Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Masroor Chaudhary (talk | contribs) at 05:42, 17 December 2018 (→Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Teahouse protected



This is the teahouse
Welcome to the Teahouse...                        
A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.
Shortcuts

Nick Moyes, a Teahouse host

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.

Had article rejected

I have an article rejected Draft:Mareeg Mediaeven though it has has lot of sources from web that I have cited I have cited. The reason they are saying it needs to be sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. However all similar site are included in wikipedia with less references? Is acceptance depend on the editors.Why firt rejection seems fair as it only asked to Fix reference errors. can some one shed a light on this to tell me the next step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warsamedhuje (talk • contribs) 2018-12-14T00:45:56 (UTC)

IMAGE placement

Working on Barrio de San Lázaro, Havana, image "Torreon de San Lazaro. 1665" drops down to an incorrect section. I wamt to format it like so image is placed NEXT to subject:

Torreon

Torreon de San Lazaro. 1665

The torreon de San Lazaro was built in 1665 by engineer Marcos Lucio. From this fortification on could defend the Havana from the threat of attacks by corsairs and pirates.

The tower, named for a nearby leprosarium that was located in the cove of the same name, formerly known as Juan Guillén, served as a link between the castles of La Punta and La Chorrera, while watching the horizon in search of enemy sails.

ovA_165443 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ovA_165443. Done with {{Stack}}.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much PrimeHunter! ovA_165443 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Author Request: S-7000.A Real Property Tax Law in New York State

Hi, we've written a summary of the current property tax law of New York State. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:S.7000-A_Real_Property_Tax_Law_in_New_York_State We've also added many links from the New York Times that describes the history of the bill enactment into law.

We'd love if someone here could help co-author this article.

Or help with getting it published.

The law affects millions of people and to this very day people affected are not aware of it or do not understand it.

This article summarizes the key points of the law and shows it's effect over time.

We will keep the article up to date as time progresses.

Can someone give pointers on changes needed.

We submitted and waited many many weeks and received a few comments but more help would be appreciated.

This seems to be a very important topic that is simply missing from wikipedia and we'd love to help wikipedia include it.

Thanks. Ryozzo (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryozzo (talk)

First: who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts are intended to be used by one person only, and not to be used by companies (including law firms) or for commercial purposes. Are you anything other than an individual editor, editing without pay on your own time? General Ization Talk 04:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


"We" is referring to "two poor souls" myself and an eighty year old gentleman who was involved in the making of this particular law. It is not a company or law firm Ryozzo (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yes we are surely editing without pay Ryozzo (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing that up. While you may be working with another person as a team on this project, I'd suggest avoiding the constant references to yourself as "we", as this tends to raise questions around here. The singular "I" and "me" are fine. General Ization Talk 04:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I was just trying to give credit where credit was due. Ryozzo (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone interested in helping with this article on Property Tax? I've updated the article to include nytimes articles that focus on the tax law creation. I'd prefer to review it here before re-submitting. Thanks for having a friendly place to review. Ryozzo (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia

"This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." That is the reason why my article was denied. However, multiple other similar articles have been approved for years. (My article is about an Continuing Anglican church.) The thing is, the nature of what I am writing about doesn't get much third-party citation: who writes about independent churches??

Here's my link as proof: Draft:Episcopal_Catholic_Church

Now look at these other churches and see if this feels like discrimination to you: Continuing_Anglican_movement#Other_Anglican_churches

I am at my wit's end and need help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revparker (talk • contribs) 12:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Revparker: Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Please note that just because other stuff exists, your "stuff" is not necessarily notable enough for inclusion. After all, every subject is different. So instead of concentrating on the perceived "unfairness" of other churches getting articles when your's doesn't, you should instead endeavor to find coverage in independent reliable sources and add them to the draft. Regards SoWhy 13:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a specific example, check out this article: Traditional_Anglican_Church_of_America
Now how does that article get approved with absolutely NO references whatsoever and my page gets rejected?
Should I re-submit as a stub? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revparker (talk • contribs) 13:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can I re-publish my article "draft: Episcopal Catholic Church" as a stub similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Anglican_Church_of_America?
There are no "independent reliable sources" yet and while fairness may be a moral term, discrimination is a legal one. I believe my article is being discriminated against as religious persecution, which is of course against the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revparker (talk • contribs) 13:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no independent reliable sources, then the subject does not warrant a Wikipedia article. That is a very clear policy of Wikipedia. It has nothing whatever to do with religious discrimination. Maproom (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I was NOT threatening legal action against Wikipedia, as everyone can likely tell I am just extraordinarily frustrated with Wikipedia right now. How is a PhD-level scholar such as myself unable to get one article published with Wikipedia? It's been simply maddening! Ah, I just want to scream "Bah Humbug" but instead I wish you and the Wikipedia family a Merry Christmas. I guess, whether I like it or not, Wikipedia has become a part of the family now so thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revparker (talk • contribs) 13:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with your writing ability or level of education, and everything to do with the notability of the subject that you picked. shoy (reactions) 13:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revparker, Nobel-prize winners have had similar frustrations, so you're in good company. WP is a special place, and can take time to understand. Merry Christmas to you too! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem for we (PhD) editors is that we know something to be true, but unless other people have published about it, not Wikipedia suitable. Worse in medicine/health arena, because in vitro, animal and human clinical trial references are not accepted, only published review articles. MD/PhD editors get VERY cranky when their own published research is deemed insufficient. David notMD (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, pointing out other articles as models sometimes leads to those being nominated for deletion, as, now, Traditional Anglican. It has been around for years, but as you noted, has no references. David notMD (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New article

When would i able to start my own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odishawiki (talk • contribs) 16:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Odishawiki: You can start now by reading WP:YFA to learn how to create an article, and then use the wizard there to create a draft article for review. It is not easy to create a new article, particularly if you are new. The usual advice is to start by working on improving existing articles first to gain experience. RudolfRed (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for friendly help.

Is there anyone interested in helping with this article on Property Tax? I've updated the article to include nytimes articles that focus on the tax law creation. I'd prefer to review it here before re-submitting. Thanks for having a friendly place to review. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Co-Author_Request:_S-7000.A_Real_Property_Tax_Law_in_New_York_State Ryozzo (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryozzo I took a quick look at your article draft and made some changes. The tax table info is excessive and probably why the article was not approved, so I deleted it. I also made some formatting changes and moved the history to the top, as is the custom here. I know almost nothing about tax code, but when I have more time I'll do a deeper dive. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living people

I am interested in creating an article about a living person. My question is: are there any legal regulations to be aware of before doing this? Will I be violating that person's privacy if I do this without written consent? Is there a limit to what can be included on the article? - Puzzledvegetable (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP should answer most of your questions. And the limits on what you can write about are pretty much the same as for other articles. You can only paraphrase what reliable sources say. Nothing else. John from Idegon (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Puzzledvegetable you could potentially save yourself quite a bit of hassle by not communicating with the subject at all. Nothing the subject might tell you can be used in the article anyway, while being influenced by the subject actually creates a conflict of interest problem. I've never met or communicated with any of the people I've written about on WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Third Wheel

I was recently asked by a young person where the term “third wheel” came from, as a term for an extra person or companion to a couple. While I have known the source(s) for near a half-century, we found (an exercise in referencing) nothing close to a historical foundation for the terms of either a third, or fifth, wheel.

The “Wikis” say: the third is inspired by the fifth, or it is a part on a truck, or movie, but FAIL to say WHERE IT CAME FROM.

I am a basic computer user, not a programmer (nor is the child) would someone else be willing to add this to Wikis?

The derivation of the “third, or fifth wheel” as an idiom in language referring to a person: From a wheeled vehicle: the spare tire. It is handy to have along in the case of an emergency, but otherwise a cumbersome and awkward accoutrement. From marine activities: in the pilot or wheelhouse of a boat or ship. One wheel is needed. Two wheels connected and mounted one to each side for visibility during docking or other movements of the boat can be indispensable. A “third wheel” in the wheelhouse is superfluous, or lacks purpose.

Hence a "third, or fifth, wheel" in relationships is an extra person in a possibly uncomfortable, and feeling in an unneeded or extra, position.

Thanks for adding this in. It's beyond my tech, or interest to find out how, to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjwasright (talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tjwasright. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for wanting to help us contribute to the encyclopaedia. Unfortunately, one of the basic principles of Wikipedia is that every piece of information in it should be found in a reliably published source. (Anybody can edit Wikipedia - by design - so if information is not cited to a source, then somebody could come along and change it, and the reader would have no way of knowing which version was correct). So we cannot accept any information that you "just know" (or that I "just know"). If you can find a reliable published source that explains that "third wheel" comes from a wheelhouse on a ship, that could possibly be added to an article, but not otherwise. Since you say you have been unable to find a source, this does not seem likely. You may be right, but one of the "mavens" at Random House disagreed with you. In any case, Wikipedia won't say it unless somebody has already done so in a reliably published source.
There is another possible problem, which is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It does not normally have articles about words or phrases, but about the things the words refer to. Only if there has been a significant amount published about the specific phrase "third wheel" could I imagine a Wikipedia article being accepted on the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know if I'm now autoconfirmed?

Hi, I read that once my account is four days old and I have made 10 edits my page should be autoconfirmed, thereby allowing me to move pages. My account has now been active for five days and I've made more than 10 edits, but I can't seem to move pages. Can anyone tell me how I could tell if I've been autoconfirmed and why might I not have been? Tolstoy22 (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This shows that you are autoconfirmed. What page are you trying to move? Dbfirs 21:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dbfirs. Thanks for the hyperlink - it appears I am autoconfirmed, but I can't see the button to move a page. Where should it be? I want to move the Ernest Erbstein page to Ernő Egri Erbstein Tolstoy22 (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tolstoy22. Look in the top-right corner of the page where you should see the Read, Edit, View history, etc. options. If you move your mouse over the More option, you should see the button to move a page. Does this help?--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, SkyGazer 512. Thanks. Oddly enough, the More button had just appeared to me for the first time at some point today. I saw it just before I clicked on the notification for your message. I'll try that. Tolstoy22 (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strange how it didn't show up before, seeing as how you became autoconfirmed 2 days ago. Anyways, looks like you've got ti figured out now.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SkyGazer 512. It's possible I wasn't properly logged in or something. I've moved the page now, but it is asking me to 'clean up' after the move and I'm too much of a newbie here to understand what it's requesting of me. Will this cause problems? Tolstoy22 (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tolstoy22: It's certainly possible that you weren't logged in. Does WP:Moving a page#Post-move cleanup help? It explains quite a bit about what needs to be done after a move. If you have any specific questions about what that page says, feel free to ask.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of draft article because the article name already exists

I mistakenly created an article Draft: Alfa Anderson not realizing that the redirected article Alfa Anderson already exists. I would like to merge Draft: Alfa Anderson into the original article, but the draft article has been erased and a redirect placed there also. Can you please give me advice as to how I can go about recovering the information in Draft: Alfa Anderson and merging it into Alfa Anderson? I would also like to remove all the redirects. Thank you for your help. Jupiter3000 (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupiter3000: It's been redirected, not deleted. You need to establish that Anderson is notable outside of the band. You can do this by following the instructions present at User:Ian.thomson/Howto, taking special care to use sources that are specifically and primarily about Anderson but not the band. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice was useful. Thanks again for your help! Jupiter3000 (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho series article

I have wrote an article on my sandbox, intending it to go on Psycho Series until I realised it is create protected. It is the only online series of its kind and has over 1 billion views; I think that is easily both A7 qualified and WP:NOTABLE. I think the reason it was create protected was because people probably made very poor articles. How do I get this article created? IWI (chat) 23:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IWI. If you create a draft article which is accepted, the reviewer can move it to the protected title. —teb728 t c 00:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
teb728, ImprovedWikiImprovment has created a draft, in their sandbox, and has submitted it for review. If the reviewing editor accepts it, they will sort out moving it to the right place. However, ImprovedWikiImprovment, although your current draft has 56 references, as far as I can see only one, or possibly two, of them are independent reliable sources - and they are both about one single incident, not the channel in general. (The two are Variety, and possibly Tubefilter, but see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 126#Blogs count towards notability?). Unless you find some more independent reliable sources that cover the channel at more length, I don't think it will establish notability. --ColinFine (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine: Actually I hadn't submitted it until teb728 instructed me to do so. The article is about the online series, which inspried a Streamy Award winning documentary. It's very much a cult series, which may explain my difficulty finding sources. Also the source numbers 2 and 3 are also independent from the creator (which aren't reliable in of themselves but prove the preceding point). IWI (chat) 00:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is also source number 6. IWI (chat) 00:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IWI: I said that if you create an article which is accepted protection would not be a problem; I didn't say anything about submitting the current content of your sandbox. You mentioned WP:NOTABLE; so I assumed you knew we were looking for significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. —teb728 t c 01:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Teb728: I do but these drafts usually take weeks to be reviewed, so I put it forward now. I’m not sure if many exist, due to the nature of the series. IWI (chat) 01:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I now understand your comment was effectively hypothetical. IWI (chat) 01:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m completely confused as to the extent that Notability extends. I now have 11 secondary sources, at least 3 from reliable sources. When did this strictness start; there are articles on Wikipedia with one overall source that somehow make it through while a Streamy Award nominated online series (with a completely unique format) with over a billion views is rejected. If this were a TV series, there would be no argument. Another example of many user's tendency to instantly disregard anything from YouTube unless you have 67 secondary sources from the New York Times and Washington Post. Completely absurd. IWI (chat) 02:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Pinging Cullen because he is fair. IWI (chat) 11:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ImprovedWikiImprovment. In order to establish notability, you need to provide references to multiple independent reliable secondary sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. I am only seeing one source that meets that standard, the article in Variety. We do not require anywhere near 67 sources and far more publications are acceptable than the New York Times and the Washington Post. Official YouTube videos are acceptable, if issued by a media organization with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy. What you describe as "strictness" has been our standard for the nearly ten years that I have been editing, and longer. The USA Today and Hollywood Reporter sources do not provide significant coverage of the topic, since in both cases the series is mentioned only as an entry in a long list. Your first job is to establish that the series is notable by Wikipedia's standards. I suggest that you find at least two or three other reliable sources comparable to the Variety source in depth of coverage. Eliminate all of the YouTube links and the summaries of each episode. Present a much briefer and much better referenced draft. If additional sources of the required quality are not available, then the series is not notable and no acceptable article can be written. Because the title is salted, any attempt to recreate the article will be subject to heightened scrutiny. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to actually look at what I have written properly, unlike some others. Yes the 67 reference thing was an exaggeration for dramatic effect. I should repeat that the article was salted because very poor articles were created. IWI (chat) 23:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, you must write a very good draft for it to be accepted, ImprovedWikiImprovment, that makes a compelling case for notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: With all due respect, I'm pretty certain this is less of a notability thing and more of a "youtube? can't be notable" thing. WP:NOTABILITY is a guideline as well (which as I don't have to tell you, doesn't have to be followed); don't you think an exception or even a complete WP:IAR could be used here since (I reiterate) it is the only notable series of its kind with one billion overall views. I've been here for four years myself and you only seem to get this much "WP:NOTABILITY" enforcement on anything from the internet; that kind of overall mentality, in my opinion, is harmful to the project, suppressing internet series and anything else from YouTube (even though this platform is one of the most popular forms of media, essentially online TV). I would understand (and agree) if this was something with 100,000 views that was completely generic, but this is the opposite. The notability guideline aims to protect the project from articles about useless things: ask yourself, is it serving that purpose here, all information in the article is verifiable and not original research. There is even an IMDb about it. IWI (chat) 23:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: The reason there isn't significant coverage is due to the fact that is wasn't revealed the series was actually a series (i.e. it was depicted as real) until its conclusion in 2016 and so until then, it was just viewed by the outside world as a dysfunctional family and this is the exact reason why it is unique and therefore notable. I contacted the creator (Jesse Ridgway) to see if he knew of any articles, and he said, "There has never been too many articles or press written about the Psycho Series, it's still very much a cult-classic." IWI (chat) 00:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IAR, ImprovedWikiImprovment? I do not think so. There is a reason why four administrators have deleted previous versions of this article, and the notion that a fifth administrator will overrule them based on ignoring rules is ludicrous. You must demonstrate notability convincingly if you hope to create an article about this topic. Your theory about why significant coverage is lacking seems weak to me, but it does not matter. If that coverage doesn't exist, then there will be no article. Period. End of story. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Since every edit one makes should improve the encyclopedia and I am not going to get anywhere with this, I will leave it. No article. There is no if, coverage does not exist; I've looked everywhere. As Beyond My Ken put it in his Thoughts essay: "When two admins tell you that black is white, it is fruitless to continue to try to show them that black is black and white is white." IWI (chat) 00:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is deleted. IWI (chat) 00:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia store

A long time ago I stumbled across a page that sold Wikipedia gear. I'm hoping to find it again to get my daughter a backpack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Blacketer (talk • contribs) 03:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David! That would be https://store.wikimedia.org/, I believe. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continued donation requests

I have contributed financially to Wikipedia but I am still being continually interrupted by Wikipedia to donate. It’s a pain in the neck and frustrates me greatly to the point where I’m contemplating severely limiting my use of the platform, at the very least. Stop it! Please... I can pay no more... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.217.167.90 (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise with posters like 103. As a registered and experienced editor, I've been able to figure out how to switch off the nagging appeals; and I find it unreasonable that new users receive so many of them. I've noticed that complaints like the above have become much more frequent in the last month or two. No-one here at Wikipedia is responsible for the appeals, it's the Wikimedia Foundation that inflicts them on us. Can anyone advise on where complaints can be effectively directed? Maproom (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maproom: It usually seems to be Whatamidoing (WMF) who acts as the Wikimedia Foundation's ambassador to English Wikipedia; you could try asking her who's responsible. As someone who reads Wikipedia a lot while logged out, I can testify that the adverts this year are far more intrusive and obnoxious than they've ever been before. ‑ Iridescent 07:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent:, @Maproom: - to the extent that it has become a meme. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As my userpage says, I have made over 3000 edits. But I have never really thought too much about COI, though every now and then I am careful. I just make sure now that I use good sources and edit as per guidelines. But I think now I need to consider COI properly because I want to stay on Wikipedia for a long time and not get into trouble later on. I would request someone to help me navigate Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. When is something a conflict of interest?

  • What should I write on my userpage to tell people if there is a COI?
  • If I had a COI in the past, but now no longer have one, then?
  • If I have studied with someone in the same University, but I don't know that person, and I create a Wikipedia page for that person, is that a conflict of interest?
  • If I have worked volunteered in a volunteer organization and created the Wikipedia page for that organization on my own initiative, is that a conflict of interest?
  • Can a person have a COI and still be able to create a good neutral article? Can they edit those articles in the first place? (Like doctors editing medical articles related to drugs, that isn't COI generally? unless?)
  • What's the difference between being an expert and having a COI?... so many questions!! (I can write a Signpost article of this :D :D)

I want to make it clear that I have never done paid editing here. But since I want to continue editing Wikipedia (till I die :D :D) without any messy politics later on, I want to clear all this up now and make sure I stop making any mistakes which I may currently be making. Thank you for any answers in advance. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, DiplomatTesterMan. In a certain sense, every Wikipedia editor has a mild conflict of interest, because we edit the articles and topics that interest us personally in some way, as opposed to editing articles spit out by a random article generator. We should all be constantly examining our edits to see if our enthusiasms are overwhelming our neutrality. When I first started editing here nearly ten years ago, I worked on several biographies of mountaineers associated with the Sierra Club, and I have been a member of that club for over 40 years. But I am not an employee or an official of that club, and wrote those historical articles on my own initiative, without any coordination or communication with the club leadership. In other words, I was motivated primarily by a desire to improve the encyclopedia, and not by a desire to promote the Sierra Club. That is the metric for deciding whether or not a conflict of interest is counterproductive and unmanageable.
If you have even a mild conflict of interest, disclose it, and defer to experienced, uninvolved editors who evaluate your work in good faith. Open disclosure of potential COI is the basis for good practice in this area. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a general COI disclosure on my User page, given my profession, and create a COI declaration on Talk pages of articles if I intend significant editing. I feel comfortable that I can achieve neutral point of view, so I edit articles directly rather than post proposed changes at Talk. Of your hypothetical examples, creating an article for an organization you volunteer for feels like a real problem as far as NPOV, because you may consciously or unconsciously select references that shine only a good light on the organization. David notMD (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Radoš page

Hello dear editor,Im a professional basketball player from Croatia Dino Rados and I want a page about me...How can I made it or you can make it for me?

Greetings,Dino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dino rados 12 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dino. You can not write about your self because you have a conflict of interest. It is possible that another editor may write an article about you, but that may not happen.Charles (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dino rado 12: Please also see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more information. Regards, JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 10:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft operators and/or deliveries

Hello, once again, Wikipedians of the teahouse.

I noticed that the list of Airbus A350 XWB orders and deliveries is more in-depth than any other of this list of Airbus aircraft orders and, in some articles, deliveries. In my opinion, it would be nice with a standard here on Wikipedia. Any opinions? --Biscuit-in-Chief I'd love to hear your opinion :-) 13:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Biscuit-in-Chief: - it is difficult to impose a rigid "standard" within certain categories on Wikipedia, as it is an encyclopedia which anyone can edit. Evidently, someone has taken the additional effort in gathering sources and editing to enhance this specific list, to a greater degree than other similar articles. They are obviously free to do so, and deserve kudos for their efforts. There is not a burden on them to do the same for all articles of that ilk, as they are free to devote their time editing to wherever they wish. Quite simply, if you are unhappy with the standard of other articles in relation to this one, you can edit them to improve them and raise standards in line. The article which you have linked to appears to be, in broad terms, suitably sourced, and provided it obeys the pillars and is suitably sourced, there is no issue here. Articles can be of differing quality - if you dislike this, you can ameliorate them. The other way to set a standard, by disimproving the good articles, is a very poor idea, and not why we are here. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Create articles

Hi my name is Ilkin Shukurov. I created articles for the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Now I want to create global articles. Help me please. Sincerely, Ilkin Shukurov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IlkinShukurov (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @IlkinShukurov: and welcome to the English Wikipedia. I do not know what standards the Azerbaijani Wikipedia has but I have been given the impression that each version of Wikipedia has unique standards.
Right now, your English Wikipedia account is not yet autoconfirmed, so you cannot create new pages in article-space on the English Wikipedia -- but you can still create drafts through the Articles for Creation process. This will also give you a somewhat safer space to work on articles than in article-space.
At User:Ian.thomson/Howto, you'll find my instructions for how to write articles that will not be rejected or deleted. In short, you need to summarize, paraphrase, and cite at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject but not affiliated with it. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You submitted a blank page to Articles for Creation and a blank request on the AfC Help desk. Legacypac (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Does anyone want to adopt me for my first few months here, any help appreciated. Also can someone review my page protection request either at User talk:Oshwah or Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection. Breakroute (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why your page protection request is needed. You reverted good faith edits by one editor and left a message on that person's Talk. That should suffice. David notMD (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Suddenly Deleted 8 Months Later

I made a page for the writer Rebecca Renner. Someone marked it for deletion around the time it was created, and then another editor disagreed and deleted the "mark for deletion" thing. The article was up for most of the year, but now it's vanished. Why? An editor already said it was okay. I wasn't given any warning, and I didn't get a chance to save my work. Rtbailey99 (talk)

That was in April and they gave you a warning for speedy deletion. Why are you talking about this 8 months later. Breakroute (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also see the deletion log for specific reasons for the deletion of the article. General Ization Talk 22:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
General Ization, Breakroute, how about giving an obviously confused Rtbailey99 a break here. As he clearly stated, the article was nominated for speedy deletion in April, and a unknown editor removed that speedy template. The OP incorrectly interperted that to mean the article was ok. At some point closer to the present, someone WP:PRODded the article, and since no one opposed that PROD (which the OP was not notified of), the article was deleted based on that. If one of our several administrator hosts could look into this, and perhaps WP:REFUND the article so it could be improved, that would be most helpful. John from Idegon (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I have said would preclude or discourage an administrator from doing exactly as you've said. It may or may not be that simple. Please see Draft:Rebecca Renner, by (apparently) a different editor. It's not clear to me whether this article pertains to the same person as written about by the OP. General Ization Talk 22:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same person. I found out that my page was deleted because she tweeted about her wikipedia page disappearing. Somebody else must have tried to fix the situation.Rtbailey99 (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. I see that you successfully submitted your request that the page be undeleted, and it has been. Please coordinate with that other editor; their draft seems to suffer from the exact same limitations that resulted in the PROD of your article; by combining your efforts you may be able to improve the article so as to prevent deletion in the future. General Ization Talk 23:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
General Ization Are there any pages with guidelines to help me improve it. Should I just add more sources and information?
The current sources are almost all links to works by the subject. We need links to articles and information about the subject to verify the claims made concerning her. Please see Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, as well as Notability (people). General Ization Talk 23:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest?

Hello I am an art critic and historian and I write about artists that I am interested in. How is it a conflict of interest? This is all public information Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artlover06 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the user asked this question here after I tagged their talk page with a WP:COI notice. The user has written only about one artist - Franz Klainsek - and the content they placed was WP:SPAM, mostly lifted directly from press releases. Dorsetonian (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Artlover06 - your account shows no editing history. Were you editing before you registered? No problem with that, but not possible to answer your COI question without knowing what you were editing. As noted by D____, if Franz Klainsek, copyright infringement led to quick deletion. David notMD (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD - I was not aware of these rules and did take information from public sources to create this article. I thought by citing this information, I would be following the Wikipedia rules. I understand this was a mistake on my part. To address the conflict of interest: This is an artist that is well known in New York Art scene; his work was shown in very important art galleries, including the Hoerle-Guggenheim Gallery and Mana Contemporary - his art I had the opportunity to see in person. I saw his feature on CNN and chose to add to this article. I understand now that the information I added was not following the wikipedia guidelines. I would appreciate the opportunity to be able to change mistakes and meet the Wikipedia criteria. I am an art critic and historian studying in school. I have studied this artist and his influences throughout the year of my schooling. I am writing a research paper on this artist as well, so I will have better information to add to this article. This is an important part of my schooling and all information will be unique and written by me. Dorsetonian this I believe also addresses your point. If you would like to remove the content that does not meet the criteria, please do, or I also can. I will edit from there. I intend to continue contributing to Wikipedia, especially artists as I move through my schooling and career. I am now aware of the guidelines and thank you for pointing out these mistakes.

Submitted an article request, but it is no longer appearing on the page...

Hi! I am very new here and I just submitted a request for an article to be created, but it is no longer appearing in the list on the page. Does that mean it was rejected or denied? I can still see it in the history, but it does not appear to have been rejected from what I can tell. Any feedback that anyone can offer would be really appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonicaGreene (talk • contribs) 02:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MonicaGreene: Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! If you look at the page's history, you'll see that the editor right after you (Izno) reverted your edit with the edit summary "rv gf -- we need better sources". For context, "rv" stands for revert, and "gf" stands for good faith, which simply means that Izno was recognizing your contribution as being done in good faith. Two of the sources you provided were to a Twitter post and Wikipedia article, but those aren't the type of sources that establish the notability of the subject and help Wikipedians start articles. Instead, you'll want to provide reliable, published, third-party that can be used to base an article off of. Examples of sources could be magazine and news articles, third-party biographies, interviews, etc. The existence of multiple reliable sources help show that the subject is noteworthy enough for an article. Hope that helps, and feel free to follow up with any questions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @SuperHampster: I really appreciate the feedback. I was just looking at the other members of the band, and it looks like one of them has a stub article. Would this member be more of a candidate for a stub? I have found some more articles about the individual that might be more appropriate that I could include. Thanks again for your help! MonicaGreene (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)MonicaGreene[reply]

Is there a way to see which Wikipedia pages link to a specific Wikipedia page? Rixn99 (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rixn99: when looking at an article, you should see "What links here" in the left sidebar under Tools. This will show you all the pages that link to the article in question. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Daily article pageviews to talkpages

Hello Teahouse,

I noticed a Wikipedia article which had the Daily article pageviews on its talkpage, which seemed like an interesting and useful way to track this information. I added the same template to the Wear it Purple Day talkpage, and it seemed like it worked. Is there a reason why this parameter isn't automatically included in talkpages? Or is it considered contentious, or do people use other pageview tools like the linked out ones in Page information?

Thank you for your advice! SunnyBoi (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As each time it's viewed it means multiple new queries to the server, adding it to all 6,925,795 articles would cause significant performance issues. By all means feel free to add it to talkpages where you feel it would be genuinely useful, such as those that see significant peaks and troughs in readership. ‑ Iridescent 20:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help Or can you do it for us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Vardre_RFC

This page link, we are unsure on weather it has been published, and if it has we would like Tommy o know how to change the name from Draft: Vardre RFC to simply Vardre RFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by VardreRugby (talk • contribs) 16:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is still draft. Do not submit it, as it is promotional (and without any citations). Also, your User name VardreRugby suggests you are associated with the proposed article, mostly likely in a paid arrangement. David notMD (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to change title(s)

Senator John Boozman is the sponsor of the bill that is now in Congress for approval to designate the Butterfield Trail as a National Historic Trail. When the bill is approved, there will be an increased interest by the public. As a result, searches on the internet will lead some to Wikipedia. In preparation, I have recently added a significant amount to the history of Butterfield’s Overland Mail Company in Wikipedia under the heading of “Butterfield Overland Mail.” Some have used inaccurate secondary references and I have made corrections based on cross-referenced primary source references. There is a related category on Wikipedia under the heading of “John Warren Butterfield.” This is supposed to be the president of the Overland Mail Company. The name is inaccurate. About a month ago I added a paragraph to the site explaining the confusion over his name. Because of the importance for having an accurate biography for John Butterfield, considering the bill in Congress, I am about to add a comprehensive biography, which includes changing the title from “John Warren Butterfield” to “John Butterfield.” I hope this is acceptable to Wikipedia’s policies. Eventually I will be editing the categories mentioned so that the subjects will be linked by redirects. Also, will be adding much artwork in the future. There is no doubt, based on many primary source references that I have listed on the site, that his correct name was “John Butterfield.” Kirby Sanders had the Congressional authority given by Public Law 111-11 signed by President Barack Obama on March 30, 2009, to develop the Resource Study Act to support the bill now in Congress for approval. Kirby and I have discussed many of the inaccuracies to be corrected for this famous Old West enterprise, which included John Butterfield’s name. Other related subjects will also be linked by redirects, such as the history of the Overland Mail Company’s stage stations. At present, in Wikipedia, the stations are listed but there are inaccuracies including some that are not Butterfield’s Overland Mail Company stage stations. I will be correcting some of these. But would also like permission to change the titles of some of the stations to reflect a more accurate title. Many simply have the word “Station” in their title. I would like to change these to “Stage Station.” The reason being is that the Butterfield Trail followed a natural corridor through the southwest that later became basically the same route for the railroad in 1880. The train stations often took the historic name of some of Butterfield’s nearby stage stations. To distinguish the difference in Wikipedia, the word “Stage” should be added to the category of Butterfield’s stage stations.I may have been a little “long-winded” on this subject, but want to make sure I adhere strictly to Wikipedia’s policies. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert[reply]

Anyone feel qualified to be Bold enough to change the article name from John Warren Butterfield to John Butterfield, and then delete the second and third paragraphs of the lead, which would then be entirely unnecessary content added as evidence that John Butterfield is John Butterfield? David notMD (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused by your statement. I apologize if I was not clear enough in my above explanation. I have not deleted anything from the "John Warren Butterfield" site. The second and third paragraphs were added by me about a month ago under my heading of "Confusion concerning John Butterfield’s Name." Those two paragraphs give clear primary source references that the president of the Overland Mail Company was "John Butterfield" and not "John Warren Butterfield." The original entries for "John Warren Butterfield give no reference for the middle name. I provided a reference for a John Warren Butterfield that is a different person to show where the confusion may be. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert[reply]

What I recommended was a change in the article title to "John Warren" and the deletion of the two paragraphs as no longer needed. What Ian Thompson did was delete the two paragraphs (as original research) and left the JWB name intact. I will start a discussion at the Talk of that page, pinging Ian, to see if we can get this resolved. David notMD (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the curious, the person who created the article in 2008 named it John Warren Butterfield even though the reference cited has the name as "John Butterfield." Thus, original error. IMO no evidence needed to justify a name change. David notMD (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald T. Ahnert, your two paragraphs on the name would be appropriate on a talk page (or a forum like the Teahouse), but not in an article: You combined facts from sources to reach your own conclusion which is not given in the sources. Wikipedia’s core policy of No original research does not allow that in an article. That presumably is why the paragraphs were removed from the article.
More generally, from what you say above you seem to prefer primary sources, but Wikipedia tends to prefer secondary sources. —teb728 t c 00:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK I moved it to John Butterfield (stagecoach operator)--the plain name is a disambiguation page. Is it OK to use the redirect for all the references to the old title? —teb728 t c 01:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That got the job done. This was extremely important as many have used the misinformation. Just as a comment: The subject of Butterfield's Overland Mail Company on the Southern Overland Trail has not had anywhere near as much research done as the Central Overland Trail. Because of my fifty years of research and writing about the subject, I have written articles for The Overland Journal and Desert Tracks correcting some of the history based on new information. These are publications of the Oregon-California Trails Association. I have also written two books on the subject. I have been asked by historians such as Roger Dheshi, California Parks Service to correct their site and to write articles which now appear on their site. There are many others such as the Shiloh Museum of the Ozarks, the Encyclopedia of Arizona History, Dr. Aaron Wright, Archaeology Southwest, Santa Clarita Valley History site, and Linda Hodgkins, Postal History Foundation who have also asked for my assistance. You have stated that I prefer primary source references for Wikipedia. Not entirely, but in some cases there has been new information that I have recently uncovered that corrects some of the errors based on secondary references on Wikipedia sites concerning this subject. I might add that some of the noted published works also have significant errors. It is not just my opinion, but many confirmed by Kirby Sanders, who had the Congressional authority to develop the Resource Study Act to support the bill in Congress for the Butterfield Trail. I have found additional new information because of recent questions asked of me by National Park Service Historian Frank Norris. I was just developing a bio for John Butterfield with much new information to add to Wikipedia. It is unfortunate that I will have to now limit the bio as I am not allowed to use primary source references. As an example I assume I will not be allowed to quote from a newspaper account about the 1869 death of John Butterfield. Is this true? Your answer will give me a better understanding. Thanks again. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert[reply]

Getting the page I wrote accepted.

Hello Really appreciate the help here. I'm building up to doing a page on the 2008 mass drownings at Loch Awe in Scotland but wanted to start with something smaller first. I've done a page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Robert_Moon_(author) I maybe added too many sources, because when I tried before I didn't have enough. So maybe now some are not good enough quality but I could really use some feedback here. I thought the Fulbright scholarship page would be very good as a source and 5 or 6 independent newspaper stories would be enough I thought too? I could cut it right down and remove a lot of sources if that helps? Any help appreciated. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevand357 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevand357: The biggest problem is that there are no in-line citations, just external links. A scholarship is not a source.
You can see how to add in-line citations in in point 3 of this section of a guide I wrote, and how to list those references in the last section of that guide. This section of that guide explains how to write articles that won't get rejected or deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The newspaper articles are not about Robert Moon. David notMD (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

more than a 1000 edits after my last teahouse post, I ask you guys, what should I do next. Should I become an Admin?

I really need your help guys in giving your opinion of what you want from me as an editor. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks --I love rpgs (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving hundreds of images to Commons does not make you Admin ready. Keep calm and edit on. David notMD (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't going to become an admin for at least 2 years regardless of what you do on Wikipedia. Fortunately for you, being an admin is a thankless job that you don't really want. If you want to be more involved administratively, I recommend reading pages like Requested moves, Articles for deletion, or good article reviews. You can also write and improve articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Question

Do I have to provide a source for something as trivial as a fact or a certain number if it has already been confirmed by multiple wikipedia pages that are related to this subject. 02:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

If it's truly trivial, no. However, just because the information is available on other Wikipedia pages does not mean that a reader will necessarily know about that information–be sure that the information in question is actually trivial, and if you have a source on hand, you may as well cite it. For more information, see WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE. signed, Rosguill talk 04:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi

Dear Sir,

I am Masroor Chaudhary. I am new member of wikipedia. I want to add some thing of Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi article on wikipedia page. Unfortunately it is not added and it is minor edit. How can i edit. I want to add this line - She was married with Chaudhary Mohammad Kalimullah "Zamindar" of vill. Hayaghat Bilaspur, Dist. Darbhanga. Please advice me.

I am waiting to hear from you soonest.


Best Regards,

Masroor Chaudhary

Dist: Darbhanga. Bihar India

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=874111237"