Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 871

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 865

←

Archive 869

→

Putting a user on your watch list

Is there a way to put a user on your watch list, and I don't mean their User:page, but on a list that you can see what articles they edit or create as they move around the site?17:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson (talk • contribs)

No, I'm afraid that the MediaWiki software does not allow that. What you can do is to save their "Contributions" page as a bookmark in your web browser, and then check on it from time-to-time. That's the best work-around I know of. --Jayron 32 17:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Do not be a stalker. See WP:HOUND RudolfRed (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not a stalker, and no user here interests me enough to stalk them. The reason I asked is that there is prima facie evidence that I have been stalked, that is a user shows up on virtually every article or page where I postOldperson (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can see the list of articles you have edited, and if you have made a series of unconstructive or controversial edits, it's possible that someone is consulting that list periodically and acting on what they find there. As long as the actions that person or persons are taking are consistent with policy, it is not stalking. General Ization ^Talk 18:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

When an editor makes changes to an article on my watch list and revert the changes based on my understanding of appropriate content and citations I sometimes look at their contributions to other articles to see if similar errors are being committed elsewhere. I do not consider my actions to be stalking. David notMD (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It's also entirely possible that the other editor(s) simply share your interest in a given topic, and may have been editing the article(s) long before you got there. Check the history of the article(s) to determine this. Since it appears to me you have only edited a small number of published articles (versus the draft article you are working on), there is little or no evidence of someone "stalking" you and this is actually the most likely explanation. General Ization ^Talk 19:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Pending article

Hi, I created and "published" my first article several days ago and since then, nothing. What did I do wrong? What did I miss? Is it simply because the approval process takes more time than I thought?

I'm a bit lost. Any help is welcomed.

Thank you, Mguevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mguevin (talk • contribs) 20:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

If this is about User:Mguevin/sandbox then you have only clicked "Publish" to save it to your sandbox (we find this confusing, too). You need to add the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of your proposed article to submit it for review and publication to main space. Dbfirs 20:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Help! I'm stuck!

I need to go back and re-edit some things I added to the Little Rock, Arkansas page. However, where the "edit" tab option was at the top of the screen, there is now "edit source", and when I click on that option, it brings up a bunch of crazy computer lingo. I just need to figure this out so that I can get a good-ish grade for this class and not fail, be forced to drop out of college, and end up living on the streets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddiestiffs1 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Eddiestiffs and welcome to the Teahouse. I think you're wanting the visual editor but getting the source editor instead; please do not worry, this is a problem that is easily fixed. If you're seeing both the Edit and Edit source buttons, then simply click Edit and it should take you to the visual editor. If you see only the Edit or only the Edit source option which takes you to the source editor when clicked on, then you can switch to the visual editor by clicking the pencil icon in the top right corner of the editing toolbar and then click "Visual editing." You can also enable the visual editor as default in your preferences. To do this, go to Special:Preferences, click the Editing tab, and scroll to where you see "Editing mode." You should see multiple options there. To enable the visual editor (VE), select either the "Always give me the visual editor if possible" or the "Show me both editor tabs" option. If you select the first option, any article or user page you visit will have an edit button which will take you to the visual editor. If you select the second, both "Edit" and "Edit source" should show up on articles and user pages; the first should take you to the VE and the second should take you to the source editor.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Eddiestiffs1: Unfortunately the edits you made to Little Rock, Arkansas were not suitable for an encyclopedia article, because they were not neutrally written or relevant for an encyclopedia. Speculation in future developments, analysis of current events, or wording such as "quaint" or "cool" just don't belong in Wikipedia. Some more information on this has been posted to your talk page. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 20:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

How do I replace a picture on an article?

On the article Tomme de Savoie there is a picture of a cheese, presumably a Tomme, but it does not at all look like an actual Tomme de Savoie. I recently bought a Tomme de Savoie and took a picture of it against a white background. I would like to replace the picture on the article, but got slightly confused reading the lengthy article about Wikipedia:Uploading images. A cursory google image search will show you the difference between Tomme de Savoie and Tomme (de Savoie has a brown rind and a darker, more holey center).

Advice, please? Malan88 (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Malan88: Can you not use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I hadn't understood how that worked! Your link cleared it right up. And then, having forgotten the file name I had used (because it was already taken) I ended up searching on Wikimedia Commons and finding much better pictures than my own; I used one of those. Thank you! Malan88 (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Searching Article Archives

How does one go about searching article archives?Oldperson (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"Archive" as a term applies to storage of older Talk page contents. For example, for the article Jamestown (Virginia) the top of the Talk page has Archives 1 and 2. These can be viewed, but should never be edited. If you want to re-open a discussion in an Archive the way to do it is start a new discussion in the current Talk. If necessary you can refer to or copiy in from the older discussion.

As for older versions of articles, in the article's view history, clicking on prev (left side) will show the changes that editor made on that date. However, clicking on the actual date of the edit will show the version of the article that existed at that time. Again, no editing these old versions, but you will see what older versions of the article looked like. Hope this helped. David notMD (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD:Thank you but not quite what I was asking about. WP has archives of deleted articles. I stumbled upon an archive page, with a table . the x axis is months, the Y axis is years, but no search engine if looking to see if an articlehas been deleted, otherwise one is searching through over 100 monthsOldperson (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

As ever, a link to the page in question would make it much easier to answer your question, rather than volunteers trying to guess. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Oldperson, only admins can see deleted articles; but anybody can search the deletion log. --ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Understood, I guess my question should have been is there a way to name search (articles not users) in the deletion log?Oldperson (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Oldperson: the box labelled "Target (title or User:username for user):". I don't know if there is a way to search for part of a title, though. --ColinFine (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Administrators like me can search for part of deleted article titles at Special:Undelete. We cannot search the content of deleted articles but we can view them one at a time. Is there a search you want? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

[reply to|PrimeHunter]Not really, but thanks for the offer. What I am trying to do is familiarize myself with the mechanics of WP. Mostly a cerebral exercise,helping to heal my brain. Not much I can do about my body. Watching TV or reading a book is not stimulating or cerebral exercise. Not a gamer eitherOldperson (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding A Reliable Source

Hello there, I would like to know on ow to add a reliable source when I am editing. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor Sebastian (talk • contribs) 21:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Editor Sebastian:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Using the source editor, you add the reference directly behind the verifiable statement in the main text inside "ref" tags. The syntax should look like this: Statement.<ref>Reference details here</ref>. You'll find more information about Wikipedia's referencing and additional reference tools at WP:REFB, and information about valid reliable sources at WP:RS. But please feel free to ask here again, if you have any additional questions about specifics or other topics. GermanJoe (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Editor Sebastian when you've added your information in your own words, you press Cite (which is at the top of the page near the left hand side, paste the link to the website article which proves what you wrote is true, press Generate then make sure you press Insert. Once you've finished press Publish and add details of what you changed. If your source is something like a book or a newspaper, I'm not 100% sure how you add that on Wikipedia, but from what I've heard, you basically just need to add the name of the book/magazine, date of the publication, the page number, and the ISBN number if it has one. Danstarr69 (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Editor Sebastian:, to expand on the previous response, if you use Wikipedia's Source Editor (by clicking the "Edit source" tab), you can then click on the "Templates" button on the toolbar. A drop-down menu provides options for creating citations for web pages, news sources (whether newspapers or magazines), books, and journals. Select the appropriate choice, fill in as much information as you know about the source, and then click the "Insert" button at the bottom of the template. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Pending edits but extended autoconfirmed user

My edits are showing up as pending edits but I am an extended autoconfirmed user. See here for example. Can anyone please tell me why this is the case? Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Morgan Leigh and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm not entirely sure, but what I think is happening is that when you revert back to a state of the page that was once a pending change, but not accepted by the editor with the pending changes reviewer bit, it also re-instates it as a pending change. WP:Pending changes is not very clear on exactly this situation, but comes close to mentioning it when it discusses a sequence of IP edits that result in a null edit.

Normally, the only way your edits would be pending edits is if they somehow came after an unconfirmed editor's changes, but something extra is going on here. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

When there are edits still pending review, any further edits, regardless of who makes them, go into the pending edits queue. This is to prevent possible vandalism from showing up until the initial edit is reviewed. For this reason, we generally don't do pending changes protection for popular articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I feel reasonably certain it was my own reviewing of this article, as it is on my watchlist, and I review pending changes. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

the teahouse

I would be delighted to be apart of the teahouse when do i start? P.s i have to log out and change my account so look for the name malroselotty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by minecraftbookworm (talk • contribs)

Hello minecraftbookworm or malroselotty and welcome to the Teahouse.

You've already become a participant at the Teahouse by posting here. If you think you know the answer to a question that someone asks, you may answer it. Be friendly. If you mess up an answer, it's not too big a deal, but we have from time to time asked people to stop trying to answer questions here because they were continually adding unhelpful responses. I also advise you to learn how to deal with edit conflicts, since those happen here with some regularity. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

LTE

If a smartphone doesn't include 700mhz (band 17) when a carrier says it should. Would LTE still work anyway if the frequency is higher, lets say 850mhz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajax-x86 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ajax-x86. Here at the Teahouse, we answer questions about editing Wikipedia. The best place for your question is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, which covers smartphones. They are pocket computers, after all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Moving new Draft to Mainspace

Hello,

I've written a new draft and tried to move it to main space, but I did not have permission and was told to go here. Can someone help me move my draft to mainspace/get a peer review if needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexob1212 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

To submit Draft:MONQ, LLC for AFC review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated the draft for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. The vast majority of the draft consists of promotional discussion of aromatherapy, and a catalog of producyp this company sells. The only reliable secondary sources on it are not going to show notability for this company, if they even mention it. One was a book reference (without any indication of where in the book the applicable information will be found) to a publication about aromatherapy from the American Cancer society, and a again non specific reference to a German gastroenterology journal about medicinal uses of herbs (it's not clear that is even a reliable source). Alexob1212 is in a Wiki-ed program and it seems more merciful to just end this so he or she can move on to a more appropriate topic. John from Idegon (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted this highly promotional content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Book URL?

The template {{cite book}} includes a URL parameter. What is that for? Books don’t have URLs. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Puzzledvegetable and welcome to the Teahouse.

Some books (for instance Project Gutenberg books) do have URLs where it's possible to get the entire text of the book online. In many other cases, a URL is given to a Google Books search where, as luck may have it, the particular passage being referred to can be viewed even if the book in its entirety cannot. With any citation template, some parameters are optional and can be left blank or left out. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I often include a cite to a library where all the details can be looked up... and where to borrow or buy it. Like this:

Delbridge, Arthur, 1921-2014 (2001), Macquarie dictionary : Australia's national dictionary (Rev. 3rd ed.), Macquarie Library, ISBN 978-1-876429-32-4{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

(If I found a link to a page whose main purpose was to sell a book, I'd delete it according to WP:External links#EL5 — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC))

In my opinion, a Google Books page is the best in most cases, linking to the page showing the cited content when that is possible. But even the overall Google Books page for a given book will provide plenty of bibliographic information, but does not exist to sell the book. No price, no shopping cart. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, a library is not trying to sell books..... both Trove (Australia) at https://trove.nla.gov.au/ and Worldcat at https://www.worldcat.org/ will help you find a copy of the reference at no cost. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Site Mechanics

I will try to be as precise as possible. I am puzzled by site mechanics. Meaning how some editors can manuever around the site so easily. What I am referring to is this A hypothetical example. A new user, lets call them "Tinydancer", signs on and voila a long time user who calls himself "Internet Superman" Shows and posts on their user page "Welcome". How does "Internet Superman" even know that "Tinydancer" was a new user. Then Tiny Dancer creates an article and voila "Internet Superman" and another user "Imapro", show up on that page making edits and recommendations. So how does one even know that a person has created an article? Is there a New articles function? I know all about the Watchlist, but you have to be aware of the new users existence and their article creation to even put them on the watchlist. So how does that happen? Just curious. I see people who I never interacted before and whose existence I am unaware, showing up making edits on my articles. How do they even know that I created an article, and how are they aware of my existence. Surely not the watch list, elsewise a users watchlist would be so long as to be unmanageable. Mine already is.Oldperson (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Oldperson, All new articles are reviewed and approved by new page reviewers; and are monitored through Special:NewPagesFeed; people also monitor all edits through Special:RecentChanges. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, Oldperson! There are indeed pages for these sorts of things. Special:Log is a catchall place where one can access all sorts of information, including the page creation log and the account creation log. I know that I'll occasionally keep an eye on the account creation log in my capacity as an admin to suss out accounts created for disruption, and as Galobtter mentioned, the patrolling of newly-created pages is important enough to have specialized tools on its own, at Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed. And yes, excessively long watchlists is a chronic condition of Wikiepdia editing; I think mine is ~1300 pages, and I bet mine is unusually short. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Mine is 4500 pages long.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Not me. I watch about 20 articles, no Users. David notMD (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

240, many because I let WP:REFILL add them when I use it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Um, to get back to one of your questions, posting questions at TeaHouse is akin to asking for a spotlight on you and your postings. Likely there are viewers who did not get involved in the Q&A, but later checked in on your contributions. This is in addition to those watching new article creation. There are examples of relatively minor questions being posted at TeaHouse that led to articles being deleted. David notMD (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I can confirm I'm one of those people. I rarely ever reply here on the Teahouse, but I do quite often check out the contribution history of people who asked a question here, and help out with fixing spelling/layout/template issues on articles they've worked on. rchard2scout (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

User boxes

Hello, I was looking to make my user page a bit more interesting, but I’m sort of confused on how to make user boxes with a specific picture file on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erfson (talk • contribs) 07:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Erfson. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Userboxes for some general information on how to make and how to use a userbox. You can also check Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries/All to see if someone has already created a userbox that you might want to use. Most importantly, please makes sure to read Wikipedia:Userboxes#Caution about image use since images are the things that most editors seem to have problems with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

changing a web address

How do I access a web address in a panel in order to update it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Setch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disetch (talk • contribs) 12:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Disetch. Based upon the similarity between your username and the last name of Terry Setch, I'm wondering if there's any connection between he two of you. If there is some kind of personal or professional connection, then you'd most likely be considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to anything written about him on Wikipedia and really shouldn't be editing articles written about him or mentioning him. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide as well as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends for more information about this.

As for your question, I'm not sure about what you mean by "web address", but I'm assuming that you're referring to Setch's official website. If that's the case, you can post the link here in this thread and someone will change it for you. If you're referring some other web address, please clarify which one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Disetch I think you mean the info box? And I'm guessing you would like to update the artists homepage, as its the only web address there, and the old one does appear to be dead. If thats the case, it is now updated to show the current homepage as per google.(Also updated in the "external links" section at the bottom of the article). There are two ways; either click on "edit source" at the top of the page to bring up the code, then copypaste the correct address under the info box section in the website perameter. If you prefer using Visual editor, click on "edit" up top the page, then click on the infobox itself, then edit on the template. See Help:Infobox.

oops didnt see MarchJuly had posted already..if I jumped ahead and got the wrong address, just post here as they suggested. Curdle (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Welsh Counties

In England we have Historic Counties which aren't really used anymore for anything, Ceremonial Counties which are the standard counties used in things like addresses, and then there's the Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Counties which are used by the local governments. Scotland are similar as they have Historic Counties which were used until 1975, and now their counties are called Council Areas. With Wales however I can't work out what are seen as their counties today as they have 8 Preserved Counties and 22 Principal Areas. Is a Preserved County equivalent to an English Historic County or a Ceremonial County? (I'm guessing it's a ceremonial county equivalent). And is a Principal Area equivalent to an English Ceremonial County or a Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan County? (I'm guessing it's a metropolitan and non-metropolitan county equivalent). Danstarr69 (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Danstarr69. As an American I am even more confused than you are. Good places to ask are Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

English counties are simple if you know what you're talking about. The only ones which are relevant today are the 48 Ceremonial Counties which are basically the same as the 50 States of the USA.

The 84 even smaller Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Counties are only really used by the councils of the government, and people who like to believe they're actual independent counties, when the reality is they're just divisions of the actual 48 counties.

And then there's the Historic Counties which are only used for nostalgia's sake.

Basically the areas from smallest to largest go: neighbourhoods/villages > wards/villages > standalone towns, or towns which are inside cities > 1 of the 48 counties > 1 of 9 regions. For example in my city there's the neighbourhood/village Haworth, which is in the town of Keighley, which is in the City of Bradford, which is in the county of West Yorkshire, which is in the region of Yorkshire and the Humber.

With Wales I'm not sure which they use as there's a list of 13 which aren't used anymore, then a list of 8, a list of 22, and a list of 11 which was apparently created from the list of 8. It's confusing as ****!

While I was waiting for an answer to this I went to find out how many Welsh Regions there are. According to Wales.com there's 5, but almost everywhere else seems to think there's 4, 6 or more. Danstarr69 (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Just as a complete aside, and for all you non-naturalists out there, I must put in a mention for Watsonian vice counties - seemingly archaic, and based on historic counties of Britain, they are nevertheless extremely importsnt and still used today by biologists across the UK. Without them, we are unable to record and compare changes over time in our regional flora and fauna because modern county boundaries are forever being changed and altered. (Just thought someone might like to know!) Nick Moyes (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Why was my page deleted under "Speedy Deletion"?

Hi, I attempted to create an article for a well known small business nearby "Bavelle Technologies", and it was rejected for "unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic." Although I do understand that I did not follow the procedure when making an article, which states that you cannot cite information from the website or social media, this was my only option. The only unbiased information about this business was on their website and their LinkedIn page. Additionally, I validated after reading what was written that everything was completely factual and not any different than what was written on other cyber security business Wikipedia articles. For example, I used IBM as reference in order to ensure that I was stating important facts and other information, including the slogan of the business. Please let me know what can be done in order to create this article and if any changes are recommended. It seems that only allowing articles with information not from the company's website and on credible websites is discriminatory to small businesses that want representation on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adidavidbtg (talk • contribs) 20:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Adidavid, and welcome to the Teahouse. The thing about Wikipedia is that it's not intended to host a page on every possible subject; rather, we strive to have articles about subjects that are notable. Notability has lots of different definitions even within Wikipedia, but the general notability guideline, a good starting point for most, states that a subject must be signfiicantly covered in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject in order to be eligible for an article on Wikipedia. This criterion exists for a reason: it's there to ensure that we can source all the statements in our articles to objective, neutral, and reliable sources; if no such sources exist, then there's nothing for us to build a reasonable article from.

I wouldn't use the word "discriminatory", but yes, that does mean that many small, local businesses aren't eligible for an article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory or place for self-promotion or "getting the word out", so unfortunately, that does mean that many organizations that might want an article don't get to have one. That's true in any field, not just businesses. It's just the nature of the game. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Discriminatory or not this is a law of the land here, in Wikipedia. So, you should come up with third party sources. In addition the language that you used was not exactly encyclopedic. Ruslik_Zero 20:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Maserati GranTurismo page

how do you fix move or edit the Contents box to move back to the left side of the page ? and also how do you get ride of the =GranTurismo (2007–present)== texts in the 3 paragraph of the Maserati GranTurism page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1235:420B:D461:9D8:DE74:B3D3 (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Three copies of same photo, and it was pushing the Table of Contents box away from the left edge. There are also spacing problems farther down in the article - did not touch those. David notMD (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

How do I start a new page entry?

I recently went to see the stage show Magic Mike Live in London, I wanted to edit this page and I found it doesn't exist! This is also a show in Vegas and is directed by Channing Tatum. I have only edited pages and am not sure how to start a new listing? Can someone do this for me? Here are the details: https://www.magicmikelondon.co.uk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dairyintolerant87 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dairyintolerant87: See User:Ian.thomson/Howto for instructions on how to write an article that doesn't get deleted. It's part of a guide I wrote that explains a variety of things (such as signing posts). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

kuro5hin.org

I was fixing broken links in meme and memetics which had a couple of pointers to kuro5hin.org. After fixing those (I had alternate links) I searched all of Wikipedia. There are a number of such links. Since kuro5hin.org is kaput (though it is reputed that it might come back as a static archive) the links should be fixed if possible by people who know the article subjects and can find alternate links. Sorry I can't be of more help. Keith Henson (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hkhenson: You should take a look at WP:DEADREF since it provides suggestions on how to deal with links that no longer work, etc. The outright replacing or removing of a dead link is not always necessary because an archived version of the original source might exist. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Hkhenson and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please do not remove links simply because they are dead. Many of the Kuro5hin links can be found at web.archive.org or perhaps at other archive sites and it would be much better to provide a link to the archive than to remove the dead link. Replacing links (dead or alive) with better links is almost always welcome. I've added back one of refs you deleted in Memetics by recovering an archived version.

But I have to ask whether you are the same H. Kieth Henson that authored these references. If so, it would be preferable if you make edit requests on the talk pages of the articles rather than make the edits yourself. This is the approach we prefer to see any time an editor has what may be considered a conflict of interest with the subject matter they are editing. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to go against customs, but it is my understanding that fixing broken links is not a COI issue, even if you are the author or the page is about you. (Adding links would be!) If this is not the case, please point me to the correct Wikipedia policy page. I don't mind putting them up as requests on the article talk page if that is required. The reason this came up at all is the Human Nature Review site vanished, which broke more than 1000 links around the web to the EP and meme paper "Sex, Drugs and Cults." As I said above, no intent of fixing the other kuro5hin.org links. Keith Henson (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hkhenson: What you were doing appears to have been almost fine (the caveat is removing a dead url that could have been salvaged), but there are times when replacing dead refs is done with less-than-honorable intentions. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I will be careful. Thanks for putting the archive link back to a version of an article I thought was lost. When kuro5hin first vanished someone posted that a robots.txt file had kept it from being archived. Glad to see that's not the case. That article has a strange history with an unedited version on kuro5hin. The differences in the last half of the article are substantial. Keith Henson (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Getting beyond the draft mode

I am trying to get the company 'Johnson Production Group' published. They have a huge body of work (movies) over 100... Unfortunately they are not mentioned all that much on other sources. I did find this Youtube video on the Independent Film & Television Alliance channel and I am wondering if it would be appropriate to add it as a source? https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=r5YpLni8eoE — Preceding unsigned comment added by CWDSocial (talk • contribs) 21:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi CWDSocial. Some media files are considered acceptable for citing as a reliable source as explained in Wikipedia:Video links, but you have to be a bit careful per WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER to ensure that whatever you're linking to is not actually a copyright violation. As explained in WP:YOUTUBE, it's typically only a good idea to cite videos which are found on official channels where it's clear that it's the original copyright holder in control of the channel. As to whether the content of the video is suitable for to use as a reliable source depends on WP:RSCONTEXT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

CWDSocial, I wouldn't waste any time worrying about that YouTube video. Even if it is usable as a source (which I doubt), it does nothing whatsoever to show notability, as it is an interview with one of the principals of the subject of the article. Wikipeda is not a business directory. We only carry articles on notable subjects. To be notable, any subject has to be written about in detail in multiple reliable sources, totally independent of the subject. You have no reliable sources, no detail and one that isn't independent. Rightfully, the draft has been nominated for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. The only question that remains is, where did the information in the article come from, and what exactly is your own relationship with the article's subject. John from Idegon (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Problems in understanding conceptual study in physics.

Hi am Kunal Singh I want to share how can we help the reader to understand more clearly the topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thakur kunal singh (talk • contribs) 05:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Thakur kunal singh and welcome to the Teahouse.

Some of our articles on topics in physics and other sciences get too technical to be useful for the vast majority of our readers. You can get a list of articles that are both marked as "too technical" and in physics or a sub-category of physics by doing a PETSCAN search like this one (the search may take a few minutes). Pick an article from the results that you think you can help with and make a proposal on its talk page for the parts you would like to rewrite. I recommend that you do not edit the article directly; first see what other editors think about your revisions. Most likely, a fruitful discussion will be started on how to make the article easier to understand. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Software allowing undo on mobile....

Is there any software which allows you to undo an edit on mobile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3271960JT (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Hi 3271960JT, the mobile view is also known as the reader view and it does not show page history so to undo an edit you must go to desktop. I too edit by a mobile but I go to desktop view to undo an edit.Denim11 (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@3271960JT: @Denim11: I haven't tried it, but someone has put together a way to do what you are asking. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#A_hack_to_allow_reversion_on_mobile. RudolfRed (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank You !!!It works really like the desktop one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3271960JT (talk • contribs) 07:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Anna Group Page

Hello, there. The page has been marked for 'speedy deletion'. How can I declare COI, and add a new page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sree-Kumar (talk • contribs) 05:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sree-Kumar and welcome to the Teahouse.

I see this question has already been answered on your talk page. In the future, please choose just one place to ask your question and have a bit of patience while waiting for a response. In most cases, I'd recommend waiting at least 24 hours before attempting to ask the same question in a different venue. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sree-Kumar. Please read and comply with our mandatory Paid editing disclosure. You must use the Articles for Creation process, and use it properly, in order to create an acceptable article about the Anna Group. I express no opinion about whether or not this is a notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

A better use of your corporate resources would be to spend the money that you are spending to try to advertise in Wikipedia on improving your web site. Your web site is yours and won't be met with defense of the integrity of Wikipedia by volunteers. Or pay an advertising-financed web site such as Google. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding donations. How do I contact someone from accounting?

Hello. I’d like to make donations from China and I do not have a valid form of payment. I would like to make a suggestion. Set up a facility to make donations via wechat. I would make pretty good monthly donations were this facility available and I’d also be able to recommend the facility to people when I host Wikipedia workshops. Could someone who deals with wikipedia’s accounting department take a look at this suggestion and see if it is feasible. Thanks! Edaham (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Edaham. Your donations go to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the organisation that supports Wikipedia financially and technically, rather than the English Wikipedia community directly, so that's not something we can help you with. The WMF do have a web page on ways to donate that lists many options, and gives an email address for queries: donate@wikimedia.org. – Joe (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Well you say it isn't something you can help with, but then you were actually very helpful indeed. Cheers. Joe Roe Edaham (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I was asked by GetYourGuide to update their Wiki page. I completed the work last week. Today I got an e-mail from my contact there wondering why it had gone back to the old version. When I checked the 'view history' section, I saw an edit Nov 30 with the IP address 178.108.252.145, and the comment unmistakable spam, and no signature. I restored it to the revised version, and left a notice on the talk page.

Don't know what is happening, is this vandalism? What's to prevent someone from doing this again? Thanks very much for your insights and helpTlvernon (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the comment by the editor of what you added was "Reverting unmistakable spam" and I agree. A separate point, and essential - what do you mean by "I was asked by GetYourGuide to update their Wiki page. I completed the work last week." Are you being paid or otherwise compensated? If yes, then you are required to declare this and to not directly edit the article in question. Your User page lists three articles you have been paid to edit, but list does not include GetYourGuide. However, at the Talk page for GetYourGuide, buried deep in a comment string, you acknowledge a paid situation. David notMD (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Tlvernon. I’m not sure I would automatically categorize that IP’s edit summary as vandalism. The content which was removed was somewhat WP:PROMOTIONAL and the fact that you appear to be working on behalf of the company means you likely have a conflict of interest with respect to anything written about them, maybe even something that would be consider a financial conflict of interest of some kind. If you do have a COI, you shouldn’t really be editing the article except in certain cases and should be using the article’s talk page to propose changes to it instead. Moreover, the Wikipedia article is not owned by the company and they have no final editorial control over the content of the article. The article is only intended to reflect in aneutral way what reliable sources are saying about the company, not what the company wants to say about itself. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your feedback. Yes, I was paid by GetYourGuide. It is on my user page under 'Pages I've Edited'. I do distinguish between paged I've edited and pages I have created from scratch. There are three entries there. I do the writing based on my own research, and info they provide me. I try to write in a more neutral style, although in this case, it may need to be tamed a bit more.

As to the edit/change back to the old version, my understanding is that people are supposed to sign their work. Leaving just an IP address is what made me wonder if it was malicious, or at least anonymous.

I will also move my notice on the GetYourGuide talk page to the top. Thanks again for your helpTlvernon (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Tlvernon. Thank you for clarifying things. My suggestion to you (before some else does it for you) is to undo the edit you've made and propose that the changes be on the article's talk page instead. You can do this by following WP:ER. This will all other editors to assess the changes and make either all of some of them to the article instead. I also sugest that you try not to propose such a major revision in one fell swoop, but rather break it up into more manageable bits. Editors helping out with edit requests often try to maximize the amount of requests they can answer in a given amount of time, which means proposals that contain lots of parts sometimes are left for someone else to deal with. So, requests along the lines of "change x to y per this reliable source" are often easier to assess than completely new or rewritten "walls of text" with please a note saying please add this to the article.

As for IP editors, please see Wikipedia:IPs are human too for reference, but basically anyone can edit Wikipedia and registering for an account is not required. Moreover, an IP is actually less anonymous than a registered user simply because you can look up a IP address and get a general idea of where its located, but you cannot really do the same for a register user. While there are hit-and-run IPs who just show up to mess with the encyclopedia, there are registered accounts who only do so to cause mischief as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Paid describes how to declare on your User page not just that you have been paid, but what company or person paid you. Only listing the articles is not sufficient. David notMD (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Those Winter Sundays

I reviewed Draft:Those Winter Sundays by User:Leozanoni and declined it, although it was a difficult decision. I thought that an article about the poem is appropriate. However, the draft is written like a class paper on the poem and makes a lot of references to the words of the poem (and the skillful use of words is what the art of poetry is about). It appears that the poem was previously included in the draft, and has been redacted as copyright violation. Leozanoni has asked me on my talk page for further advice, and I am asking her for the comments of other experienced editors. Leozanoni also writes:

I'd like to ask you also if you could point me in the right direction in order to get the proper permission to publish the entire poem on the draft page. I already sent an Email to Liveright (the ones that have the copyright) and replied me they have no objection as long as we cite them.(I posted the conversation on the talk page of the draft and still a user deleted the poem).

My thought is that the permission is inadequate, since Wikipedia requires that all text, including quoted material, is released under the Wikipedia copyleft not only for publication on our web site but for republication with proper attribution anywhere by all in the world. It is unlikely that a publisher, or the heirs of a poet, will grant the permission that we require. Is my understanding correct? I think that many editors do not understand what Wikipedia requires and so why it is not easily worked around.

Comments?

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The relevant policies are contained within our notability guidelines. In the case of a poem by an author the gold standard for establishing notability would be articles and books which discuss the poem and its themes independent from the author. A perfect example of this would be the Aeneid. There are hundreds if not thousands of books which deal specifically with this work written in every language. Secondary to this would be chapters in books about the author which identify the poem as an important work. If the article passes these criteria, there are templates you can use to notify the editor that the article text is overly detailed or includes trivial information. These templates are listed at this suppliment to our policies on trivia and excessive detail. You can tag the article. Suggest removal of copy vio information as well as information based on sources which aren’t specifically dealing with the poem or its relevance. Focus should be on the history of the poem, its significance in the author’s body of work and its sphere of influence on other poets and society. The contents of the poem and their meaning deserve a mention, but should be balanced per our policy on due weight - I think its fine for you to make these suggestions and ask the editor to resubmit it after the changes have been made. At the moment you are right that it looks like an academic paper and puts undue focus on the meaning of the poem. Edaham (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Several of the references have the entire poem (Landau, others). Can the editor of the draft mention those without violating Wikipedia's copyright rules? At first I had expected that the references would be about the poet rather than the poem, but some of them are extensive analysis of the poem itself. I do agree that the draft as written is too long and incorporates the editor's original research in addition to what can be gleaned from published sources. I recommend try again - but a lot shorter. David notMD (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Resolving a conduct issue with another user

Hello, i've recently joined Wikipedia. I decided to contribute to a talk page for an article. During this discussion, another user is continuously accusing me of bat-faith editing. After putting a warning template on their profile about assuming good faith, they removed it and took it to my profile in response, accusing me of misusing warning templates. It seems that any time I suggest something on that talk page, that user accuses me of breaking a guideline, or accuses me of disruptive editing. I've logged out of my account to prevent any further dispute by that other user if they see this & see my username. Thank you. 50.107.100.10 (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how we can help you without knowing what this is about. You've not told us what article this pertains to, nor what warning template you've received. If your only contributions on the unnamed article are to the talk page, pretty much the only possible badfaith actions would be violating WP:NOTFORUM by discussing the subject of the article rather than specifically discussing proposed changes to the article by making arguments based in reliable sources and Wikipeda policies and guidelines; refactoring another editor's comments in violation of WP:TPG;or violating our policy on no personal attacks. If you want to provide details, perhaps we can better help you. John from Idegon (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

To be more specific, when I'd make a contribution to the talk page, the user would accuse me of breaking WP policy, rather than discussing the content of the article or the content of my comment. The user would continuously accuse me of attempting to white-wash the article, when im just pointing out issues with parts of the article. Any comment I would make, I'd be either accused of white-washing, wasting time, or that im gaming the system.

we will try to solve it--MeKLT (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

To put it simply, ignoring contentions that i had made in the article, and attacking me by claiming I'm not following WP guidelines, or that im not editing in good faith.

I want to resolve this so that I can have a discussion about the content of the article, rather than being attacked for how I may conduct myself. 50.107.100.10 (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

If you want help resolving the dispute, IP editor, log in under your account and let us know which article you are talking about. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

last

how to delete an account? --MeKLT (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You cannot ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 15:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Same answer as Abelmoschus Esculentus.Denim11 (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You can simply stop using the account, MeKLT. If you really want it to be expunged, see Right to vanish: the account will still exist, but will be renamed to something unmemorable, and you will not be able to access it again. --ColinFine (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Query of notability

Dear Wiki-community,

I've been thinking about creating a new article for the first time. I've read through the Articles for Creation page but I'm unsure on how to go about this. Personally, after looking through the library and archives, I've found enough material to make me believe that this is something that at least for local or English people in general is of relevance. The subject is the history of a big building (Rutland Hall) in Sheffield, UK, which since 1906 has been run by organisations working with reintroducing young ex-offenders into society, for example sex workers, but also activities for young and old living in the area. It was founded by a prominant figure Dr Helen Wilson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Mary_Wilson_(physician)), who already has an existing but quite short wikipage (I've found more info on her that potentially could be added), for example the geography of where she ran her organization could be described in more detail by me. Sources I would be using would include Local Pamphlets found in the Sheffield Central Library, and Helen Wilsons settlement annual reports ranging from 1900-1957)

I've seen people of quite advanced age who've personally participated in Rutland Halls' activities when young discussing about its historical worth on various forums, and since theres a new charity organisation operating in it today I'd like to contribute to making it easier to read up about.

My questions are thus:

1. Does Rutland Hall warrant its own wikipage? I don't work for the charity organization operating in it today but I am a history Student with a project to help them research their building's history, however they have not asked for a Wikipage, this is my own idea since I deemed it to be a thing potentially of value. However is that a potential conflict of interest?

2. If not, can I add some info about it on Helen Wilsons already existing wikipage (the building was built by her and her organisation operated within it during her lifetime)?

Thank you for any input or answers. --EbbaCeciliaK (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, EbbaCeciliaK. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for wanting to add to Wikipedia. The criteria for creating a stand-alone article is what we call Notability, which doesn't mean quite the same as its usual meaning. The nub is that it has been written about by independent people - if the pamphlets you refer to are written or published by Rutland Hall or by Wilson, then they do not contribute at all to its notability.

I would suggest you work first on adding to Helen Mary Wilson (physician), and see if there is enough independent material available to ground a stand-alone article. In any case, creating a new Wikipedia article is a difficult task, and I always advise new editors to get plenty of experience editing existing articles first. See Your first article.

As for Conflict of interest: yes, if you are working with the organisation, in whatever capacity, you have a potential conflict of interest. That doesn't preclude you from working on such an article, but you should declare it openly, and observe the advice in PSCOI. --ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

avoid conflict of interest

Who do I reach out to about submitting an edit request so I can avoid a conflict of interest?

Place a request on the article's talk page using the {{Edit request}} template. Also, read WP:COI for any required disclosures. RudolfRed (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Katherine1812:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for being straightforward about a possible conflict of interest. In addition to the above advice, I have posted a few basic links about this topic on your user talkpage. But please feel free to ask again if you have further questions. GermanJoe (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherine1812 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Consensus

I add something.
Somebody removes it.
I add again with citations.
He removes again, but this time asking for consensus.

I mean, do I really need consensus since my edit is with proper citations?

Please see the edit history of this for reference.

Now he reverted again. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if an addition is challenged, and especially when there is an ongoing discussion on the article talk page, you should not re-add it until and unless you get consensus in favour of the addition. Everything that is sourced is not necessarily relevant for an encyclopedia. If the discussion on the talk page doesn't lead anywhere, there are various ways to ask for input from other editors, described here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you added it three times and it was reverted three times by two different editors. From quick glance at Talk, there appears to be a spirited ongoing discussion. I suggest not editing the article until the participants can reach consensus. Which may be with you or against you. David notMD (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes

Does the WP:3RR apply if it is a pending changes review as opposed to an actual revert? IWI (chat) 20:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello ImprovedWikiImprovment. By pending changes review, do you mean by clicking the "revert changes" button in the pending changes queue? If so, then yes the rule does still apply if the reverted edit is not vandalism, a BLP violation, copyright violation, etc. Even if a "revert" is completely manual and doesn't use any kind of revert button at all; it would still count as a revert in context of the 3RR. Does this answer your question?--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does, thank you. IWI (chat) 20:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)