Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 771

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 765←Archive 769Archive 770Archive 771Archive 772Archive 773→Archive 775

Problems with Michael Sonnenreich

Hi guys can you help me add information and make the article Michael Sonnenreich neutral based? Thanks-Lemonpasta (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The Sonnenreich article is properly tagged as needing attention. The language used in various places is certainly more laudatory than a WP article should be. The link to Rolodex was a red herring, which I have now removed. But the proper place to get into more detail about the content of the page is on Talk:Michael Sonnenreich, not here. You can ping past editors of the page to perhaps encourage them to join in the conversation and improvement effort. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
It looks like they just copied them from my user page. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry I updated the information to reflect accurate values about me on my User page. Can you offer help with the Michael Sonnenreich article please? Lemonpasta (talk)

Here are some ideas to get you going. Look at every sentence. If there's no reliable reference to support it, delete the content.This especiallly applies to the section on "Relations with Arthur Sackler". Never refer to people by their first names; this is an encyclopaedia, not a Facebook posting for pals. Unless his birth date is very much in the public domain, delete day and month. There's no reason t reveal personal details on Wikipedia. Read this guidance on dealing with biographies of living people. This is just a sensible starting point; I've not looked at notability issues. Hope it helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Here are some points, Lemonpasta:

You cite a source: "Interviewing Michael Sonnenreich" (Interview). Anonymous 2012. Where was this published? How is a reader to find and verify this source, or know that it is reliable?

  • Source titles should not be given in all-caps, even if they are printed that way. Use Title Case, always.
  • You cite "Report of the Panel on the Impact of Information on Drug Use and Misuse, Phase I". The members of the panel are listed in the document and should be cited as co-authors.
  • If a source is cited, it should not also appear in the "Further reading" section.
  • All direct quotes must be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear. The person or entity who is being quoted should be mentioned in the text, as well as in the citation.
Those are just a few points on a quick look. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC) @Lemonpasta:. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way I can ping a lot of Users to help contribute to this article? Lemonpasta (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No. 10Eleventeen 22:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

i need help writing an article on someone prominent

does this persons bio have to be in an article like new york post to be accepted on wikipedia if no how do i go about it just write and hope it is accepted ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tee ali (talk • contribs) 23:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

See WP:N. 10Eleventeen 23:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Tee ali, and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources need to be reliable and, to establish notability, they need to be independent of the person whose bio it is. They do not need to be in major newspapers, books publi9shed by major publishers will do, as will magazines and scholarly journals. Sources need not be online, although it is helpful when they are. See our guideline on the notability of people for more details. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

RS for BLP

Are there known websites that shouldn't be used as an WP:RS for a WP:BLP. I've seen MyLife cited numerous times but if I remember right, there was a thread (and I can't find it) that identified the site as a non-reliable source. Is there any policy, discussion or feedback I can reference regarding MyLife.com? Thanks in advance. Snickers2686 (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Snickers2686 and welcome to the Teahouse. Such things are often discussed at the reliable source notice board. You can search its archives for the name of a particular source. Note that whether a source is reliable depends in part on what it is being cited for. Almost no source is reliable about everything. On the other hand, the London Daily Mail i9s generally considered (here on Wikipedia) not to be reliable about anything, not even its own views and previously publi8shed stories. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Editing A Page

Hi! I cannot figure this out. Is there anyone that has a business editing a page for an actor? (My son). Because I am not the person to try and do this :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.222.38.48 (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi anonymous IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what you mean by "a business", but we discourage paid editing. If Sam Jules is notable in the Wikipedia sense that he has been written about in independent WP:Reliable sources, then you can help by listing those sources, and requesting an article at WP:Requested articles.
To have an article in Wikipedia, our guidelines say that an actor should satisfy at least one of the following:
  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Dbfirs 00:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

BLP - question re using subject's Facebook page in Info Box

Hello

An editor has inserted the subject's Christopher Minko Facebook page in the BLP article's Info Box. Is this permissible or should it be deleted?

Many thanks !```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentbottle (talk • contribs) 02:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dentbottle. That Facebook page was for a band that Minko is a member of. That field in a biography should be limited to the personal website of the individual, not a group website or social media page. I removed it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Cullen328 Dentbottle (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

NonLeague English Football additions

Hi Wiki

I want to add season information linked to both the Wearside League and Northern Alliance League pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wearside_Football_League & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Football_Alliance) similar to that of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%9318_Northern_Football_League which is the wiki page for the Northern Football League's most recent season. The plan is to have the league table with promotion and relegations…..maybe expand it to include a map of where they are based.

Before I start work on this can anyone confirm whether this would be accepted? I had previously created a season page for South Shields FC but this was rejected so I really don’t want to put some effort into these pages for them to be rejected also.

Thanks Billquaymag (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billquaymag (talk • contribs) 13:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Billquaymag, you may be better asking your question at WT:FOOTY which is the Wikiproject that directly deals with all football matters. Kosack (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft Article

Hi, My article is still says 'draft' although I have 'published' it. When can I expect my article to be officially published? Or how do I get it past the draft stage? Can't seem to find any answers in wikihelp etc. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learningisthebest (talk • contribs) 22:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Go back to the page and click the button that says "Submit your draft for review!" 10Eleventeen 22:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Learningisthebest: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. When you click "Publish changes", it does not mean that the article is "published" as in "posted to Wikipedia". In this context, "publish changes" is equivalent to "save changes". Your draft has not yet been formally submitted for review; the appropriate template to do so has just been added, but you should not submit it yet. The draft is completely unsourced, and contains much promotional language. From the article language and your username, I surmise that you are a representative of the company you wrote about. If that is true, you will need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID(which is mandatory if you are a paid editor). 331dot (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
You should review Your First Article to learn what is being looked for in new articles; you should also review the business notability guidelines at WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
You are one of many users who have been confused by the bright sparks who decided to change the wording in the software from "save changes" to "publish changes". This does not publish your draft as an article. If you want to submit your draft for review, you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft, but please don't do so yet as it has no references to demonstrate the subject's notability. Please read the guidance at WP:Your first article and Help:referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • After the above statements have been done, you may proceed to make your draft into an actual article by hitting the move button on the article page. Then, you may click "Article" in the dropdown menu and explain your reasoning to publish this article. Click move or publish and your article should be good to go from there. -Lemonpasta (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Learningisthebest: unfortunately, it seems that the article is based on copied and pasted snippets of text from the company website. This means that it is a copyright violation, and that's not permitted on Wikipedia. (More information about that on your user talk page). It's also entirely promotional, which is also not allowed - Wikipedia pages should never advertise or promote a subject. --bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Saints & Sinners Bingo

well, I guess this is a friendly place, I think this article wasn't notable on referencing, but is there any chance this article to be saved from deletion?. Personale (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Personale: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at it right now, I would regretfully say no. The article is basically a promotional piece for the game, and it does not have independent reliable sources with in depth coverage indicating how the game is notable. The only sources offered seem to be places to obtain the game and/or that describe its features, neither of which establishes notability. Basically, people independent of the game(and not trying to sell it) must have written about it in depth in order for it to merit an article here. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: welp, maybe I ask now some admin to delete that article as it was not notable?. Personale (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Personale: I can do so if you wish, or you can comment on the deletion discussion that you are requesting it be deleted. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: okay, without further do delete it, thanks for the replies that was quick. Personale (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: super duper last reply can you take a look at this recently created article Deathgarden this game is new and notable. thanks Personale (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
The sourcing seems to be a bit better, although looking quickly at them they seem to be routine announcements about the development of the game. That may not establish notability either(although it is a touch better than the sources for the bingo game). The article currently only explains the mechanics of the game and doesn't indicate how it is notable. If something is new it often takes time before it merits an article, see WP:TOOSOON. You may find it helpful to read Your First Article to get an idea about what is being looked for in articles. Please understand that, although anyone can technically create an article, doing so successfully is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest that you consent to the article being moved to draft space, if you think better sources are available and notability is clearer. You can then work on it and submit it for review, so you can get feedback on it. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually I get some of those sources, to the other admin from wiki video game on what he provides, but I let him decide to put into a draft or what, thanks @331dot: hope I didn't bother you. Personale (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Local Parties Pages

Hi, I'm still extremely new to the editing side of wikipedia, is it appropriate for editors to make pages for Local Political Parties as well as national? For example one might want to specifically make an Islington North Local Labour Party in the UK and similar for other parties in other constituencies? Or is there some wikipedia rule against doing so? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melias C (talk • contribs) 10:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Melias C and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no specific rule against a local political party having an article , but it would need to meet the notability guidelines for organizations at WP:ORG. On my side of the ocean the state level affiliates of the US Democratic Party and Republican Party all have their own articles(Maine Democratic Party, New York Republican State Committee). The key is if the local party has been written about with in depth coverage(of the party itself) in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, thanks, that does seem to clear that up. I had assumed it would be a sourcing issue but wasn't 100% — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melias C (talk • contribs) 11:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The presentation of a new idea that challenges orthodox belief

I had an article rejected because it appears more as research and opinion than an encyclopedic entry. The article says X and provides the reasons for X conclusively based on primary and secondary sources versus the traditional Y view which is unsubstantiated.

How can I craft the article not to seem opinionated? I can modify the verbage that verges on opinion and be more factual, but the overall structure of the article would seem to have to be X not Y and here is why according to these sources.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd00001 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jd00001: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer is- you don't. Wikipedia is not for publishing original thought or research. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about an article subject. If the theory you discussed in your draft is published in reputable, third party sources such as academic journals, it can have an article here. Otherwise, you will need to find another forum to publish your research in. I'm sorry that is probably not what you want to hear. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
It appears your draft is mostly based on Dan Gibson's work, and it appears scholars are skeptical about it. Thus it doesn't seem that any conclusiveness can be drawn the way you state - on just one person's book and perspective one cannot write a neutral article Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Welcome to the Teahouse, @Jd00001: If you are referring to your draft Petra The Muslim Holy City, the reviewer fairly noted that it was structured as an argumentative essay, not an encyclopedia article's summary of secondary sources and further advised study of Wikipedia's 3 core content policies of neutral point of view, no original research, and reliable sources. WP:CCPOL must all be considered at once.
The simplest start to overcoming the argumentative essay format might be to try writing a summary paragraph for insertion into an existing article, including only the major points and citing all controversial claims, while acknowledging differing views with citations as well. If a well-stated and well-cited summary paragraph can survive in an existing article, e.g., Mecca, Petra, &/or Muhammed, it might later be expanded into an article section or standalone article. This strategy will give you running feedback from other editors as you strive to incorporate these claims to knowledge in Wikipedia. It will be tough.
I was immediately struck by some questionable publishers, e.g., Independent Scholar's Press and Open Democracy, suggesting the possible lack of pre-publication peer review. Sure enough, the one source most heavily relied upon is a widely discredited and uncredentialed author, Dan Gibson, whose work has been negatively reviewed by professional scholars, as the WP article makes clear. I would be interested in seeing what can be claimed without using such unreliable sources. It is a fascinating question, and I wish you well in developing it into an encyclopedic summary, if it can be supported with reliable sources. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. I am a newbie. I would like to respond to all commentators collectively. Is this the way to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd00001 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Jd00001 - yes, you can respond here. Richard0612 09:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


First I want to thank everyone for their input. I see how my initial contribution does not make the grade. Perhaps you could advise me. Correct that the initial process was started by Mr. Gibson's most recent book 2017 which is very new and has no reviews for. True Mr. Gibson is an amateur but with a 30 year career exploring the history of the Nabateans. In the course of his explorations he has discovered and documented an interesting thing, all early mosques point to Petra not Mecca. This is new, he is the only one I know to have done this. He provides all the data and photos - over 120 pages. It is a fact, and a startling fact a that, not just his opinion. And then based on this fact he lays (true his opinion - but now more plausible) out a very detailed discussion on what happened and and why Petra is a better match then Mecca. This also links nicely with the confusion in early islam about where Muhammad was from. I notice in Wikipedia entries on Islam, Muhammad, etc etc all state 'the traditional view' on Mecca and Muhammed. But as I have stated in my article 'the traditional view' has no reliable sources - it is an argument from silence as their are very few facts out there about early islam once you dig a little. That is why Mr. Holland had such a tough time with Early Islam - very little to go on. Also why I widened the source list. Now Mr. Gibson has provided a key fact that can more objectively help understand early Islam - it all got started in Petra, not Mecca. So how should I approach this? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.27.1 (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

If your objective is to convince people that Islam started in Petra rather than Mecca, then Wikipedia is the wrong place to pursue it. Wikipedia already has an article Dan Gibson (author), which is mainly about his views regarding Petra. Maproom (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed 100% with Maproom.
In fact, I've just eliminated someone's (not you) inclusion of Gibson's previous deeply flawed Petra book in the further reading section of Qibla with edit summary: "Further reading: removed Dan Gibson (author) - unreliable source according to academic reviewers like David A. King (historian), the self-published work of an unqualified amateur does not belong in Wikipedia"
Don't suppose you've seen that yet. I added it to the David King article - learn who he is and see what he has written before you read it. He came out of retirement to demolish Gibson's Petra passion. I'm summarizing it offline for incorporation into a restructured Gibson article.
As this Teahouse post will soon scroll into archival history, I suggest further discussion on the Talk page of Dan Gibson (author). Expect some major changes in that article: cutting out self-referenced biography (we need some independent sources or content must go per WP:BLP); trimming existing WP:original research in the form of a laundry list of his theses with no WP:secondary sources cited; and restructuring article as an encyclopedic style neutral summary not of his work, but only what WP:reliable sources have to say about his work. See you there soon. Read the review. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Business posting

How can I make a posting describing a business more like an encyclopedia? I have described the business and the parts of it, and am being rejected as too "advertising like" I am just listing the parts of the business. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libbycovingtondoggett (talk • contribs)

Condensed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Leslie Doggett Industries Doggett is a Houston-based diversified heavy equipment, on-highway and severe duty vocational truck and automotive dealer for six first-tier manufacturers with 37 full-service factory authorized dealerships throughout Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas and the State of Chihuahua in Mexico. Doggett, founded by Leslie Doggett and Brady Carruth in 1993 with 17 employees, is a family owned private company without outside investment. The company has annual sales exceeding US $1 billion and 1300+ full-time employees including 500+ factory trained and certified, highly professional technicians.

Distribution Affiliate: Doggett Equipment Services Group

Divisions:

Doggett Truck Group (Freightliner & Western Star – 7 dealerships) Doggett Material Handling Group (Toyota Forklifts – 7 dealerships) Doggett Construction & Forestry Equipment Group (John Deere – 17 dealerships) Doggett Crane Services Group (Link Belt – 4 dealerships) Doggett Auto Group (Ford – 1 dealership) Business Type: Private

Industry: Heavy Equipment, Auto, Highway & Vocational Truck Dealerships

Founded: 1993

Founders: Leslie Doggett and Brady Carruth (Carruth sold his interest to Doggett in 1999)

Headquarters: Houston, TX with regional headquarters in San Antonio, TX, Baton Rouge, LA and Little Rock, AK

Areas served: Texas, Arkansas, New Mexico, Louisiana and Chihuahua, MX.

Corporate Managers: * Leslie Doggett (President) * Brian McLemore (CFO) * William Doggett (General Counsel)

Major Brands Represented:

John Deere Construction & Forestry Equipment - State of Louisiana, East and South Texas Toyota Industrial Equipment (forklifts) - Houston & southern half of Texas Freightliner Highway and Sever Duty Trucks - (Freightliner is a Daimler Trucks North American Company) - State of Arkansas, Southern half of Texas LinkBelt Cranes - State of Louisiana Ford Motor Company - light, super duty & commercial trucks - Greater Houston Market https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180503006702/en/Leslie-Doggett-Industries-Acquires-Lone-Star-Ford

Revenue: US$ 1.3+ billion

Ranking: Greater Houston Area 10th largest private company as ranked by the Houston Chronicle 2016

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/chron-100/article/No-10-Heavy-equipment-dealer-Leslie-Doggett-11223590.php Number of Employees: 1,300+ Full-time approximately

Dealership Locations:

Doggett Heavy Machinery Services – Deere – Houston, Corpus Christi, Victoria, Laredo, Beaumont, Bryan, Pharr TX Doggett Machinery Services – Deere – State of Louisiana: Covington, Kenner, Lafayette, Lake Charles, Baton Rouge, Monroe, Alexandria, Shreveport, East Texas: Lufkin, Longview, Tyler Toyota Lift of Houston – Toyota – Greater Houston Area Toyota Lift of S. TX – Toyota – El Paso, San Antonio, Pharr, Corpus Christi, Laredo Doggett Freightliner of S. TX – Freightliner - San Antonio, Pharr, Laredo, TX Doggett Freightliner of El Paso – Freightliner – El Paso, TX Doggett Freightliner of Arkansas – Freightliner – Little Rock, Fayetteville, Van Buren Doggett Crane Services of Louisiana – LinkBelt Cranes – State of Louisiana Doggett Ford – All Ford Vehicles – Houston Website: www.Doggett.com Locations: http://www.doggett.com/locations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libbycovingtondoggett (talk • contribs) 17:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Libbycovingtondoggett: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Merely telling about a business is considered promotional on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not just a place to tell the world about businesses. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with in depth coverage write about a business, indicating how it meets the business notability guidelines listed at WP:ORG.(please review) As such, not every business merits an article here.
I would also ask you if you are associated with this business in some way. Thanks 331dot (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
To start, "factory trained and certified" could go. I don't think that the number of employees really needs to be there. The bit about "severe duty and on-road" could also be removed. It would be preferable to have complete sentences. And not to be too intrusive, but do you have a conflict of interest? It reads to me like you might. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Signing after the fact

This is minor, fussy. I forgot to sign a post, so it was autosigned. No big deal but it seems sloppy. If I'd caught it then, I'd just delete the autosign and sign it correctly. But my comment already has a follow-up comment. Can I still delete the autosign and replace with my signature, or will that tear the very fabric of the WP space-time continuum?

Ahh the lengths we go to to appear perfect. I know, let it go, just let it go. Appreciate your comment none-the-less.

Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, GeeBee60. I'm a bit of a perfectionist, so I understand where you're coming from. I would advise against deleting the autosign in its entirety since it contains a timestamp. It would look quite confusing if a reply to a post was made before the post was made! Here is what I would do:
Replace:
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kewlgrapes|Kewlgrapes]] ([[User talk:Kewlgrapes|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kewlgrapes|contribs]]) 11:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)</small></code>
With:
~~~ 11:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
That way if you have a custom signature, it will get substituted in, and the original timestamp will be retained. You should indicate in the edit summary that you are just fixing the signature, since modifying your own posts after someone else has responded is generally frowned upon (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). --kewlgrapes (talk/contribs) 18:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
That works. :) Mahalo GeeBee60 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding Someone

How exactly do i add someone to wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BustyBoy19 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi BustyBoy19! Glad you want to add to Wikipedia. This is a very big question. I'd love to reply with a good answer here, but Wikipedia:Your first article probably is better than anything I can say. In short, you want to first make sure the article subject is considered notable, then make sure you have the relevant sources, and then take it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. This is a pretty difficult process if you're completely new, so you might want to try editing existing articles before you create a new one. With that said, good luck with your Wikipedia editing no matter what you decide to do. /Julle (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
You joined today, you've made one edit, it was identified as vandalism and reverted. Perhaps premature to be planning to create an article? David notMD (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Non-English Information?

English is not my native language , How are articles held to standards that not notable , but latter are written about to become notabilty which were first considered to be "bogus" held on Wikipedia? Englsih is not my native lanagauge - translation. 20:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YodogawaKamlyn (talk • contribs)

Hi YodogawaKamlyn. I'm not quite certain I understand exactly what it is you want to know. An article can be notable without this first being discovered, because there were no reliable sources present, whoever deleted it didn't look hard enough for good material and so on. Then, maybe, if the same article is created again, but with proper sources, it runs less risk of being deleted. Is this even close to an answer to what you wanted to ask?
If you're uncomfortable writing in English, I'd recommend you to focus on editing in a language you're more familiar with. Since English Wikipedia is the largest Wikipedia, basically all other Wikipedias have greater need of more attention and more left to do. /Julle (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Deadpool 2 plot

when will the plot for Deadpool 2 be up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoyoymus (talk • contribs) 09:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Anoyoymus: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume you are asking about the Deadpool 2 article. It will be up as soon as someone that has seen the film chooses to write it out and post it. As Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, these things can take time. If you have seen the film, feel free to be bold and write it yourself, or you can discuss the article on its talk page, Talk:Deadpool 2. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Anoyoymus: The film has not been released to the public yet so we would need a published reliable source. Some critics and others have seen it but it is not allowed to use your own unpublished knowledge. Many Wikipedia editors will see it when it opens Thursday evening in the US. The plot seems certain to be added shortly after that if it isn't already there. It opens in some countries today. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
And some of us saw it in our countries today. I thought about it, maybe tomorrow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Need Help Editing a Page

Hello there, I've been trying to edit a page for my uncle titled Folorunsho_Coker following his request to have content (Over 2 years old) taken down to reflect a truer picture of his life currently. I keep getting shut out by an editor who insists the new content is too promotional. Need help to vet to allow me meet all requirements. Chiefnomad (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Chiefnomad! Welcome to Wikipedia, glad you want to help out here. Having briefly glanced at your edits, I have to agree with the editor who has removed your edits. Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view. We simply don't write things such as "very successful business entrepreneur", "hugely successful with a very strong digital strand", "brings a fresh innovative perspective", "likes to spend quality family time at home", "blessed with many children" and so on. This is different from many other kinds of writing, so this happens all the time – you're not alone in this.
Part of the problem is that you have a conflict of interest: You're writing about your uncle, someone you know (and probably hold dear), at his request. But the article subject will rarely have a neutral opinion. If the information is outdated, my suggestion is that you go to Talk:Folorunsho Coker and describe how and what could be added or removed, and then let someone who doesn't have a close personal relationship to article subject formulate the edits. /Julle (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I would echo what Julle says, Chiefnomad, and add that everything in a Wikipedia article (especially an article about a living person) should be verifiable in a reliably published source, preferably a source wholly unconnected with the subject. So if you want to have certain information included in the article, you will have more chance if you can cite a reliably published source for that information. If it is only from your personal knowledge, there is no chance of it being added to the article. Please see WP:AUTOPROB (which is addressed to the person who is the subject of an article, but most of it applies to somebody like you who has been asked to contribute by the subject of an article). --ColinFine (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Article submission

I am trying to create a profile for noted Sikh Human Rights activist but my article is getting rejected. Mr. Sanam Sutirath Wazir is a noted Human Rights defender working for Sikh minority in India. His campaign is supported by more than half a million people in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahirak (talk • contribs) 17:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mahirak: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has been rejected because it offers no independent reliable sources(read WP:RS to learn more) indicating how Mr. Wazir meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines listed at WP:BIO. A couple of the sources I checked did not go to a valid webpage, and some others did not seem to mention Mr. Wazir. The article is also only a couple lines long and again does not indicate how he is notable. The fact that half a million Indians support him does not mean anything unless there are independent sources that explain how he is notable. I will post some information on your user talk page that may help you. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Mahirak. I'm afraid that if you are trying to create a profile for somebody in Wikipedia, then you are in the wrong place. Wikipedia does not contain profiles. It contains articles about notable subjects, which summarise what independent commentators have chosen to publish about the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

About referencing reliable sources at article

wait you guys telling me you can't create article without references? how about this one Holy Child College of Davao, Inc. this has been written like promotion for years but has been removed recently i'm pretty sure this needs to be deleted. its not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.152.183 (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP user and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, there are likely many inappropriate pages on Wikipedia. As this is a volunteer effort, sometimes inappropriate pages can exist for years before they are detected. Please read WP:OSE for more information. Regarding the page, it is short and could use more sources and information, but I don't see what is particularly promotional about it. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, IP editor, schools at the secondary or college/university level have a very low threshold of notability. If it can be proven that such a school exists, it usually will be allowed to have an article, although not in every case. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@DESiegel: then why this article Brokenshire College Toril has been nominated to be deleted? Wikipedia rules can be confusing ahhhh.

remove white blank

How does one remove the large white blank in the "Later Life" sub-paragraph in the Wild Bill Hickok article?Eschoryii (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Eschoryii. I see no blanks.. You might see something else depending on your screen resolution and other settings. I see no elements that would typically cause such blanks on most resolutions. You can find some information at: Help:Whitespace. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
It is caused by the Wild Bill Hickok tintype.pgn image to the entire left of the picture and above the "Death" paragraph. The Help:Whitespace has info on images. Thanks for the response.Eschoryii (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello Eschoryii and welcome to the Teahouse.
It seems you have been directed to the whitespace page which attempts to describe the problem and possible solutions. The algorithms used by browsers to pack text and images onto a displayed page work against constraint-based rules. When there's not enough text to fill in the "flow" of space left after the images are placed in a section, you get big chunks of white space that may look bad. Because WP pages may need to be rendered on a wide range of devices and window sizes, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Sometimes moving the images or adding or removing {{clear}} and similar directives will achieve a better result for your particular setup, but then look worse in many other settings. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Username violation that has put my career at risk

Hello! I'm attempting to make a report of a username violation that has put my career at risk. Someone has created a username with my name, but spelled incorrectly, and made edits on my employer's page that my employer finds to be offensive. After reading the criteria for username violations, I believe my report is appropriate; I am the only person who works at this organization with my name (or anything close to my name), the user has made edits exclusively on a specific page that represents my employer, and my employer has threatened to fire me over these edits. Where do I make this report? — Preceding unsigned comment added by I write super good (talk • contribs) 01:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, I write super good. You will need to make your report under your actual name and provide the titles of the articles in question, which will allow for an investigation. You may need to provide proof of your real world identity in this situation. Make your report to Usernames for administrator attention after familiarizing yourself with our Username policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) [ I had a different take on this than Cullen]

Hello I write super good and welcome to the Teahouse.
Send an email to info-en@wikimedia.org describing your problem. We can't solve this problem here in the Teahouse. The user impersonating you will likely be blocked based on the policy described at WP:IMPERSONATE. When dealing with issues of real-life identity, you will likely need to go through the Volunteer Response Team. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This sounds rather complicated since you are claiming that someone is impersonating you which is not really allowed per WP:IMPERSONATE. Since this might involve personal information not really suitable for public noticeboards like Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention and also may involve Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information, my suggestion to you would to be to try and contact Wikipedia:Oversight and see what they suggest. If the edits being made by this other account are not in accordance with relevant policies or guidelines (e.g., if they are vandalism, etc.), they can be WP:REVERTed. Removing them from the article's edit history, however, is much more complicated and requires an administrator review. Even further removing any traces of the edit so that not even an adminsitrator can see them is still even more involved and requires Wikipedia Oversight. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Following up, I write super good, if you are uncomfortable revealing personal information about this matter, then I agree with the other editors commenting here that OTRS and Oversight are the best paths to take. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Similarities with Tampa Bay Florida and Tampa Area

I am new but it has been bugging me that wiki doesn't utilize the search term Tampa Bay Florida to describe Tampa and the surrounding cities and islands (used frequently by residents and tourists). Tampa Bay Area may be the proper term and I don't believe we should lose the reference but Tampa Bay Florida is used much more frequently and would produce an acceleration in organic traffic if included. I thought I could update quick with a find and replace but messed it up. Fortunately I had help from NinjaRobot (super nice). I am going to begin reading more more about how the framework is set up before making edits to anything else. I appreciate the help and if anyone has any tips to send my way it would be very much appreciated.

I have worked in the travel industry for years and I live near Tampa, Florida. Tampa, Florida is what people refer to as the city. Tampa Bay, Florida is what residents and tourist refer to when describing Tampa and the islands (most importantly St. Pete Beach and Clearwater Beach). Visitors travel to Tampa Bay, Florida for the beaches and I've not once heard a tourist refer to the islands right off Tampa as the Tampa Bay Area. They reference it as Tampa Bay, Florida (the cities off the bay). If anything, it should be the Tampa Area and not the Tampa Bay Area just as they reference areas around large cities (not bays).

Here are some reference to what I am trying to explain:

Covers Tampa and the islands. http://www.tampabay.com

Vist USA – https://www.visittheusa.com/destination/tampa-bay Visit Tampa Bay is a Tourism website that references Tampa and it's islands.


AND THIS ARTICLE DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay It should be reworked knowing that its the Tampa Area because Tampa is the city. Tampa Bay references Tampa (in the name) and Bay Islands (Clearwater, St. Pete, etc).

Insead of saying this – "The term "Tampa Bay" is sometimes used as shorthand to refer to all or parts of the Tampa Bay area, which comprises many towns and cities in several counties surrounding the large body of water. Local marketing and branding efforts (including several professional sports teams, tourist boards, and chambers of commerce) commonly use the moniker "Tampa Bay", furthering the misconception that it is the name of a particular municipality when this is not the case.[2]"


Tampa Bay is Tampa and it's islands. Tampa is Tampa the city and the surrounding cities or the Tampa Area.

If anyone can update this that would be awesome. I am going to spend sometime studying before I make anymore changes. Thank for the help. Seems like a wonderful community.

Sincerely, Shiggidy (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Shiggidy and welcome to the Teahouse.
There is a redirect from Tampa Bay, Florida to Tampa Bay, the body of water. That page has a hatnote directing readers to Tampa Bay Area if they are interested in the populated locations around Tampa Bay. This seems like a consistent solution to the problem that we can't know in advance is someone is interested in one or the other, but the geographical object takes precedence. What would you suggest be done differently? Your phrase "acceleration in organic traffic" does not sound like a concern that most Wikipedians care a lot about. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Shiggidy. Tampa Bay is the correct target of the redirect, because it is the bay, namely the complex and interesting body of water that is the primary topic. This is an encyclopedia, not a Chamber of Commerce website or a tourist information website. As for "acceleration in organic traffic", let me tell you how much experienced Wikipedia editors care about such promotional concepts: Less than zero. We reject such notions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Archiving gone wrong?

I added an archive bot to Talk:Language family, but it seems to have added far too many conversations to the existing archive. How do I fix this?

Sidenote: The archive box displays the archive's date as 2002-2007, even after the move. Why is this? The Verified Cactus 100% 00:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello VerifiedCactus and welcome back to the Teahouse.
It looks like you specified a 900 day aging parameter for archiving, so the most recently archived thread is from 2016. Since the size parameter given allows archives of the current size, there was no reason for the archivebot to start a new archive file. None of this looks like a problem to be fixed.
The other archive box has a hand-edited label on the archive file giving years 2002 to 2007. You can update this to 2016 if you wish, or remove the label if you're not willing to commit to keeping it up-to-date in the future. As there is currently only one archive, the label is completely superfluous. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@VerifiedCactus: I just removed the second archive box as redundant. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Account Security

Does wikipedia have 2FA? I've suspecting someone is trying to hack my account. There's a possibility that the hacker is either holding a grudge against me, has envy to good contributors like me, or only want to put my account down. Kurt R. (Zirukurt01)✉ 02:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Zirukurt01. Wikipedia does used 2FA per WP:UAS#Two-factor authentication (2FA), but enrollment seems to be required. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello Zirukurt01 and welcome to the Teahouse.
I'm afraid it looks like two-factor authentication is available only for users with elevated user privileges. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Zirukurt01. About a week ago, there was a concerted and intense bot attack trying to hack into the accounts of thousands of editors. The vast majority of these attempts were unsuccessful. You may be seeing evidence of that broad attack. Currently, 2FA is only available to administrators and others with very advanced positions. Please see Wikipedia:Simple 2FA for details. Personally, as an administrator, I now see 2FA as too complex and too risky for me. Instead, I rely on a complex password based on a private life event from many years ago that I can remember without writing on paper but no one else can possibly guess. I use that password on Wikipedia and nowhere else, and I have email activated so that I can regain control of my account, in the remote possibility that somebody running a supercomputer cracks my password. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, I'm sure it's probably a planned DDOS, Defacement or such illegal activity. My account has been compromised by Spammers or people who steals accounts for profit outside wikipedia. Kurt R. (Zirukurt01)✉ 06:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Do you still have control over your account? A WP:COMPROMISED account is not good for you or Wikipedia; it's also not going to be accepted as excuse for any inappropriate edits made using the account per WP:LITTLEBROTHER. So, if you're worried about the account being possibly used by others, go to WP:AN and request that it be indefinitely blocked. Then, follow the instructions in WP:COMPROMISED and create a new account if you want to continue editing. The Wikipedia community has no idea who you really are to begin with, but it assumes that it's at least you and it will hold you accountable for any edits made using the account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Write article in other language for a draft

Hello collegues,

I recently submit an article for review (it's still under draft form). Could I start to create an article for that draft in other language?

Thank you all, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dothien0103 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Dothien0103, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you could. Other language Wikipedias all have their own rules concerning things like who can create articles (very new users have to use the draft process on English Wikipedia), and what kind of article topics are suitable (what we call notability). So it depends on the language whether you can accomplish it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Zonke partner's name deletion quiery

Hi there how do I delete my client's partner's name and surname from her Wikipedia? When i google Zonke it shows her brief profile and pics then information about her partner I want to delete that partner information so that it doesn't show at all. Thank you looking forward to your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Songezogxalaba (talk • contribs) 11:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Songezogxalaba: welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! If I understand you correctly, you are referring to the fact that when you use Google search for "Zonke", the text "Partner: Tumi Mokwena" shows up underneath. Wikipedia can't do anything about that, I'm afraid. Google present search results based on various sources, not just Wikipedia, and that info is nowhere in the Wikipedia article Zonke. --bonadea contributions talk 11:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @Songezogxalaba: Unpleasant stuff first: since you are working for a client, please read carefully WP:PAID and make the appropriate mandatory disclosure before editing any article.
This being said, I see little mention of Zonke's private life, and certainly not partner information in our article Zonke, nor in the recent revisions. If that information was found on Google, we at Wikipedia have no way to control that; here's the usual reply:
Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Kylie

Hi, Kylie, I'd like to know why you declined my second article on the Galactic Federal Union. It wasn't a blank article. I created the Galactic Federal Union, (the Union for short), back in the early 1980s. So, I'm challenging your decision for speedy deletion of the article. I'd like to see it in Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. I hope to see it in here soon. Blair152 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blair152 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Blair152. I'm not Kylie; you've posted your message on the Teahouse, which is where a bunch of experienced users help newcomers. But I'll ping Kylie so he'll see this message: KylieTastic. Maybe others might be able to help you out as well. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
If the draft article in question is Draft:Galactic Federal Union then it looks blank to me - the only content I can see is review comments and section headings with no text. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Blair152. First, you appear to have put your intended content in to the edit summary when you created the draft, not into the draft itself. so the draft has no content. Secondly, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. It is an encyclopaedia, which contains articles about subjects which are notable in Wikipedia's special sense: several people unconnected with the subject have chosen to write about it in reliably published places, in sufficient depth to provide the information for an article. If several reliable sources (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers) have commented in some depth on your invention, then we could have an article on it (but preferably not by you, as your conflict of interest would tend to make it hard for you to write it in a sufficiently neutral way). If not, then please don't waste your, and our, time by trying. --ColinFine (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone to help with wiki UK

Hi guys, I'm looking for someone to work with for wiki. Please let me know if interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.79.109.58 (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, IP User, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest you try WP:ADOPT. --ColinFine (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

George B. Jackson; died in San Angelo Texas, he is my 3rd Great Uncle!!!

  Hello; my name is Brian K. Lupton, my mother's maiden surname was Jackson. My 3rd Great Grandfather was Tyree B. Jackson of Brunswick County, Va. I triple checked through the Worldwide edition of Ancestry.com; which I am a member of, according to the 1850 Slave Schedule from Brunswick County,Va. , only one slave owner had a 1 year old Black Male listed in the 1850 Slave Schedule(Census). That Plantation/slave owner was Tyree B. Jackson, Tyree was my 3rd Great Grandfather, which obviously makes George B. Jackson my 3rd Great Uncle. His half-brothers were what I call the 5 Jackson Brothers; all 5 were in the U.S. Civil War; from Brunswick County, Va. My 2nd Great Grandfather; John Edward Jackson was the oldest of the 5 Jackson Brothers!!!<ref></ref> Tyree B. Jackson; St. Andrews Parish, Brunswick County,Va. 1850 Slave Schedule!!!
Congratulations on your discovery. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? --ColinFine (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Declined article for a Zine

Hi. I was seeing what would be constituted for an independent sources with making a page for a zine publication. (ZebraPizza) zine. It’s my first time making a page and was trying to learn what the comment exactly meant and how to go back and improve the needed “independent sources”. Thank you !

“The first three sources are interviews in promotional material for the festival. The fourth is a Worldcat listing. Nothing to show Notability through significant coverage in independent sources.“ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzajono (talk • contribs) 14:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The question is, Pizzajono, have several people (at least two, preferably more) who have no connection to the zine chosen to write about it, and been published in an organ unconnected with the zine and with a reputation for editorial control (eg a major newspaper, or a book from a reputable publisher). If the answer is No, then the zine is not currently notable, and there is no point in you working on an article about it at the moment. Anything published by the zine or people associated with it, and anything (even by third parties) which is based on a press release from them or an interview with them, does not count.
If the answer is Yes, the next question is, have they said enough about it to form the basis of an article. Remember that information which has not been published is always unacceptable in an article, and information which has been published by the subject is of limited use (see SELFPUB. Again, if the answer is No, then give up on the article.
If both questions can be answered Yes, then there is a possibility of an article. If you are connected with the zine, you are discouraged from working on the article because of your conflict of interest; but not forbidden. At that point if you still want to persevere, you should read Your first article, partly to discover just how hard it is to write an article which gets accepted, and how it's much better to get a few months' experience editing existing articles before embarking on it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_771&oldid=1015035784"