Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Read the newest questions
Skip to bottom

Most recent archives
1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242

Wikiholicism

I am extremely addicted to editing Wikipedia , how can i cure this? Thegooduser talk 20:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom and Cold Turkey are two programs that will block domains you select at times you select. Good luck! --Thnidu (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser, I would ask for help from those around you in the "real" world if possible. --Malerooster (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser: I'm so sorry for not replying earlier. Your question didn't seem important enough for me to stop editing Wikipedia to give you my time. I regret that now.

First you have to confront the reality of your addiction, my friend. Do you nip to the loo in the middle of a church service/friends party/romantic night in/football match/TV dinner, and quickly check for wiki-notifications? Do you hide your addiction from friends and family, having prepared an innocent-looking page which you can show on your monitor with a crafty Alt-Tab whenever they come in? Do you find it incredulous that there are actually people out there that don't understand the things you say or who don't seem interested in asking you to demonstrate WP:RS in the middle of a conversation? I feel your pain, my friend. Do come join us, be open, and share your story at Wikipedia:Clinic for Wikipediholics. A wise person once said (I think it was OlEnglish): Denial is a river in Egypt. I can quit whenever I want to. I just don't want to yet (yes it was!). (Rather sadly, I note that I signed the Wikipediholics register under my old account name back in 2016.) We clearly both need help. But maybe we're imagining a problem. After all, were Wikipediholism a real problem, wouldn't there be mainspace article on it? (If someone'll pay me, I'll write it!) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: Thanks for helping me out. What do i do after i sign in to the clinic? Thegooduser talk 02:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thegooduser I fear there's very little you can do, my son/daughter/person of indeterminate organic origin. My only advice is to listen to the clinicians; attend all the group therapy sessions; share your stories with others, be open and honest; admit your weaknesses to those you love - they will support you if they really care about your plight. Do ask the doctors any questions you like about your treatment here in the clinic. Just try to take one day at a time and you may, eventually, come to be accepted as a proper member of society once again. But (thinking about it for a moment) who wants to be seen normal??? That's boring!. Now, get back to editing!!! Wikilove from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I inject a note of seriousness, @Thegooduser: after my frivolous reply above? If you are, say, a college student and have real problems resisting the urge to check and edit Wikipedia, and find it really draws you away from other priorities in life, like the genuine need to revise for exams, and so on, it is possible to ask an adminstrator to place a temporary editing block on your own account. I've seen it done, but I'm really sorry, I can't seem to find any guidance on this. Should you genuinely need to stop yourself from editing for a period of time, I'd suggest putting a {{Admin help}} template on your Talk page and explain your reasoning for wanting to do this. (Just don't think about standing to become an admin for a year or so afterwards - that kind of action doesn't go down too well at WP:RFA!) Nick Moyes (talk)

@Nick Moyes: If i ask an admin to block me will i get in trouble in the future/right now? Will it go on my record? And how do i be unblocked?Thegooduser talk 05:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser: OK, so I've a little dug deeper and found out more (but I confess to having no experience in this field) First, I don't know your age, but it was one of your infoboxes that made me realise you might have asked in all earnestness. So, if you're at home with parents or partner, you could ask them to help you - maybe simply turning off the router/modem/removing ethernet cable etc for you could keep you off all the internet for a period - but that could impact on essential internet access elsewhere for your studies, for example. Or maybe it's possible for you or them to block the wikipedia domain via your router settings. (I think an earlier posted suggested two websites for that)

The page I've found for you is WP:SELFBLOCK, and there are indeed a small category of admins willing to consider a user-requested block under cicrumstances that each admin defines themselves. Having read it, I'm not sure it's the best way, especially as at least one admin says that any attempt to get round a defined period of self-blocking with an WP:SPA could lead to all accounts being permanently blocked - and I suspect you really don't want this if you were to try to sneak back on somehow. And a block is a block, so it will look to others that you've been blocked for something bad. In general that's not too much of a worry unless later on (i.e. within a year or so) you wanted to stand for admin or request special rights where past evidence of responsible action needs to be seen. But, to answer your question directly: no, a block of any sort won't look good.

So, here's an alternative for you: The WP:selfblock page does suggest using Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer first - a script you add to your common.js page. You define a start and an end time to when you can log on. If you are unsure about using it, you could ask one of those supportive admins in the category above to keep an eye on you as you install it (they have the ability to edit your common.js file, I believe, should you mess it up and permanently lock yourself out).

Finally, I do want to apologise to you. I had interpreted and responded to your question in a light-hearted way at first - I am really really sorry for that. Being addicted to something takes so many forms, whether it's computer games, gambling, alcohol or visiting particular websites in a manner that a person can't properly control. I recognise that the feeling of being useful here and helping create this encyclopaedia is, itself, a very addictive and rewarding experience. So, whatever it is, if deep in your heart you feel it has started to take you over and you can't control it, and it's starting to impact on sleep, studies or on other things in life that you know you should be doing, then, yes, you probably do have a problem you need to address. In fact, you're doing that right now, so that's good. Talk to people in the real world - a friend or family or a teacher - and be open and honest about your concerns if you can't pull yourself away from the computer and it's really eating into your life. It really is OK to ask them to support and watch over you a little more; it's something any caring person would be only too willing to do for you - there's really no shame in asking for that help. Understand that I have no expertise in this area, but do feel free to drop me a note on my Talk page if you want further support in what, I suppose, would be a fractionally less public arena. But real friends - real people - are by far the best ones to support you, not me. This place might feel safe, but not if its the cause of your worries. Real safety comes from the understanding, care and support that only real people around you can give you. Take care and best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citations For My Page?

Goof Afternoon, Our company page, which is titled Meridian (private aviation company) was denied earlier this week. The reason for that was because our citations proved to be inadequate and reverted back to our actual company page. The problem is, all of our historical and factual information comes directly from the site. No other site has that type of information. Seeing that BY LAW, you cannot fabricate your company's history, information, and accomplishments, I don't see why it would be a problem that we used our website as a source. Sure there are other news articles that have reported on us before but none include the type of historical data that we want on our WIKI page. Is there a way I can by-pass the disapproval by the WIKI commons? Or a way I can create acceptable citations? Please let me know ASAP, for I am an intern trying to impress my boss by getting this up and running.

Sorry for the inconvenience and Thank You in advance!

Meridian (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Meridianteb - You have been given a very unfortunate assignment by your boss. Wikipedia has articles on various subjects, more than five million of them in English, including on companies that satisfy corporate notability, which is based on what third parties have written about the company. The fact that a company exists does not mean that the company is notable in the peculiar Wikipedia sense. If third parties have not written about the company, it does not satisfy corporate notability. Also, you have a conflict of interest because you have been asked to create a "company page" for your company, but Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. It appears that your boss has asked you to do something that Wikipedia policies and guidelines strongly discourage. There is no way to bypass the requirement for corporate notability or the policies on conflict of interest editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, Meridian, is that any laws aside, companies falsify such histories, accomplishments and information all the time, and indeed have a powerful incentive to make themselves look good. (The same, of course, applies to individuals.) This is why we require that notability be established through reliable, third-party, independent sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Your company's website would only be a valid source for completely uncontroversial information such as its address or the identity of its CEO. For anything else, we'd need to see substantial coverage in multiple sources from places like the print or business media. Ravenswing 23:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:Meridian (private aviation company). I see that the Original Poster (OP) did follow the proper route for an editor who has a conflict of interest and submitted the draft via Articles for Creation. I will comment that, in addition to the issue about independent sources, the draft contains promotional language that is intended to present the company positively. The OP did what an employee should have done, but that isn't what Wikipedia is looking for. If the draft is to be accepted, it will need to be very substantially rewritten to change its tone, as well as to add third-party references such as business reviews, if it has them, although the author did what he was being paid to do. Also, the tone reads so much like a marketing brochure that I have to ask whether it has been copied from a marketing brochure or from the corporate web site. That is not permitted, because Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously (even if almost no one else does.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Meridian, you and your company have a very common misconception, that Wikipedia has anything whatever to do with your company's self-presentation or online presence. It does not. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a business directory, and if we have an article about your company it will be based on what independent writers have published about it, not on what you and the company say; and you will have no control over the content. --ColinFine (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One further thing, Meridianteb. I would strongly suggest you go over to Wikipedia Commons and request your upload of your company's logo be deleted. First, I highly doubt it is actually YOUR work, which is what you attested in your licensing template. Second, I doubt the business you work for has empowered an intern to dispose of the company's assets, which its logo is. As it stands right now, a competitor, or even a strip club, could open across the street from you, plaster your company's logo all over the business, and there is absolutely nothing that your company could do about it. All they have to do is stick a small note on it anywhere, saying it came from Wikimedia Commons, where it was uploaded and released for reuse for any purpose by Meridianteb. John from Idegon (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:John from Idegon - I doubt that User:Meridianteb has any idea what the legal significance of uploading the logo to Wikipedia Commons was, which is that they were granting a copyleft for the free use of the logo by anyone in the world. I would advise the Original Poster to read Wikipedia's copyright policies twice. As I said above, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and the way that we take it seriously has some surprising implications. For instance, merely copying text from a web site for a company's own use in their "own" "company page" violates copyright, unless the company releases the copyright, and, if they do release the copyright, they can't subsequently enforce it. In short, creating a "company page" for your company sounds messy after you look at it twice, but it is even worse after you look at it four times. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One other point for the OP. This place here, where you created your draft, where you want an article in the encyclopedia, and where this here Teahouse is located, is English Wikipedia, or en.wiki. Wikimedia Commons, where you uploaded your logo, and the other image (is that one actually your own work, ie did you take the photo? If not, you've falsely licensed it too) is a totally separate website also owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. They have nothing to do with your article getting approved. Robert McClenon, that was kind of my point. Frankly, I'd like to smack his boss oer the noggin with Webster's Unabridged. This isn't the first time we've heard this (or even the first hundredth). Too bad WMF won't put any effort into dissuading executives of that notion. John from Idegon (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:John from Idegon - Why would the WMF care about details? They are interested in their contribution stream, and so in monotonically increasing metrics. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite aside from that the WMF has better things to do with its time than to go all out to seek to educate business executives in what they're going to ignore in any event. (And let's face it, how, short of turning COI into a blanket prohibition?) That being said, I expect we're wandering from the purpose of the Teahouse here ... Ravenswing 02:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Afternoon, Thank you for all of your concerns with the proposed draft. All of these red flags were not taken into account before actually submitting the article. The goal of this submission was simply to create a Meridian Wiki. Several of Meridian’s competitors have done this already. For example, a noted competitor named, “Jet Aviation” has a public Wikipedia page with a similar format, same info-box including a company logo, yet only 1 unrelated citation. In regards to the page’s shortcomings. There are several 3rd party articles written about Meridian and its impact on the private-aviation industry which will be included in the next submission. The work that has been submitted already will be re-worded to comply with Wikipedia’s paraphrasing policies. Also, as suggested by one of the users, it has been requested to remove all of Meridians logo photos from the Wikipedia Commons. Thank you all for your suggestions and concerns with the article. This was a simple mistake of not understanding the full-scope of Wikipedia’s policies. The red-flags are noted and will be corrected. The page will be restructured in a way that conforms to Wikipedia’s guidelines based on your feedback. Please share any further information that could be useful for the re submission of this article. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meridianteb (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Meridianteb -- At the end of the day, the article will look like your competitor Signature. Your boss will be disappointed. It won't look like the dream he or she had. You had best forget about this internship and start looking for another gig.

A bit of advice that is meant to be helpful, even if it sounds mean: Go to Bergen County Community College for a creative writing class. Tell the prof you want extra work writing the same piece in random voices, tones, and attitudes. Encyclopedic is not ad copy; nor is it the voice-over in the company video. You are a good writer. A great writer can do any style, any time.

That advice applies even in journalism. The Atlantic has one style. Rolling Stone has another. Wikipedia wants something more like the Associated Press. Pay attention to how AP writers craft a lede. Few or no adjectives. Your second para sounds like you are writing copy for the White House web site.

BTW, in American English, a company is always it, never they. Vary your sentence structure; you repeat the pattern of two independent clauses conjoined by and. Look up the definition of comprise. Read the WP:MOS. Section titles are all lower case except the first letter and proper nouns. Rhadow (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hate maintenance templates?

Oh really, this article could benefit from more citations? Aww geez this very technical article is too technical? There's not enough inline citations in this article? Oh, and this one has multiple issues!?

Seriously though, these boxes are an eyesore. Almost every article I visit has one or more maintenance templates at the top. I want to argue they serve no purpose; particularly at the top of the article. Maybe they trigger some bot or flip-over a number on some ticker-counter somewhere on village pump. They could do so at the bottom, or as teensy collapsed boxes in the corner of the page.

Why they serve little or no purpose...

First, this is Wikipedia; it's Don't Panic written by volunteers in their spare time. My 6-year-old knows Wikipedia articles are not perfect representations of world information, and can have mistakes. So whenever I see a random maintenance box like Needs more references at the top of an article, I quietly whisper to myself, Thank you... Captain.... Obvious.

Second, almost every one of these declarations can be checked by the reader, in real time.

"hmmm, did that sentence I just read end with a reference?"
"hmmm, that paragraph seemed like it would be a bit too technical for a layman"
"hmmm, this article was pretty crappy, it has by my estimate, multiple issues"

Third, they make a call for a quantitative or qualitative change by some arbitrary amount. Due to this, nobody knows when to remove them. So they just sit up there, stacking up, festering, forever.

Lastly, I love helping improve the quality of Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia. Never once -- not once -- have a seen a maintenance box and gone "boy, ohhh boy... MULTIPLE ISSUES!, I can't wait to get to fixin these"

I just needed to get that off my chest. Carry on my good fellows Niubrad (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Niubrad: This is not the forum to gripe or complain about aspects of Wikipedia; this is a place for new users to ask questions. Not everyone is like you, and many people find the templates helpful in pointing out issues. What is obvious to you may be totally unseen by others, especially new users. If you want to work to eliminate maintenance templates from Wikipedia, you are free to do so, though I think it unlikely to succeed- but this isn't the place to do it. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, see, I knew this would be helpful... I was looking all over for the right place to gripe about this, and now maybe you can help me. Where is the appropriate place to voice this opinion? Also, note that not everyone is like you, and many people already understand these very basic things about Wikipedia articles. Aaaand, I'm not proposing their removal - just that they be collapsed, out of the way somewhere. So people like you who want to know the article needs more citations, can expando it at your leisure. Niubrad (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the templates are hidden then they can't be seen by people who might not be aware of them. Moving them to article talk pages is a perennial proposal as described here and I think the reasons listed there for not doing so are still valid. There are also previous discussions linked to there that you may wish to review. The question you seem to be asking is if Wikipedia should be designed for people like you or more occasional, inexperienced users(who potentially could be experienced users). However, I would say that the correct place to discuss changes in this area would be the Village Pump. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the maintenance templates populate an appropriate category. There are editors who gnome away working through them, but perhaps not as many as could be wished for. Nobody is obliged to do anything, but with ACTRIAL up and running there should be fewer maintenance templates going on new articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Niubrad many of them are (or were) added by new page reviewers who are working through a back log of unreviewed new pages. Your help would be much more welcome than your sarcasm. Lots of the templates are quite easy to remove, but with a huge backlog it is simply better and more efficient to inform the page authors of the need for improvement than to ask the reviewers to check and fix every mistake or omission made by the contributors to the page. Conscientious page creators and editors respond to these tags by fixing things, but as you can see - many editors do not. You can check WP:NPP for further details. After reading you might be more inclined to see the merits of maintenance templates than to complain about them.Edaham (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Niubrad, I agree with you that maintenance templates are counterproductive, many are inaccurate or outdated and I'd add that their introduction may be a major cause of the shift from the sofixit culture of our early growth phase to the sotemplateitforhypotheticalotherstofix phase. Unfortunately for reasons inexplicable to me there are others who think they are useful and who resist proposals to turn them into maintenance categories. But such talk is probably more productive at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals) than here. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

succinctly highlighting the difference between a Pre-2010 Wikipedia with a few thousand (maybe in the tens of) active editors creating keystone pages on core subjects and a modern Wikipedia where millions of active editors create pages on anything and everything that takes their fancy. Maintenance templates are a great idea and part of a process. Get over it. If it helps you sleep at night, Wikipedia will outlive you ^{[citation needed]} by innumerable generations, during which time most of the backlogged templates will be resolved - (wp:deadline). Happy editing Edaham (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editing community was at its largest in 2007. I'm not convinced that the current activity is any less core subject focused then it was in 2007, but more of our new editors were staying with us. Whether it is template bombing that makes us a less welcoming environment to new editors is still a controversial idea, but it fits the evidence as well as any other theory. Personally I don't regard it as the sole cause of the contraction in the community that happened from 2007 through 2014, but it is one cause that the community could choose to fix. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines about controversial subject

The OP in this thread has been blocked per WP:NOTHERE.I thought about just hatting this thread but thought it more useful to close it like this, so any editor here can easily read it and see how coming to Wikipedia to push a private agenda ends. John from Idegon (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I wrote a biography about Vanessa Beeley. This is a very complicated article, because it is about propaganda, and powerful misinformation networks behind, so many people would have interests in deleting this article. So I fear it will soon be deleted, edited, etc. So far, one user added 3 warning headlines. One of them seems justified as it says some sources may not be reliable, which I can understand. The other 2 headlines, i'm not sure they are justified or not, it is concerning the notability of Vanessa Beeley, and as she regularly appears on Russian media, is invited in conferences with some main media, had an article about her is several main media, I think she fulfils Wikipedia article. How can I have advice concerning my article, the headlines, etc. I'd like to have the advice of administrators, to avoid people with to much conflict of interest. Thanks ! M.A. Martin (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, M.A. Martin, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can certainly understand the warning headline (or maintenance template, as we habitually call them) that says "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification." You should cite a source inline for every single fact that you bring up; for instance, what source says that she is the daughter of Harold Beeley and was born June 17, 1964? As the other maintenance template already points out, use reliable sources only.

As for the notability tag, it is much harder to judge. In my opinion, feel free to remove the maintenance tag. If someone disagrees, they have the option of using one of the formal processes pursuant to deleting an article outlined at the deletion policy.

I am not an administrator, as the issues you raise do not require immediate administrator action. Administrators have special tools, that allow tasks such as performing the deletion of an article (first nominated for deletion by someone else), or blocking users (after reports of misconduct). You are simply asking for an opinion of experienced editors and no such actions are required as of now. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Finnusertop ! I'll try to add sources, fo the example you gave me, it's easy, on her blog, she says she is the daughter of Beeley, so I gues I just need to add the reference at the end of my sentence ? And do I need to try to do this for almost every sentence ? (is citation the same as reference ?) But my fear is : if I lil to her blog, this may say sources are not reliable, no ? Thanks in advance for furthur answer. And yes, in fact, I'd like editors advice, thank you for explaining the difference from administrator ! M.A. Martin (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it will be edited by others. You do not "own" Vanessa Beeley even though you created it. If someone deletes content or adds content you disagree with, you can start a discussion in Talk. You can also undo edits by others, but should then explain why in an Edit summary. If editing gets contentious, or if a vandalism problem develops an administrator can help. But it is premature to ask for that until the article starts to show activity of that nature. David notMD (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, M.A. Martin, please add references to the end of every sentence (or paragraph, if multiple sentences in contain information that come from the same reference). Doing that is especially important here because the article is about a living person (the biographies of living people policy explains why), and because, as you admit, it's a controversial topic. The number one thing to prevent disagreements over such articles is to add referenced content only and remove unreferenced content.

Whether her blog is acceptable here or not is not clear-cut. You can cite people's own works (autobiographies, their blogs etc.) for claims that are fairly trivial; what the person has said, how they've felt; or maybe to fill in the blanks such as an exact date of birth. References written by unaffiliated people are always better, though.

As for "citation" and "reference", these words are interchangeable. I also second what David notMD said in the post above mine: everyone is free, and in fact encouraged, to edit the article you have created, as long as those edits are improvements. Edits that don't appear to improve it should be discussed, because individual editors often disagree on what counts as an improvement. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M.A. Martin, it seems to me that this article has serious problems regarding WP:Biographies of living persons, which is much more of a minefield on WP than say, an article about a metal or something. I asked for more input at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Vanessa_Beeley. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you very much but several of the wikilinks and sources you offered to add link directly to not reliable content defending Beeley, telling she is an Independent Journalist and claiming she does not "say" that she supports Bashar al Assad. I'm not sure this will help Wikipedia to see what is the reality about this person. I know it's controversial, but when reliable sources are needed while it is in The Guardian... I'm sorry but I sometime have to doubt the good faith of anyone involved around that subject.M.A. Martin (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) M.A. Martin Almost all the sources in the article are primary sources (not all of them, but most). That means that the maintenance tag flagging this fact should not be removed. Until and unless there are actual claims of notability in the article, supported by secondary sources, there is no reason to remove the notability tag either - after all, these tags serve only one purpose, and that is to improve the article. --bonadea contributions talk

16:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I already add all these secondary sources : The Guardian Olivia Solon & George Monbiot The Syria Campaign Vanessa Beeley's own statements Reporter without borders Orient News L'obs Le Temps Snopes PulseMedia... and I was tryng to add more sources to improve the article, but I was just stoped in that, because I received this message, while my article was being removed :

" Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Vanessa Beeley. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC) "

What do I have to think about that ?M.A. Martin (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

talk Thank you for your help, but anyway, I won't have time to be welcomed and try to improve my articles with reliabale sources, as I've been erased, and threatened of blocking, while I was trying to add reliable sources as Reporter Without Borders, and oher reliable second sources from main media.

I don't know why... Maybe now I need the help of an administrator ?M.A. Martin (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"@ Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Vanessa Beeley. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)"

Article now deleted per WP:G10. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, in the end, appears to have been deleted not because of lack of citations, but because entire article was negative toward the topic - a living person - rather than presented in a neutral point of view. David notMD (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@M.A. Martin: The reason why is our biographies of living persons policy. We don't tolerate attack pages or hit pieces. If an article is to contain negative material about a living person, we do sometimes permit that (articles aren't meant to be whitewashed either), but the material must be relevant, presented neutrally, and sourced to impeccably reliable sources. Blogs, conspiracy theories, interpretation of primary sources, etc., are not sufficient. Since most of the article consisted of that type of material, I deleted it and warned you not to do that again. I would strongly advise you get a lot more experience editing Wikipedia before you try creating an article on a controversial, politically charged living person, as that's a very difficult thing to do and you clearly don't have the experience to know how to undertake that yet. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Seraphimblade, thank you very much for your answer.

My article was not an "attack page". I don't know if you've read it all, but I'm not sure you had the time to read all the articles, studies and reports that were secondary and reliable sources. Primary sources are mostly the one of the person I'm writing about, coming from her blogs and articles. Other primarily sources were from well-known journalists, as George Monbiot, or Olivia Solon, from the Guardian, who agreed that I shared her linkedin article where she tells she is "victim of a barrage of harassment", question her credibility and that of the Guardian. This is how propaganda works.

And I was just trying to comply with advices I was given, to add sources. But I didn't have time to do so, because you did not warn me and deleted while I was editing, I had asked questions to several editors here to improve the article. And even if I ha to add sources or modify or erase some elements, you know it was sourced with reliable sources for large parts of it, unless The Guardian, BBC, the Lancet, Channel 4, Snopes, Reporters without broders are all wrong...

For experience on controversial subjects, I have some (not on English Wikipedia), and it is not only my work, we are several (most of us have been blocked, threatened, harassed, insulted, without having even given false information or attacking anyone... and as I am not blocked, I'm the one who tries to publish our work here). I'm just the one who published similar article on an other Wikipedia languages, which has been approved, improved, and not judged as an attack by administrators.

I've read English Wikipedia policies : "When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject. "

If I wanted to attack, and not to be neutral, we wouldn't have tried to choose neutral vocabulary, we would have written "she claims" and not "she asserts", I would have quoted newspapers who says "she's not a journalist and never studied journalism", "she's a propagandists", "she's a Russian troll", "Queen of desinforation"...

So I'll just have to say I desagree on the "attack" page, because if there were negative things, it's merely because we're dealing with a person who fights against a "no-fly zone" in Syria to protect civilians, who denied crimes against humnity, who incite to heathread, violence, and crimes agaisnt humanity, who acknowledges in private that she'll never tell about tortures she knows about... And usually, people who share such points of views are quite with negative articles in Encyclopedies, not becasue they are being under attack. If the Guardian did not receive any complaint for this article : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories , it's because there is only truth and facts in it, that's why the journalist who wrote it is threatened since it was published. And this is only an example. If I didn't quote her twitt that is condemned for incitement of crimes against humanity which says "White Helmet are legitimate target", it's because our aim is not that people attack her (as she did to several of us, and as her bodyguards also did), because this is nothing with revenge or attack, this is information, factual informationaout something really important, vital ! We want that people know who they are reading, who they are hearing on TV, and understand she is not an independent journalist. If you really look for encyclopedic and factual information, with reliable secondary sources, you can look for information in the sources I gave (and I had some more to add), and delete only what was not good for English Wikipedia policy. I think Wikipedia is about building together reliable information and not about censor what does not seem convenient. And I think helping to improve my article would have been far much better than deleting it. SO, what do swe do, now ? Will you write yourself an article about Vanessa Beeley ? Because we have some dozens of hours of researches, contacts with researchers and journalists, some information that are important, even if you wrote me "as that's a very difficult thing to do and you clearly don't have the experience to know how to undertake that yet", I think I can tell you the same about powerful propoganda networks (except if I'm talking to someone who knows better than myself how it works, but I really don't hope so !)... Will you help us giving reliable information in free access for people on a crucial subject ? M.A. Martin (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. Our purpose is not to "get the word out" about anything. Rather, we should be collecting information that has already been verified by reliable sources, and putting it together in a neutral way. We also don't allow personal interpretation by editors, we just summarize what good sources say on the subject. If sources are in substantial disagreement, we note that there exists such disagreement, but we don't "take a side" or argue for or against any given position. As just one example of the issues (far from being the only issue, mind you), the article at one point claims she stated something about "Zionist media", sourced to this piece here [1] which does not once use the word "Zionist" or "Zionism". We don't allow your personal interpretation of what someone said. We don't allow use of your own research and journalism (unless it's published in a source that would already meet the standards of being reliable, such as a high reputation for accuracy, fact checking, and editorial control.) We collect and reflect what reliable sources have already said; we are not and do not aim to be the first publisher of any new information. In fact, we should be one of the last. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I read the article Vanessa Beeley before it was deleted. It was biased, and inadequately referenced, like many new articles. And more seriously, as Seraphimblade has pointed out, it misrepresented its sources. But I judged that the subject was notable, and hoped that the article would be improved to an acceptable state. I hope that Seraphimblade will be willing to restore it (to draft or to sandbox, not to article space) if requested. Maproom (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: I'm afraid that BLP violations cannot be restored anywhere at all. If someone wants to take a go at writing an appropriate and neutral article that does not violate BLP, that of course is fine, but it'll have to be without the old one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your answer, once more. I understood Wikipedia aims at being neutral. As for the example you just gave me, in our sentence that talks about Zionism and Western media, there are two sources, and the second one is this one : ^[1], which says : " Resistance. vanessa beeley / September 12, 2014 Let me put it this way and maybe it will make sense to you. Palestine is the only nation that is standing firm against the Zionist entity that has infected our entire world infrastructure and is poisoning our minds, hearts and souls. Whilst we only suffer the fall out from this corporation of evil, Palestine eats, sleeps and breathes their demonic existence. For that reason alone God bless Palestine who are fighting to save the world on our behalf." (maybe you didn't found that link, maybe it was removed, maybe even it was a mistake of mine and did not appear in the article that I was still editing... I don't know), but source you've given me was linked to the other part of the sentence, about "Western Media".

By researches I meant collecting information and reliable sources, sorry, English is not my native language and I understand.

My question remains : what can we do to what you just wrote on that subject, that is :

"Rather, we should be collecting information that has already been verified by reliable sources, and putting it together in a neutral way. We don't allow use of your own research and journalism (unless it's published in a source that would already meet the standards of being reliable, such as a high reputation for accuracy, fact checking, and editorial control.) We collect and reflect what reliable sources have already said; we are not and do not aim to be the first publisher of any new information. In fact, we should be one of the last."

What can we do as a lot of reliable sources exist on the subject ? May I have access to our article, as a draft, to correct it and submit it to administrators before trying to publish it again ? Or may I do it with your help ? Thanks !--M.A. Martin (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so that's another issue. Apparently she said that, but unless other reliable sources commented upon that as significant, representing it in the article is probably undue weight. If there are indeed sources that discuss her in reasonable detail (not just drop her name!), we can write a neutral biographical article. Certainly, if those references are sometimes critical of her, or even very critical of her, we can represent that in the article. But the article itself should just be a neutral summary of what those sources had to say. It should not be based upon reading her work and commentary based on that. And as I told another editor above, we cannot restore BLP violating articles anywhere or in any fashion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://thewallwillfall.org/2014/09/12/resistance/

Seraphimblade Thank you, once again for your answer.

You write "IF there are indeed sources that discuss her in reasonable detail (not just drop her name!)". I'm allowing myself this question : have you read my article and its sources before deleting it / before answering me just above ?

Guardian : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories "Some of the most vocal sceptics of the UN’s investigation include the blogger Vanessa Beeley, the daughter of a former British diplomat who visited Syria for the first time in July 2016" and "Separately, both Graphika and Menczer’s Hoaxy tool identify Beeley, the British blogger, as among the most influential disseminators of content about the White Helmets.", and have you read "Killing the truth" ?

"Beeley frequently criticises the White Helmets in her role as editor of the website 21st Century Wire, set up by Patrick Henningsen, who is also a former editor at Infowars.com."

"In 2016, Beeley had a two-hour meeting with Assad in Damascus as part of a US Peace Council delegation, which she described on Facebook as her “proudest moment”. She was also invited to Moscow to report on the “dirty war in Syria”; there, she met senior Russian officials including the deputy foreign minister, Mikhail Bogdanov, and Maria Zakharova, director of information and press at Russia’s foreign ministry."

"Meanwhile, Beeley’s influence continues. In April 2017, she gave a talk at a conference alongside ministers in Assad’s cabinet (who spoke via video conference) titled “White Helmets: Fact or Fantasy?” Her briefing paper and slides on the topic were then submitted to the UN security council and UN general assembly by the Russian government as “evidence” against the White Helmets."

etc.

12 occurences of "dropping Beeley's name" in this article seem to be a lot ! And I don't think you question the reliability of the Guardian ?

The Atlantic Council is also clear about her Vanessa Beeley, in this article : http://www.publications.atlanticcouncil.org/breakingaleppo/disinformation/

Have you read the report named "Killing the truth" ? There is a chapter on Vanessa Beeley.

etc.

I don't ask you to restore our article as it is, but in order to be edited and modified, and correspond to English Wikipedia policies, with your help and contribution if you like to...

I assure you it's a complicated enough subject so that I can understand that your first impresssion was an attack, more over if you didn't had time to read all sources and become familiar with the subject, but I'm sure that by now you've understand this is clearly not the case. Please could you edit and put back what you want about my article in my draft so I can work on it ? M.A. Martin (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom Thank you very much for asking Seraphimblade to let me and the Wikipedia community work on the article to make it fit in English Wikipedia rules & standards. I don't understand his refusal, as he apparently can edit it and remove what he wants before restoring it as a draft without any violation. He tells someone can start again, while I explained if was hours of enquiries with a whole team, reading and compiling sources, writing, editing to try to neutral, remove personnal informations, etc. I think he knows it's not likely to happen if I can't have my draft, and he told me he would block me from edition if I do it again... Besides, I still hope to have an answer as why he chose to delete urgently before warning and reading sources. Difficult subject indeed, suche powerful propaganda on such importance level... Too many conflicts of interest and too many fears in too many places... Happily, this article has been received, accepted and improved by other administrators on other Wikipedia! Maproom If the subject interests you, I've asked for review for an article on Beeley's collegues a few days ago, maybe yuo can read it and help me to improve it (it also has many reliable sources, some are common with Beeley's articles, and it's also quite ngative with more controversies than positive things...) Thanks !

David notMD Sorry, I haven't read your comment before. Thank you very much for your reply. Yes, of course, I know about editing, and that's great that we can all add and improve Wikipedia, but I didn't think my question was premature, because it was already happening (and because the same happened to various articles we published, even purely neutral & factual, even not on living people). And now I think you can understand that my fears have become true. Article deleted by administrator without warning, refusal to put in draft / sandbox / discussion to improve and make it cumply with English Wikipedia rules before publishing again, and besides warning me I'll blocked if I continue... I think I can tell that all doors have been quickly closed... while I was trying to edit, add sources and follow the advice I've been given here. Thanks anyway. M.A. Martin (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M.A. Martin, multiple times in the above discussion, you have referred to yourself as "we". ("...because the same happened to various articles we published, even purely neutral & factual, even not on living people, ....). Please tell us who this "we" is you speak of. John from Idegon (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon Yes, sure, as I've explained above, me and other human right defenders have been working together to compile information and sources, and they have helped me to select what was useful for my article here, what was to remove (as personnal informations or informations without reliable source), and others have done other articles in other languages or on related subjects. Unfortunately, I can't give you names because almost all of them have been blocked, insulted, defamed, threatenned, harassed... even famous researchers and journalists. But could you tell me why would you like to know about that, now the article has been deleted anyway.M.A. Martin (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M.A. Martin, @John from Idegon: doubtless asked that because Wikipedia has a strict Username policy that, amongst other things, forbids more than one actual person from using the same user account. Your multiple uses of "we", etc., suggested that multiple persons might be using the account named M.A. Martin. If however, you were merely referring to others supplying you with information, but that only you yourself are actually using the account to edit or comment, then there is no problem in that regard. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

90.200.41.3 Yes indeed, no one but me uses my account, no one but me writes my sentences. It is just because I was helped "in amont" to gather all the sources and also to think about what would be relevant to use or not, and I was also helped to correct a few sentences to make my English correct a with neutral vocabulary. All the rest is personal. I subscribes all by myself and never shared my account nor intend I to do it. But anyhow, as I answered on my talk page, I'll give up because everytime I manage to prove my good faith about something, there always is a new argument coming, and if the notability of Vanessa Beeley or the mentions about her in "reliable sources" are only "drop name" as I was told (which I disagree, but...), I'm afraid I won't be allowed to publish any article about her on English Wikipedia. And as I still don't know wether my draf on Eva Bartlett will be accepted or not, I'm not sure I'll edit anything here. Thank you very much anyway to make things clear for me.M.A. Martin (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Steps to edit a Template

The Template:Shared_IP_gov template has a box that reads: "In response to vandalism from this IP address, anonymous editing may be disabled." and there is a red stop-sign with a white x, next to this message. In my knowledge, this is improper communication and is communicating that the person that this "welcome" template was added to caused vandalism, prior to the template being added to their page (it is so in my case).

Am I allowed to edit the template? The template is in a lot of places and I don't want to waste everyones time trying to guide me in the direction of correcting this flaw in the template. I have found how to edit the template, I just want to know if I can just modify it as I can't find any rules about it.

I would like to change the warning to something like: "Note: Vandalism performed by users on this IP address will result in anonymous editing being blocked."

Please let me know. 134.186.234.108 (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to get messages for things that you didn't do, the best thing for you to do is register a username(which is more anonymous than an IP). I believe that the warning is a standard warning used in many places across Wikipedia, and it likely should not be changed without broad consensus. Users must be autoconfirmed in order to edit the template directly. If you truly feel that the wording needs to be changed, you could start a discussion on its talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no vandalism occurring. The template is in error, whoever created it did not realize that the word "response" indicates that the action referred to has already occurred, in the past. Does that make sense? 134.186.234.108 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But what the template says boils down to "If there should be vandalism from this IP, the response may be to report it [etc]". So a hypothetical reaction in the future. I don't think it's ambiguous at all - in fact I don't see how it would be possible to interpret it as a warning for specific vandalism that has happened. --bonadea contributions talk 21:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look up in the Merriam Webster dictionary: "response", specifically look in the section, RESPONSE Defined for English Language Learners 134.186.234.108 (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I shall start a discussion thank you, I believe this answers my question. 134.186.234.108 (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The message "In response to vandalism from this IP address ..." does imply that there has been vandalism from the IP address. I can find no evidence of vandalism from that particular IP address. If that is intended as a "welcome" message, to be posted on the talk page of innocent new users, it is misleading and offputting, and its wording should be changed. Maproom (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have added to the talk page of the template. Please assist if you can 134.186.234.108 (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How long should I wait to get the template updated, is there something else I should do? I believe that I am unable to edit the template myself, can someone who is experienced with templates answer please? 134.186.234.108 (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

134, if no one is responding to your request at the template talk page, that's a fair indication that there, like here, no one is agreeing with your assessment. First, the template you are discussing is not a welcome template, but an informational template to inform all users that the particular IP you are using is a static IP assigned to a particular organization. And your interpretation of the language is IMO faulty. "In response to vandalism from this IP address, anonymous editing may be disabled" simply says IF vandalism occurs from the IP address, one of the responses MAY be to disable anonymous editing. That is what one of the responses MAY be from any point of access to Wikipedia, whether anonymous or registered, to vandalism. It is there to let you know that if you register an account, and that IP is blocked, you will still be able to edit. Like virtually anything else on Wikipedia, that was at some point decided by a consensus of editors. Changing it also requires a consensus. The fact that you are getting no response is a fairly clear indication there is no consensus for the change. Like any other private endeavor you may choose to engage in, we have our policies and procedures here, which apply to all of the tens of millions of pages that make up Wikipedia (there are over 5.5 million articles alone, each of which also has a talk page, plus a userpage and a talk page for every registered editor, plus a talk page for every one of the IP addresses that have ever edited here, not to mention thousands of drafts and thousands more policy pages). I'm sorry, but the fact that you, apparently alone, find the wording on a template that is in use on thousands of pages, somehow offensive, is relatively insignificant. So how about ignoring it, and go about editing articles? That's why you came here, I'd assume. John from Idegon (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Two of us have responded to 134's message on the template talk page, and both of us have agreed with him that the wording looks anomalous. That wording is not used in the other Shared_IP templates which are mentioned at Template:Shared IP/doc, such as Template:Shared IP, Template:Shared IP edu and Template:Shared IP corp, and it is not clear why that different wording is used in the "gov" variant. I'm not sure why you refer to him "getting no response". --David Biddulph (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of people who agree with me (I don't know how to properly add the sources): Abce2 (source), David Biddulph (source), Nick Moyes (source). Can someone please look into it? Here is a link to the talk page so you can see for yourself the reasons to fix it 134.186.234.108 (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

user id and repost draft submission

Hello. My user id , "designlab1008" is not located, perhaps because i have not used it for a while and a previous submission that i made "Mike Dubois" is no longer posted as a live draft and i would like to work on it again since i now have additional references. If someone could help with these two issuew it would be appreciated. 1-verification of my user id 2-repost draft of previous content for "Mike Dubois"

thank you for your time Nick Clemente Designlab1008 (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nick, welcome to the Teahouse! Information on how to recover your draft is posted on your talk page. As far as gaining what's known as "autoconfirmed" status on your username, that happens after you've made ten edits, which you haven't yet done. Ravenswing 22:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Designlab1008 shows 45 edits, but presumably most of them were on pages which have subsequently been deleted. This poses two questions as to how the count for autoconfirmed status is made. Is it based on the count at the wmflabs page or at Special:Contributions? And if the latter, if the count rises above 10 and autoconfirmed status is granted, but pages are subsequently deleted and the count drops below 10, does this then remove the autoconfirmed status? There is, of course, also the question as to why autoconfirmed status isn't shown along with other user rights at Special:ListUsers... --David Biddulph (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because (and I'm really not joking here) there are well over a million and a half autoconfirmed accounts. Ravenswing 02:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stat. I see that there are only 38340 extended confirmed, so fairly low "conversion rate" from autoconfirmed to extended confirmed. Now that I look again at WP:AUTOCONFIRM I see that the 10 edits criterion does include deleted ones, so that answers one of my questions above and presumably Designlab1008 is indeed autoconfirmed. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey David, Thank you for the informative feedback. My intention is to be as clear as possible regarding the process and protocol regarding wikipedia so as to be able to contribute relevant content in the future.

Your time and information is appreciated. - Nick ClementeDesignlab1008 (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When they don't tell you why you were reverted

What are the best practices in a situation like this?

User A makes a change, including explanations in the edit summary.
User B reverts the edit without explaining why.
User A asks him why.
User B does not respond.
User A restores the change, reiterating his rationale in a more frustrated tone.

What did User A do right or wrong, and what should he do now? —151.132.206.26 (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're asking the right questions. Except in the case of clear vandalism (where time is of the essence), a revert should require and edit summary. User A does not seem to be in the wrong here. I'm assuming you're A, so I'm trying to find to what you are referring now. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing particular from this IP; I'm not at home at the moment, editing from a public library. But I recently had something like this happen at MOS:ANIME, ultimately for the reason of making undiscussed changes which I disagree with as being a valid reason, but this was supposed to be a more general enquiry. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, if you were attempting to make changes to MOS:ANIME itself, I can see what the difficulty might have been. I can see on the talk page that an IP (I assume you?) attempted to make changes without seeking consensus on the talk page first. For any policy or guideline, this should never be done without getting that consensus, period, full stop, however right or justified you find the edits. (Indeed, the page has on a lead template the words "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.") Ravenswing 02:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: If you refer to WP:WPEDIT, it also says: Minor edits to existing pages, such as formatting changes, grammatical improvement and uncontentious clarification, may be made by any editor at any time. These are the only edits I made to that page. I made no substantive changes whatsoever. Does our editing policy need to be updated to reflect this blanket restriction? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original edit should not have been reverted as it was not clearly vandalism, but the fact that the edit was reverted meant that it was a contested edit and should have been discussed on the talk page before being restored. The next two times you were undone (not reverted) you were told to discuss the edit on the talkpage. Two pointers: if you disussing edits here please provide diffs, and if you are using multiple IPs please identify that fact on the talk page when you are discussing concerns. As far as I can tell there was no way to know that the first talk page post (using the 151 IP [2]) was by the same user who had made the contested edits to the article. Meters (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you were undone (not reverted)—Undo is a method of reversion. Not a different thing. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But as mentioned on that talk page, I had contacted each of the reverting editors directly, immediately after each reversion: [3][4]. As mentioned in the OP here, they did not respond (technically, the second one did respond, removing my comments with a summary of “duly noted”).

If you’re reverted by an editor who fails to give any reason on any talk page, is the edit truly contested? At what point does such reverting become disruptive editing? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between reversion and Wikipedia "reverting". A revert, which the first edit was, is a form of an undo (but an undo is not a type of revert), whcic should only be used under restricted conditions (vandalism is the most common). An undo can be done for many reasons, including good faith edits.

As I said above, if you are reverted the edit is contested. When it's undone by a second editor it is even more obvious that it is contested. The best thing to do is to explain your reasons for making the changes on the article's talk page, where the reverting editor, and any other interested editors can discuss it, as is being done now. I think those undiscussed changes might have been undone had they been done by anyone, but an IP making an undiscussed changes to a stable MOS is even less likely to get the benefit of the doubt. Meters (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I think you’re confused. A revert is any edit that completely reverses a prior edit; undo is a feature that revert[s] a single edit. All three of the edits in question were complete reversals of my edits—after each one, the page was in the exact same state it had been in before I touched it. That’s what reverting does. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not disruptive editing to insist on discussion for uncontroversial changes that you don’t have an identifiable objection to? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don'tr refactor my edits. You are obviously not a new editor, so you should, if you don't already, know what using the revert button on Wikipedia means. I don't know what you think you will get by continuing this. The particular edit in question is under discussion on the MOS's talkpage, where it shoudl be, and I'm not spending any more time on this. Meters (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: Wait, what revert button? Do you mean Rollback? Even if there’s a button that says “Revert” on it, then the word doesn’t stop meaning what it means. See WP:Reverting for that. But this is way off topic, which was why I inserted that reply separately between your paragraphs.

I’m not asking about that particular edit. I’m asking whether it’s disruptive to passively insist on discussion for any change to which there is no identifiable objection. Isn’t that a form of stonewalling? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't a add an image in an infobox?

I want to add a picture, JHShonkwiler.jpg, to Draft: J. Harvey Shonkwiler but I keep getting a message about "articlespace" (?) and a manga girl image. Mephiboshethsmaid (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mephiboshethsmaid. I do not see a file by that precise name, either on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Did you upload it, and if so, where did you upload it? Please double check the file name. Even the slightest error will cause problems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article submission not approved yet

Hi, I had submitted a Company article for one of my clients (Statkraft BLP Solar Solutions) almost 3 months back and and it has not been approved yet. Kindly look into it and let me know if any further changes needs to be made for it to go live. Below is a link of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Statkraft_BLP_Solar_Solutions

Your immediate response in this regard will be highly appreciated.Venugopals.rahul (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Venugopals.rahul. Your draft was declined on December 2, 2017, as reading like an advertisement, and I agree with that assessment. Your references are presented as bare URLs and lack bibliographic information. Several of your sources are to the company's own website and others appear to be reprints of press releases, and are not independent reporting. You have failed to show that this company is notable and eligible for a Wikipedia article. In addition, you have not fully complied with the mandatory requirements for paid editors, since you have not disclosed who is paying you on the draft's talk page. Since you are being paid (while the vast majority of editors including me are volunteers), then please do your job correctly instead of ineptly. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now, rejected, a second time. David notMD (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Highschool yearbook photos, the validity of

I've stumbled across highschool yearbook photos of a person with an article. Are they good for use in articles? The Verified Cactus 100% 04:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, VerifiedCactus. As with many things on Wikipedia, there is no easy answer. One important issue is copyright status, and yes, yearbooks are subject to copyright law. Determining whether a specific yearbook photo is copyrighted depends on when it was published, whether the book included a copyright notice, and whether the copyright was renewed. Here is an excellent analysis of the copyright issues. Another issue is verifying that the photo is actually of the subject of the article. In many cases, this will be clear. If the person has a common name, though, and their high school cannot be verified reliably, then there is a chance that the wrong photo could be included. Be very careful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 23:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective on article

Hi I have noticed that an article (perampanel) on a medicine is outdated and is rather alarming to patients. I am a healthcare professional and patients' best interests are close to my heart. In the interest of fair journalism, I believe Wiki should provide an unbiased, current, evidence-based account on any topic. Wiki does not replace the opinion of a patient's doctor, thus there should be a disclaimer redirecting a potential patient to their doctor.

I am keen to hear how I can edit the article in question, without an editing war again. I have no vested financial interest in the product. I am just a concerned healthcare professional.Haseenagani (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haseenagani and welcome to the teahouse. Articles on medicines are sometimes fiercely protected by some of our editors who have medical expertise ~~(and occasionally they revert edits without thinking clearly about statements)~~. It is important to follow the policy at WP:PHARMMOS, and, if there is disagreement, then the matter should be discussed on the talk page of the article (Talk:Perampanel). This will eventually lead to your suggested improvements being considered and discussed. Wikipedia reports what the best references say. A Wikipedia article is not journalism, but should indeed provide an unbiased current evidence-based account. Wikipedia never provides a diagnosis or recommendation about a treatment, but patients are always at liberty to read any encyclopaedia or any report on any drug before discussing the matter with their doctor. Dbfirs 09:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article went through some avid editing and reversals verging on edit-warring back in July 2017, but none of the editors started a discussion in Talk. I suggest you begin there rather than directly at the article. A point made back then - there is a standard ordering of sections for all articles about drugs. There were disagreements on where to put content. David notMD (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding picture to article

i have 2 last questions please . 1 - Can you please help us concerning adding an image of Perla to Perla Helou page ? what should we do in order to add it ? 2- will Perla Helou article appear in google search since it has been created ? or not ? (becuase now it doesn't appear yet ) thanks alot for your help Mimosheikh (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Mimosheikh (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mimosheikh, welcome to our friendly Teahouse. The article on Perla Helou went through the Articles for Creation process and is already findable on a Google search. (A tip is to add the word "wiki" after your search term - that brings Wikipedia results right up to the top of the page, if it has been indexed). Other new pages don't get indexed until they have been "patrolled" as part of our New Page Review process - but that doesn't concern your article.

Regarding adding an image: I can find no image of her on Wikimedia Commons. Whilst there are many pictures of her on the internet, these ~~will probably all be~~ I have found all to be copyright, so you cannot use them. Do you have an image that you, personally, have taken and own? If so you may upload and use that, but you will have to be prepared to release it under a Creative Commons licence which allows others to use it, even off-wiki or for commercial purposes. Do come back if you need any further help in this regard. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you mean by "us" and "we", Mimosheikh? Is your account used by more than one person? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and citations questions regarding a biography of a living person

Hello. An ex-colleague wrote a biography of me, asked me to check it and provide citations, which I did. I thought the biography disproportionately long but I submitted it for him as he can't get along with the system. It was declined, and I understand why. He is keen to resubmit but again I find myself at coalface, so to speak. Three questions: First of all - should I ask him to submit it, not me, as the Wiki reviewer thought it was an autobiography, which I know is strongly discouraged? Secondly - the article contains references to books I have written (published by mainstream publishers) and articles I have written (published in national newspapers, e.g. Daily Telegraph). Are citations to these books and articles sufficient? (They are in libraries and online newspaper archives.) Thirdly, during part of my career I was a hotelier (which is relevant to the books I wrote). I tried to provide 'evidence' by citing (independent, nationally published) reviews of the hotels in question - are these citations sufficient? Help grateful appreciated. I've combed through much information, I haven't found answers to the above. This is the first article I have been involved in from scratch, though I've successfully edited other articles before. Orlando Murrin (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Murrin: citations of your owns works, and of newspaper articles showing you once worked as a hotelier, are certainly permitted. But they do not help to provide evidence that you are notable, which seems to be the problem faced by you and your ex-colleague. To establish that you are notable enough to justify the existence of an article, it would need citations of several reliable independent published sources, with in-depth discussion of you. Maproom (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, unless the published reviews mention you by name, they do not verify that you were a hotelier. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

first come. hello! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobs2633 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jobs2633 Welcome to the Teahouse. We're here for you if you ever have problems trying to edit Wikipedia. Like you, we're all volunteers and will do our best to assist, even if we can't reply immediately. I see you've completed part of The Wikipedia Adventure and have a few more missions to complete to gain all your badges. It's always a good idea to learn slowly by making small edits first, and picking up skills as you go along. Do come back if you need any particular help or guidance. (I'll pop by and leave one of our welcome messages for you, which contains a few useful links which newcomers often find most useful. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New wiki page

Hi all, I submitted a new page and it was rejected. Draft:Row2Recovery On hindsight the page was badly written and poorly referenced. I've now had the time to re-write it properly and list proper references, from open-sources suggested by Wikipedia, in a format suggested by Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if someone could give it another look. There is a great deal of interest in this charity in the UK but the history keeps getting lost in website edits and the story in the disjointedness of social and conventional media. Wikipedia just seems the perfect platform for just the facts! With many thanks.. PaddyNicoll (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PaddyNicoll: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you have already declared your COI, thank you. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a means to publicize or promote any organization, no matter how good a group or cause it might be. That said, there may be the required notability for this organization(please review WP:ORG, the notability guidelines, if you haven't already). The review process is very backlogged, please be patient; eventually it will be reviewed. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PaddyNicoll: please be aware that the notability of the subject of an article is judged on the quaility of the references, not the quantity. I see you've used a large number of low-quality sources. The articles in the London Gazette that I've checked don't even mention Row2Recovery. Reference 12 10, which you claim is to The Telegraph, is in fact to the Mail Online. Maproom (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Thanks for that feedback. My motivation is not to promote the charity, just to tell the story. I did have a look at WP:ORG, thank you. Row2Recovery is in reality, just a useful title under which the history of these three Atlantic rows, undertaken by disabled servicemen, can be grouped. Many thanks.PaddyNicoll (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: Understood. I have tried to limit the sources to national newspapers and only referenced to give evidence to that particular sentence as one would in an academic paper. I will have another go at the referencing so that they give more obvious context to the entry. The London Gazette sources are a good example of that, they are there to give evidence of those particular individuals being gazetted - (Gazetted Officer (India) - I'll re-do those too. And thanks for pointing out the Telegraph/ Mail Online error - sloppy! Many thanks PaddyNicoll (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PaddyNicoll. Please be aware that a formal decision was made in February, 2017 that the Daily Mail and its website should not be used as references in Wikipedia because of its long record of fabrication and falsification. Please read WP:DAILY MAIL for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Thank you and, whilst I wasn't aware of that, it certainly doesn't surprise me - I don't allow it in my house. I'll find better sources for those sentences! Many thanks PaddyNicoll (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to be of assistance, PaddyNicoll. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All done Cullen328. That was quite satisfying. Thanks for letting me know!PaddyNicoll (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible OR

Hi. I started copyediting Spring 2013 United Kingdom Coldwave, but I just realised that the title could be WP:Original Research. The author has been indeff blocked. What should be done about this? Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreyGreenWhy: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't see any issue with the title, unless the cold wave was given a commonly used name in reliable sources(such as by the press or a government agency). The sourcing of the article definitely needs some work, as you may have seen. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you, User:331dot. I was concerned that the sources don't call the storm a cold wave, but I see your point about it being okay as they don't call it anything else either. Thanks for the help, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very odd to me to see an American term used in an article about the UK. We say cold spell or cold snap rather than coldwave which is not a word in British English. Dbfirs 21:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dbfirs I know that's not a common term in my part of the US, at least. We would say cold snap. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What 331dot said - I don't think I've ever heard that term, to be honest. Heatwave, on the other hand, is quite common. —DoRD (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apologies, I should have researched further. The word exists in American English but not with that meaning (except possibly informally by analogy with heatwave, and, according to our article, by the U.S. National Weather Service, but the link is dead, so I can't check). The meaning does not appear in any dictionary, so we should definitely not be using it in Wikipedia unless we can find an American weather reference. Dbfirs 08:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a W article Cold wave, but unclear if that describes an abrupt change to much colder weather or a prolonged period of cold weather. A look for Cold spell or Cold snap redirects to Cold wave. David notMD (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Dbfirs and User:David notMD, the page move makes sense to me, I have never heard of this term as a uk resident. However, should articles like Cold wave, which seems to mostly talk about cold spells, and [[[January 2017 European cold wave]] be moved as well? Thank you, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping fail, I think I need to sign User:David notMD. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest that change of name, but the article claims U.S. National Weather Service usage (with a dead link), so I didn't want to upset Americans if the usage really is common in weather forecasting and reporting on the west side of the Atlantic. How does one find out? I can find no usages of the one-word term, but several books indexed by Google use cold wave (two words) for the concept. Dbfirs 16:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is $1 and $2 mean at the beginning and end of words in the AutoWikiBrowser for typos?

I'm trying to understand what those symbols and the other symbols mean on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos Can someone explain to me what these do?

Airgum (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Airgum: They are syntax used in Regex - see Regular expression#Examples, the example about ( ) for an explanation. Nthep (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to create: Category:Music and Arts University of the City of Vienna alumni?

Is it possible to create: Category:Music and Arts University of the City of Vienna alumni?Buchla200e (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Buchla200e welcome to the Wikipedia Teahouse, where Lindenblütentee is consumed just as avidly as Assam or a good old cup of Yorkshire Tea!

Errm, I have to say that sounds to me like a terrible Category name. It's not helped by a long title, namely the Music and Arts University of the City of Vienna. There seems to be two naming approaches to alumni lists and categories. I've not actually checked if there are naming convention guidelines, but I'm seeing (in this search) many results for both "Category: Alumni of the University of Foo" as well as "Category: University of Foo alumni". In your case, I'd opt for "Category: Alumni of the Music and Arts University of the City of Vienna" - far more understandable, with the key word (alumni) right at the start, not way back at the end.

Far less understandable is why you feel the need for such a new category at all. Can you explain? The article on the Music and Arts University of the City of Vienna has been an uncited WP:stub since 2008. There's not a single alumnus listed there, and the lead sentence is a masterclass in stating the obvious. It really needs some work, and you sound like the chap/chapess to do it. My advice would be to improve that article, add in the odd alumnus or alumna that you can prove went there. Having done that, only then would there be any possible merit in creating such a category for those individuals. I hope this makes sense? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Body temperature

Misplaced essay on body temperature

Everybody believes that human body is getting hot when he drinks hot drinks , hot coffee etc.But what happens is the reverse of it.When one drinks hot coffee his body temperature goes down . This is why in winter, men drink hot beverages and feel more comfortable . The same effect is gained when he is doing physical exercise and brings down his body temperature. Suppose the atmospheric temperature is 34 degrees and human body temperature is 28 degrees , then the man feels hot . If he can bring down the atmospheric temperature to 28 degrees by putting on a fan or Air conditioner , he escapes from the heat outside. This shows that the body temperature and the temperature surrounding him should be equal or the atmospheric temperature should be a bit lower for him to be comfortable. When the atmospheric temperature is below his body temperature he will have to either push up the outside temperature to 28 degrees using a room heater or to bring down his body temperature to a lower level in order to feel comfortable. He may adopt different methods to accomplish this target. One is to consume hot beverages and another is to take bodily exercise such as running or brisk walking and yet another is to cover his body with thick blankets so that heat from the body is preserved .

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteraugustine (talk • contribs) 05:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr BS Ajaikumar wiki page rejected. Need help to rewrite.

Hi there, my article was rejected though I have followed all the necessary steps as per wiki. The rejection message says, 'This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia.' I have written the article on neutral grounds, still the article is rejected. Can somebody guide me?Cyberknifeindia (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The writing style could be corrected. The lack of evidence that the subject is notable is a more serious obstacle. Unless you can address that, by finding and citing several reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of Dr. Ajaikumar, any other work done in the draft will be wasted. Maproom (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UAA

Hi there! Hope you are doing great. Is there any bot such as TW for CSD, similarly something for UAA? Or is it to be manually reported? Thank you! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityavagarwal: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Twinkle does have a UAA reporting option, if you are on the page of the username you wish to report, either their user page or user talk page. It is located under "ARV", in a drop down menu(on a computer). 331dot (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I got that backwards. If you are on a page that you want to CSD, it is also in Twinkle, as the first option in the menu. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - And here is the link to the documentation. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Thanks a ton, 331dot and Tigraan! Also, say a username created an article in his sandbox, and he is the owner of the company. The sandbox article is purely CSD U5, G11. In that case, does the username still fall under promotional UAA category (WP:ORGNAME)? Specifically talking about this. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The name is OK because it is a person's name and not a company name. They do have a conflict of interest that they need to declare and probably WP:PAID as well. I haven't examined their edit history but if their only edits are blatantly promotional they could eventually be blocked for only being here to promote their company, I think. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, 331dot! Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is correct way of cite my article?

First of all thank you very much for reviewing my article David.moreno72! You said that the content of my submission on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FrieBra/sandbox/Donald_Bruce_Dingwell includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Could you tell me if this concerns all the citations or a specific one? could you help me to understand what was my mistake? Thank you very much! FrieBra (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the admin who rejected the article, but from a quick look, large blocks of text have no citations at all. David notMD (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You had numerous misplaced external links, which have been removed by a subsequent editor; you may have intended some of those to be reference citations? --David Biddulph (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting an entry i just made

Xanders11 (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xanders11: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this refers to your sandbox(which also seems to be duplicated in this draft). I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "top most line" of your sandbox, but if you mean one of the headers, you should be able to edit it just like any other content on the page; if you open up the edit window, the headers appear between the equals signs(=) and you should be able to edit them. If that's not what you are referring to, please clarify.

Regarding your draft itself, content like "For Susana, her work is play. She enjoys living her dream – and hopes to inspire others to pursue their dreams too!" is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. It would be considered promotional. You will need independent reliable sources for the content of the article, and the article should only be based on what those sources state. The content causes me to wonder if you are associated with the person you are writing about. Certain Wikipedia policies may apply to you if that is the case, please clarify. Thank you 331dot (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot::Hi @331dot.I have removed the content you quoted as wholly inappropriate.Going back to my concern, the draft page is already submitted and what I would like to remove or change is the area that says "Draft:Susana Robledo".I am not sure where the mistake occured during the process but the entire page should start with her name I assumed.I was tasked to put up a wiki page for her and I can send proof that this has the person's consent. Xanders11 (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Xanders11 (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xanders11: (edit conflict) So what you want to do is change the title. That can be accomplished with a page move to whatever it is you want the title to be; someone else may need to do it for you, if we know what you want to call it.

If by saying "I was tasked to put up a wiki page" you mean that you work for this person or their business, you must review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID before you edit further. The latter is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are paid. You should understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not social media for people to have "wiki pages". As an encyclopedia, we have articles about people shown to be notable per guidelines with independent reliable sources. In this case the guidelines would be WP:BIO.

I regret to say that your draft is almost certain to be rejected this time; it does not have any sources at all, let alone proper independent reliable sources. It reads as a biographical entry more appropriate for her company's website, and not an encyclopedic article. As I indicated above, if you have a conflict of interest, you need to set aside everything you know about Susana and write only based on what independent sources with in depth coverage state about her. That is usually difficult for most people in your situation to do, and if you don't think you can do it, or there are not independent sources, it will not be possible for their to be an article about Susana here at this time. You should also read Your First Article to learn what is being looked for in articles. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that you want to remove the "Draft:" from the title, that is only done if the page is accepted, which as I said is not likely to happen at this time. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would add(sorry) that consent is not relevant as to whether an article exists about a person or not- but it isn't always a good thing to have a Wikipedia article about yourself here, see WP:PROUD. You cannot prevent others from editing it, cannot lock it to the text you or the person might prefer, and cannot keep negative information out of the article as long as it appears in an independent reliable source(and is not defamatory). 331dot (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot:I would just like to make my header and its content to be the title and introduction text instead. Susana is my employer and client. As a newbie to this Wikipedia Article writing, I would like you to consider. I planned to place a base Article and continuously update as the information I am getting from my sources are coming in bits and pieces. I intend to use other CEO of other businesses as base models for this entry.

@Xanders11: I think I just did what you wanted done to your draft(though I'm not sure). I again stress that you need to read WP:COI and WP:PAID as soon as possible and make the appropriate declarations on your user page; failing to declare a paid editing relationship would result in your being prevented from editing until you do. I don't mean to press the point harshly but it is important. I would encourage you to revert the submission of your draft until it is ready because it is not going to be accepted as it is now. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot:thank you. it's good now. I completely understand that I have to declare stuffs on my user page and what it entails. Can you give me a quick guide on how to accomplish this? How do i also revert the submission. I will just add everything one time here to make this an approved article (including references, links, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanders11 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xanders11: The COI and Paid editing pages I linked to earlier give instructions on ways to do this, but it should satisfy things if you post on your user page(click your username at the top of the screen, or in your signature on this page) something like "Per the conflict of interest and paid editing guidelines, I state that I work for Susana Robledo and have been directed to edit about her on Wikipedia as part of my job duties". 331dot (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also reverted the submission; it will take much work to get it ready to submit again. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hewllo, Xanders11. I'm sorry that your employer has tasked you with an almost impossible job. Please explain to her that she has a (very common) misunderstanding that Wikipedia has any role whatever in her on-line presence. It does not. If we have an article on her, it will not be under her, or your, control, and should contain essentially nothing she has said or done unless somebody completely unconnected with her has chosen to write about it, and been pulished in a reliable place. Only if there is enough such independent material will it be possible to write an acceptable article on her; and as an employee, you are likely to find it difficult to forget every single thing you know about her and write an article based only on those independent souces. Sorryu --ColinFine (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I'm new. What do I do? How does Wikipedia work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afterbucks (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Afterbucks and welcome to the Teahouse. Before this entry scrolls off the board, I'd like to extend the wish to you that you find a way to interact with other editors in a more productive way. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting an article

How do I propose that an article be deleted? I'm looking at Fatima in Lucia's Own Words, and the article has only one source (a Catholic online newsletter in Denver) and at least until I started deleting material, was basically just an ad. A quick Googling didn't turn up anything better. Or am I being too harsh? FloridaSammi (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I appear to have found it. My apologies for not Googling my own question before asking it! Still would be glad to have a second opinion tho. FloridaSammi (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something along the way, but I'm confused as to why you believe the article about this particular book needs to be deleted. Not only that, but are you saying that the other four or five books related to it are just fine with having articles about them? I googled the name of the original book (*Memórias da Irmã Lúcia*) and came up with a slew of results, however I don't speak Portuguese, so I can't be a judge of WP:RS. I think I'm just looking for clairification as to your point of view. Thanks. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I didn't think to check the title in Portuguese. Good point. I will remove that tag. Just to clarify my thinking, I thought Wikipedia articles required the inclusion of quality sources. I came here randomly because it was tagged for copyediting, and this article didn't appear to have any quality secondary sources at all. I did not investigate articles on other books about Fatima yet, but if they don't have any either, this policy clearly isn't an issue. I apologize for my misunderstanding, and thanks for the quick response! FloridaSammi (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asking questions and searching for clairification is what the Teahouse is all about. By no means am I saying that my viewpoint above is correct; I agree that articles need to be properly sourced, and seeing as how this article is about a book published in the 1970's, I can only presume that it was originally written to different Wikipedia standards. Another good reference would be WP:NBOOK, which spells out exactly what is required for a book to meet the 'notability' requirements for inclusion. Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC

Welcome to the Teahouse, FloridaSammi. The recommended thing to do when you come across a poorly sourced article is to carry out a good faith search for reliable sources covering that topic, and add references the best of them to the article. As suggested by NsTaGaTr, it is good practice to also search using alternative search terms. Only when you fail to find such sources should you consider deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff like [edit source]

If I review a draft at Articles for Creation that contains things like [edit source] and [hide], which are clearly well-intentioned efforts to create a Wikipedia article based on the way it is displayed, but are actually cargo cult programming, I clearly need to give the author advice on how to format a valid submission. My question is simply what guidelines or essays to direct an editor to who is trying to create an article draft and is completely clueless.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: my two cents is to drop them a note telling them to omit those things. From my interpretation of the File:Flow chart for AFC 3.1.png, AFC submissions are more about content than formatting. After all, when published to the mainspace, someone's going to come along and do some clean-up. Asking them to omit the [edit source] and [hide] does two things: A. it allows the writer to focus more on content and sourcing, which is the crux of AFC reviews; B. it makes the content marginally easier to decipher, without the distraction of the quirks. Unless these quirks are spilling into the mainspace, I don't know what could be done beyond the links in welcome templates. If they're not reading or understanding those, I don't know what else could be done to clue them in. Again, just my view. I'd be happy to hear what other folks have to say. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rotideypoc41352 - Well, in this case, if the cargo cult programming formatting were the only problem, I could have accepted the draft with a {{cleanup}} template, or done the cleanup myself. In the specific case in point, there are multiple types of cluelessness and inappropriate humor in the draft. The one basis that I didn't have for declining the draft was notability, because the subject is a town, and inhabited named places are ipso facto notable. But notability isn't the only thing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: other than maybe WP:TONE, completely out of my depth here. Yuck, indeed. I'm sure someone else out there has less obvious, more insightful advice. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Draft:Latte, Wisconsin. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: The article is clearly a spoof. Content has simply been copy/pasted from the entry for Fall Creek, Wisconsin using the normal monitor view (hence all the codes). It matches it exactly, and someone's just tweaked the content to make it silly. What makes you think there's any notability? It actually fails WP:V -the place is a hoax, it even uses the exact coordinates of Fall Creek, with Eau Claire County, Wisconsin changed to Emu Claire County - come on! WP:DFTT applies here. I don't do WP:AFC, but I'd have slapped on a CSD for WP:G3 i.e.{{Db-hoax}}. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nick Moyes - Someone saw your comment and did put a G3 on it. Anyway, someone put a G3 on it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know. I'd have done it myself, but was unsure if there might be a slightly different process applied to articles in draft. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nick Moyes - The process is slightly different for draft pages than for article pages for speedy deletion as follows. The criteria that begin with A apply only in article space, such as all of the cases of A7 for no credible claim of significance. The criteria that begin with G are General and apply in any space. A draft that is blatantly promotional can still be deleted as G11. I tend to tag drafts with G11 if they are written in the first person. A draft that is a re-creation of an article that was deleted after a deletion discussion can still be deleted as G4. G3 is a general criterion that applies anywhere, in article space, in draft space, in Wikipedia project space. So there are differences. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Robert. I shall probably think about getting involved in WP:AFC sometime in the near future, and appreciate how important it is to have a good understanding of the how all our policies are applied, and under what specific circumstances. I know these do tend to befuddle newcomers here (and me, too, from time to time) but it is impressive how such a disparate community of volunteer editors have evolved ways to manage and maintain order by consensus within this vast and amazing encyclopaedia, and can operate so effectively to make it such a valuable resource. I have a colleague who has spent the last 20 years volunteer-recording and photographing war memorials in the UK. I tried to inveigle him into contributing here, but he told me he that back in the very early days in 2001 he contributed a page about a reasonably significant historical figure. It was deleted for "not being interesting enough"! Sadly, he still holds it against us and refuses to contribute to this day. But how we have moved on! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert button vs reverting

An editor in a previous discussion here said that the word “revert” only applies to using “the revert button,” and that using the “undo” feature isn’t considered a revert. I’m fairly certain a revert is any edit that restores a prior revision, but he insisted on this distinction, and I just want to make sure I didn’t miss a shift in wikijargon. Who’s right? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the editor in question, and I fully understand the distinction between a revert using rollback and an undo, just as I'm sure the OP understands the difference betwen a revert and undoes with requests to discuss the edit on the talkpage, and WP:BRD and WP:EW. I'm also sure after looking at the edit history experienced editors will understand why I suggest WP:DFTT should be applied here, Please, no-one ping me on this or bring this to my talk page. Meters (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no; in my understanding, an undo is a type of revert, like a square is a type of rectangle. But it’s entirely possible that I’m wrong, which is the whole reason I’m asking for a third opinion. No need to assume bad faith. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor and welcome back to the Teahouse.

Let's leave Meters alone and talk about a related issue. In my experience, there are two types of edits that cause a revert notice to be sent to the user. One type is "restore to previous version" which is recorded with an edit summary that begins "Reverted to revision xxxxxxxxx by uuuuuu" and the other type is an "undo" which is recorded with an edit summary that begins "Undid revision xxxxxxxxx by uuuuuu". I have so seldom used the Twinkle rollback tool that I can't find an example of which sort of edit summary it leaves. It's also possible to use a manual edit to duplicate the effects of either one of these, but that won't trigger the software to send a revert notice (in fact, I've occasionally run into editors who I suspected were using manual edits as "stealth reverts" as if I would not be watching). I think I agree with your thinking that all of these can be considered reverts for purposes of discussing things like BRD or 3RR. The other distinction may be around additional comments in the edit summary when engaged in any of these edits: sometimes, the semi-automated tools don't do a good job of letting you say why you are reverting and this is problematical in cases where an explanation is important. That plus the fact that busy editors sometimes feel that the reason for a revert is so obvious that no additional comment is needed.

Since you've edited it, I can see that you are familiar with the essay page WP:Reverting. That seems to match your interpretation as well. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmcgnh: Yes, I had actually cited that page in the previous disagreement. And that page actually recommends “stealth reverting” to avoid notifying vandals (which probably isn’t the use case you mention). Anyway, thanks for replying! Good to know I probably haven’t been misusing the word. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

space missing in new article name

I just posted a new article about a minor Virginia politician and Confederate officer. Problem is, when checking the links I noticed they didn't work, because I hadn't included a space after his middle initial. Can you or someone help? His name is Robert E. Grant and I added the qualifier (dentist) to distinguish him from a more famous British scientist. Thanks.Jweaver28 (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweaver28: welcome to the Teahouse! I've moved the page for you. The new title should have a space 'tween the middle initial and last name, so the wikilinks will work now, hopefully. Happy editing! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Jweaver28 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page notice

I created a page notice for my userpage. But when i click edit the page notice dosen't show up what's wrong? you can find the template by searching User:Thegooduser/editnotice Thegooduser talk 01:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser: welcome to the Teahouse! If you want to apply the template to your userpage, you'd need to add {{User:Thegooduser/editnotice}} to it for the template to show up. Happy editing! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rotideypoc41352: it still doesn't show up in the editing space Thegooduser talk 01:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser: sorry, misunderstood the first time around what you were attempting. According to Template:Editnotice userpage#To insert, you should add {{subst:Editnotice userpage}}, not {{User:Thegooduser/editnotice}}. Please feel free to let me know how that goes. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rotideypoc41352: it still does not show up in the editing page. Do you mind helping me do it? ThanksThegooduser talk 02:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser: done. Whether the letters are uppercase or lowercase matters sometimes. This is one of those times. The "e" in "editnotice" has to be uppercase. I moved the template to User:Thegooduser/Editnotice. Should work now. Happy editing! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rotideypoc41352: Thanks so much! Have a great day! Thegooduser talk 02:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I saw someone use instagram as a source. Is that reliable?Thegooduser talk 02:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not remotely. Ravenswing 02:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Thegooduser.

I'm going to try to answer a slightly different question than the one you asked: When might it be acceptable to use Instagram as a reference? Instagram content would be considered user-generated, so it can only be used in situations where a primary source is acceptable. The second aspect of referring to Instagram is that you must have good reason to believe that the account belongs to the person and is not some impersonator account. So, to second Ravenswing, we would never consider an Instagram post as a reliable source about some third party fact. But there may be circumstances where Instagram may be cited. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to add Discography tand Infobox table in a Wikipedia article?

Hello,

I am a new Wikipedia user. I want to write an article on a singer. I am practicing in Sandbox. Please help me with how to add Discography and Infobox tables in my article.Maunika18 (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maunika18: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are no other edits(other than your edit to this page) under your edit history; it would help if you could link to the page you have edited. Before you get in to putting templates or tables in the article, you may want to make sure that the singer you are writing about meets at least one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians, listed at WP:BAND. Please review that page. Merely releasing an album isn't necessarily enough. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that you take some time to read Your First Article; diving right in to article creation often leads to disappointment and hurt feelings after one spends hours on work that is then mercilessly edited and even removed by other editors. You may want to take some time to edit existing articles to learn how things work here before moving up to article creation, which is actually the most difficult thing to do here successfully. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

references

Lidasher (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC))Hello this article has had the references added. Is this correct please: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lida_Sherafatmand(Lidasher (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

The draft is Draft:Lida Sherafatmand. Maproom (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lidasher welcome to our Teahouse. I'm sure others will have time to comment on your referencing (which still needs improvement). But before I leave to do real world stuff, may I quickly ask if you are Lida Sherafatmand, or related to them in some way? If so, you do need to make a declaration of Conflict of Interest (please click the link for details on your obligations to do this). In my haste, I may have missed it, but I am also a little worried by the photo of recent artwork you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, taken by a third party of Lida Sheratmand's artwork. I'm no expert on Creative Commons licencing, but I see no authorisation (called OTRS permission) from the artist for the free release of this picture for commercial use by anyone. You may well be that person, but unless there's proof, the image could be in breach of both the photographer's and the artist's rights. It's quite easy to resolve: I recently supplied email authorisation (for an image owned by the organisation I worked for) to the OTRS team and it took them just a day to approve and accept as genuine... its normally longer! I do feel this should be flagged up as a possible concern at Wikimedia Commons. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick Moyes ! This article is created by Liesbeth (-redacted-). But the photograph of the art work I possess as the creator...so it is safe regarding copy-right, I am the artist myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidasher (talk • contribs) 11:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, that was quick - I was hoping to escape! Anyway thank you, not a problem, per se. But you will need to do a couple of things. As a major contributor to the article about yourself, you must be open and declare a conflict of interest according to the guidelines you'll find there. (Saying it here is not sufficient). I see the two of you have met (according to her Twitter account) so should she be getting paid to work on your article, she, too, must declare a WP:COI, please, and you should invite her to do that soon.

Because Wikimedia Commons needs proof that you are you (if you follow my meaning) you will need to email their OTRS Team, sending it to them from the email address displayed on your website. They will then confirm you have the right to release your image. You will simply need to provide a link to the relevant image(s) on Commons and include a release statement to say that the image is free for anyone else to use. You cannot change your mind years later. The contact details and text are rather hidden deep within Wikimedia Commons, but here's the link to the guidance page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates. Just copy/paste the text into an email and edit accordingly, or use the Interactive Release Generator. The alternative is to put an appropriate Creative Commons release statement on your website, or adjacent to the particular image(s). I hope all this helps. Nick Moyes (talk)

Hi again...Nick Moyes :-) Well yes of course she knows me, Ms Liesbeth (-redacted-), that is why she uploaded the article. But there is NO PAYMENT !! She is not my agent or anything... is that a problem that she is not paid please?! regarding the copy-right of the image yes ok I can do that. That painting was nominated at the Global Art Awards, it is a very known piece... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidasher (talk • contribs) 12:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no problem with that. (We have separate guidance for declaring editing with remuneration, so you can both ignore that one. But it is immensely hard for an editor to write in a neutral, encyclopaedic manner about someone they personally know - which is why we discourage it, but don't ban it. What we do require is for anyone associated with the subject to declare that connection. I simply suggest you follow the guidance on this section of our conflict of interest guidance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_disclose_a_COI (In case you're wondering why I redacted her surname, it's because we have a policy here of not, as it were, 'outing' the true identities of other editors. As this information isn't yet on her user page, I felt it best to remove it for her benefit.) Nick Moyes (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks so much Nick Moyes! I sent the page you have referred to her for declaration. The regulation regarding conflict of interest does make sense of course. Just in my position I do not have a political orientation or something, so my subject is neutral per se. Thanks for all your helpful feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidasher (talk • contribs) 12:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you are far from neutral here! What do you think Harvey Weinstein would have chosen to write about himself? Probably just the good stuff, I'd suspect. But our encyclopaedia must take a neutral view, collating and using only what trustworthy independent sources that others have written about a topic. (See this if you're interested) I do recommend you to read this important page on Wikipedia:Writing about yourself. All this, and I haven't even looked at what the draft article says about you or your references! (This page will help you clean up some of your references which we call bare urls because they don't say what the link refers readers to: WP:BAREURLS) Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (talk), oh by 'neutral' I meant the information given in this article is just factual information (where was born, where was published, etc)...people can google me after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidasher (talk • contribs) 13:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

I was wondering why my article was declined... if you coupd help me with the footnotes, would be greatGutemberg Fox (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the decline message on your draft (and on your user talk page) the words in blue are wikilinks to places where you can find further advice. Similarly the error messages in your references have the word "help" in blue as a link to specific advice on the problem with your dates. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it! I'm sorry i'm new to this overload of text you guys seem to handle so peacefully.

Can you check my draft if I really got it right this time?Gutemberg Fox (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think these changes may be what you intended to do with your references? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, a book and a website by the guy himself is not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True. I now see that the user has changed his user name to Gutemberg Raposo. He may not have read Wikipedia's guidance against trying to create an autobiography, and presumably also hasn't read about the need for independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an edit to a reference but now two references are cited

on this entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarahah I added a reference to a news story that is being carried widely in Australian media, namely the suicide death of a teenager, a death that has been linked to cyber bullying

It appears that I need help with formatting entries in Wikipedia; can someone help out with the entry and point me in the right direction, please?John Lamerand (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Hopefully this edit is what you wanted to do? --David Biddulph (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One further small point is that it is clearer in your question to give a wikilink like Sarahah rather than a URL like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarahah . --David Biddulph (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geography sourcing on Mendoza, Texas

Hello! I am almost done editing the Geography section of Mendoza, Texas, and I think that a link to either Google or Bing Maps would be best to source the distances to the community from Austin, San Antonio, and Houston. How can I use these as both references and External Links on this article? Also, can I have some tips on how to properly cite this as sources and External Links? Lastly, I understand that results regarding distances can be changed from time to time, but I want to make a link to this, and not use it as a reference. Thank you! Colman2000 (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit History Statistics

Hi! I just had a little question about statistics. Was wondering if there is a way to find page statistics from a past version of a page - for example, the statistics of a page, say, from a year ago, using Edit Counter or a similar resource. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec

Thanks! Sturgeontransformer (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sturgeontransformer - welcome. Yes, you can get page visit stats as far back as July 2015 for any article, say Environmental racism in Europe which I see you've been editing recently. Open the View History tab at the top of the page and then, about four lines down from the top below the title you'll see a line of links. One of them is Page View Statistics. This takes you to the wmf tool which displays hits for the last week or so. (see here)

At the top right of that page you can change the start/end date for analysis, going right back to 2015,which yields this result. Major peaks in traffic can be caused from anything like media news coverage of a topic,to a submission to "Did You Know...?". You can put your mouse on a single day and see the count - though you will need to select a shorter date period for this function to work than 2015-2018. Unfortunately what this tool doesn't supply is the functionality of things like Google Analytics which shows traffic in and out, time on site, and depth of travel. With 5.5 million pages here that'd probably be too much to hope for.Nick Moyes (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mon Cheri Bridals Draft

Hello! I'm having trouble making this draft sound "less promotional." I know that everything requires a source, and I think I've cited everything correctly as far as what's mentioned. Other brands have Wikipedia pages, so I've tried to model this one after them. Can you provide more clarity (with specific examples) of the portions of this draft that are deemed too promotional? Thanks in advance! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mon_Cheri_Bridals Markysmark (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://thewallwillfall.org/2014/09/12/resistance/

[1]

@@ Line 658: / Line 658: @@
 :Hello {{u|Sturgeontransformer}} -  welcome.  Yes,  you  can get page visit stats as far back as July 2015 for any article, say [[Environmental racism in Europe]]  which I  see you've been editing recently. Open the View History tab at the  top of the page and then, about four lines down from the top below the title you'll see a line of links. One of  them  is Page View Statistics. This takes you to the wmf tool which displays hits for the last week or  so. ([https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Environmental_racism_in_Europe see here])
 :At the top right of that page you  can change the start/end date for analysis, going right back  to  2015,which yields [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2015-07-01&end=2018-01-11&pages=Environmental_racism_in_Europe this result]. Major peaks in traffic can be caused from anything like media news coverage of a topic,to a submission to "Did You Know...?". You can put your mouse on a single day and see the count - though you will need to select a shorter date period for this function to  work than 2015-2018. Unfortunately what this tool doesn't supply is the functionality of things like Google Analytics which shows traffic in and out, time on site, and depth of  travel. With 5.5 million pages here that'd probably  be too much to hope for.[[User:Nick Moyes|Nick Moyes]] ([[User talk:Nick Moyes|talk]]) 10:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
+== Mon Cheri Bridals Draft ==
+Hello! I'm having trouble making this draft sound "less promotional." I know that everything requires a source, and I think I've cited everything correctly as far as what's mentioned. Other brands have Wikipedia pages, so I've tried to model this one after them. Can you provide more clarity (with specific examples) of the portions of this draft that are deemed too promotional? Thanks in advance! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mon_Cheri_Bridals
+[[User:Markysmark|Markysmark]] ([[User talk:Markysmark|talk]]) 12:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:10, 12 January 2018

Wikiholicism

Citations For My Page?

I hate maintenance templates?

Headlines about controversial subject

Archive

Steps to edit a Template

user id and repost draft submission

When they don't tell you why you were reverted

Why can't a add an image in an infobox?

Article submission not approved yet

Highschool yearbook photos, the validity of

Perspective on article

Adding picture to article

Notability and citations questions regarding a biography of a living person

Hello

New wiki page

Possible OR

What is $1 and $2 mean at the beginning and end of words in the AutoWikiBrowser for typos?

Is it possible to create: Category:Music and Arts University of the City of Vienna alumni?

Body temperature

Dr BS Ajaikumar wiki page rejected. Need help to rewrite.

UAA

What is correct way of cite my article?

Correcting an entry i just made

Hello

Deleting an article

Stuff like [edit source]

Revert button vs reverting

space missing in new article name

Page notice

Sources

How to add Discography tand Infobox table in a Wikipedia article?

references

Hi there

I have made an edit to a reference but now two references are cited

Geography sourcing on Mendoza, Texas

Edit History Statistics

Mon Cheri Bridals Draft