the issue directly within the article source. Or you can copypaste the "Text" parameter content from the template into your clipboard, delete the entire template including the text, and restore the text from your clipboard. Neither option is very comfortable, but there are a few uncommon or intrinsic editing situations where Visual Editor is difficult or even impossible to use (most common situations and functions are OK though to be fair). GermanJoe (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I know, except I don't know what the template looks like as I'm not seeing any template. Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cyclone of Foxes: The highlighted text and the template are displayed as one in Visual Editor - the text is representing the template as well, without a separate template icon or something similar. Click anywhere on one of the last unsourced sentences, the entire unsourced text will be highlighted and the template popup window should open (it did for me, tested it earlier with Firefox and Vector skin). Then click "Edit" in the popup window, and the window to edit template parameters should open. GermanJoe (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, GermanJoe then what? Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cyclone of Foxes:, I was assuming you knew the remaining steps from the previous post, but no problem: 1) Select/highlight the whole content in the "Text" parameter. 2) Copy that marked content into your clipboard (usually by pressing Ctrl+c, depending on your browser). 3) Cancel the template editing window. 4) delete the entire template including the text, and lastly 5) restore the text from your clipboard (usually with Ctrl+v, depending on your browser). If you haven't used text editors like Word or similar applications with such copypaste functions so far, please let me know. Of course I can also fix the issue myself if needed. GermanJoe (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh, GermanJoe How do you delete the template in visual editor? Sorry if this is becoming a nuiscance! Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Charged with disruptive editing

One of Wikipedia's editors (Drmies) has charged me with disruptive editing on the Greenville, Indiana page. I have added many notable residents which keep being removed. Previously, I was under the impression that they were removed due to a lack of a source. Last night, I added source information for each (not all) of the notable residents. Now according to the wiki editors, the issue is no longer a lack of a reference but rather it is due to the residents being "non notable". For my persistence in trying to get these very notable residents listed, I have now been charged by Drmies as a disruptive editor. Lets discuss some of the assumed non notable residents;

Not the place for detailed discussion

Edward Ford, son of American Industrialist John Baptiste Ford, was born in Greenville. He went on to found Edward Ford Plate Glass Company then in turn became a business leader in employee relations. His employee relations building from the Edward Fort Plate Glass Company is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Roscoe Miller, a former MLB professional baseball player who played on the 1901 Detroit Tigers (first year the Tigers were in the American League). He still holds the American League rookie record for most complete games by a rookie at 35.

Jeff Leo Thompson is a professional baseball player and resident of Greenville. In 2013, he was selected by the Detroit Tigers with the 94 overall pick in the 3rd round. He is currently with the Tigers minor league. Prior to being drafted into MLB, Thompson played for University of Louisville and was named 2013 Big East Conference Pitcher of the Year and a Golden Spikes Award semifinalist after going 11-2 with a 2.19 ERA and 113 strikeouts in 17 starts.

Judith Schad is the owner of Capriole Goat Cheese, an artisan goat cheese producer in Greenville, Indiana. Founded in 1988, Capriole is one of the oldest and most award winning goat cheese producers in the United States... they even have their own wikipedia page and are listed on the websites most notable cheese makers! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cheesemakers

I won't go through the whole list of notable residents but I do believe they meet the Wikipedia criteria for a notable resident as I interpret them. I also recently found out that each of the notables are supposed to have their own independent WP. Great... no problem... I just need a little time putting that together, lets not delete the work on the Greenville page.

The straw that broke the camels hump per say was when Drmies removed the town logo that I posted last night. Located on Wikipedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Town_of_Greenville,_Indiana.jpg) I uploaded the town logo as the image skyline as it is termed here. It is beyond me why it would ever be removed. This seems to be a case of over-editing and clearly the editor is offended that I redacted his original edits. So now I'm informed that the next step is to come in here and ask for a mediator. Well, here I am.

I don't have a ton of time to dedicate to this so it is frustrating when I spend hours improving their town's page and then an editor (located nowhere close to your town) comes in and removes your work without explanation or with a very poorly written reason as to why. All I'm interested in doing is improving the page and if I'm doing something wrong, then I just need instruction on how to properly do it. Improvement can not be made with the delete key. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern Indiana History (talk • contribs) 22:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

If you are involved in a content dispute on the article, the place to discuss it is on the article talk page Talk:Greenville, Indiana. As far as the logo is concerned, you uploaded it to Commons saying that you are the copyright holder. As the logo was previously published at https://www.visitgreenvillein.com/ where it says "© 2018 Town of Greenville, IN. All rights reserved", you will need to provide evidence to Commons that you are the copyright holder as you claimed. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Southern Indiana History, there might be a number of reasons why the image was removed. It could be because the editor in question reverted your edits in one go, but as David Biddulph, there are copyright issues you'd need to address, so that might be another reason, or it's that Wikipedia usually displays a photo of the location in that spot, because that serves a different kind of education purpose.

Mainly, I'd like to say welcome, and that I'm sorry that your first experience editing Wikipedia was so frustrating due to the conflict with the norms and policies of editing here. Wikipedia is like any other publication – it has an idea of how articles should look, created over time by those who have edited here. I hope keeping that in mind might help – that your edits are not reverted out of malice. We're happy you want to contribute, truly, and I look forward to your additions to the Greenville, Indiana page as well as the individual biographies. Please feel free to ask any questions you might have here, and we'll be happy to guide you through the process. /Julle (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

For all of the town editing I have done or visited, notability of residents is based on the person first having a Wikipedia article, hence a blue Wikilink. Providing references for people not yet recognized as Wikipedia-notable is not sufficient. So yes, first create and have accepted articles about people you consider adequately notable. Then add their names to the Greenville article. You were advised as much on your Talk page. Coming here will not change that. David notMD (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Southern Indiana History. I want to come to the defense of Drmies, a highly experienced editor with an excellent understanding of notabilty and of how articles about about cities and towns should be structured. I am especially concerned about your "(located nowhere close to your town)" comment. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so editors from Alabama or California or Australia or Austria or Madagascar have just as much right as you to edit articles about places in Southern Indiana. What matters is whether or not the edits comply with our policies and guidelines, not the geographic location of their origin. So, please stop adding this type of mention of people lacking acceptable Wikipedia biographies, and try to learn from more experienced editors who are acting in good faith. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, we take copyright violations very seriously, so you have to be certain that none of your edits violate copyright. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Protect The Page

Hi, thank you for inviting me to Teahouse. I want to ask question about protecting a page in Wikipedia. Is Non Administrator can protect a page in Wikipedia?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirseoki124 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mirseoki124: A non-administrator cannot protect a page. If a page needs protection, you may ask at WP:RFPP. RudolfRed (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mirseoki124. Please read Wikipedia's Protection policy for a better understanding of when articles should and shouldn't be protected. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)