Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 527

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 520 ← Archive 525 Archive 526 Archive 527 Archive 528 Archive 529 Archive 530

"List of NASCAR drivers" anomious user keeps vandalizing

Someone keeps vandalizing edits to the list of "List of NASCAR drivers" removing stuff can you please assist me they are anominous users. Thanks so much :-) WikiWriter72 (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC) WikiWriter72 (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@WikiWriter72: Welcome to the Teahouse. If one or more IP editors are repeatedly vandalizing an article, then you can request Semi-protection of the article at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. This will prevent unregistered editors from changing the article for as long as the protection is in effect. Read the instructions at the top of that page carefully. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok can you assist me please? WikiWriter72 (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiWriter72. I undid your changes at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It seems you didn't fully understand the instructions and made a change that was ineffective in doing what you were wanting to do.
What you changed was the example text itself.
What you needed to do was
  1. copy the 3 lines of the example text down to the proper insertion point on the page, at the end of the section
  2. change both copies of the words "Example Page Name" to the name of the page you are requesting protection for
  3. replace or amend the reason you are requesting protection
  4. be sure to leave the ~~~~ signature in place
  5. save the changes
How you got that bit of text onto another user's talk page, I'm not sure I can imagine.
So, if vandalism is still a problem, try doing the request again.
Another approach is to go to your preferences, under Browsing, and enable "Twinkle". Twinkle adds some things to your browsing page to give a pull-down menu that includes "RPP" as an item. If you do this while viewing the page you want protected, Twinkle automates most of the process. Use this with care, power tools can be dangerous!  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
With respect to your other request, to become a confirmed user, it's probably best to keep on making useful edits to pages that are not protected and wait out the additional 36 hours or so that you still have to go to become "auto-confirmed". Someone else may have to look after the List of NASCAR drivers until then.
But looking at that page's history, I'm not seeing the sort of vandalism that would support a request for page protection. So chances are, your request for protection – if you resubmit it – will be denied and you'll still be able to edit the page.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok got you thanks for your help WikiWriter72 (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiWriter72 Perhaps you were being prescient. In the past few hours, some unnamed idiot has blanked or otherwise vandalized that page at least 10 times. This particular user was finally blocked, but given their threats to have their "friends all over the world" do the same, I figured it was worth asking for the page to be semi-protected for a little while. I used Twinkle.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 13:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

How do u help edit articles?

I need help, to help edit articles that need help. Randomo7 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Randomo7, welcome to the Teahouse. I have placed one of our longer standard welcome messages on your talk page. It contains links to a great deal of information about contributing to Wikipedia. Please have a look at that, and the information it links to. You can come back here with any further questions you may have. Murph9000 (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Page rejected for approval because it says it already exists but the previous page was deleted

Hello, I just created a draft page for PayU and it was rejected for the following. "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at PayU instead." However, upon searching, it says the previous page has been moved or deleted.

So I am wondering what I need to do to republish the page.

Thanks Shellmalia5 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Under these circumstances, it looks like you should focus your efforts on improving the Naspers page. I'm not sure why Robert McClenon didn't point you in that direction. The draft you had for Pay U came off sounding somewhat promotional, so you'll want to tone that back in making additions to the Naspers page. You could also consider whether the people you've listed as founders may have enough written about them to perhaps form the basis for an article.
Oh, and Welcome to the Teahouse. You have started your Wikipedia editing experience with a certain amount of disappointment and frustration because you tackled the very difficult task of trying to create a new article. Please read WP:your first article for some adice. Most Teahouse hosts would recommend that you spend some time learning the ropes, perhaps taking up some of the small tasks on offer at WP:Community portal, before you attempt to create an entirely new article from scratch.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 13:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
While I used a standard decline template, I also pointed out that PayU was being considered for deletion, which meant that the question of whether it is notable and merits its own article was being discussed. I certainly couldn't have accepted the draft when an article already existed. Since the deletion discussion resulted in a decision to delete, that was a conclusion that, among other things, the subject company was not notable. I agree that including information about the subsidiary company in the article on the parent company would be encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Avoiding speedy deletion of an article I posted

Hi, I work for a university of engineering. one of the professors asked me to create a Wikpedia page for him. He's pretty well known in his field, and to my inexperienced eye he seems to have credibility and heft. I created a page based on some of the other professors for whom we (not I) have created pages. Mine was almost immediately marked for possible deletion. I attempted to improve matters by adding more footnotes linked to a sentence about how often he has been interviewed in major news outlets. That made things worse. So, I have now renamed it by prefacing it "draft:" with hopes that this will keep it safe and out of circulation. Maybe someone has some advice for me about how to salvage this project. the page is now: Draft:Justin Cappos Kgberg (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kgberg. Welcome to the Teahouse.
Thank you for disclosing your potential conflict of interest. Any time an editor is in the situation that their boss is unhappy with them is going to be covered by the conflict of interest policy. It's telling you that you should not be trying to create this article, but if you really want to continue, there are procedures you need to follow.
If you're going to continue, you need to learn about Wikipedia policies concerning reliable sources and notability. University professors at major universities are generally notable, but the article still needs to be supported by proper references. Any time the vast majority of the sources are a) written by the subject, b) based on interviews of the subject, or c) pro-forma bios that are likely to have been based on material written by or for the subject - these sources are not the sorts of sources needed for an article.
In conclusion, the task you took on was one that you were not well suited for. We're sorry if that has created friction for you, but there are long-standing reasons for the policies and they are pretty fiercely enforced.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with jmcgnh, Kgberg. The thing to remember is that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what anybody says about themselves, or what their friends, relatives, employers, employees, or associates say about them. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with a subject have published about the subject. If you are going to write about Cappos, then after disclosing that you are a contributor, you need to find a number of published source that discuss Cappos but are independent of him (which excludes anything based on an interview or press release); then you need to forget everything you know about him, and write the article based only on what those sources say. And if there are published sources critical of him, you should make sure you give them due weight as well. --ColinFine (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@Kgberg: Hello, and I have a somewhat different view of things than the previous two editors who commented, although they make some valid points. They seem to be applying the standards of the General notability guideline to this biography when actually Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is the appropriate guideline to use in this case, and the guideline for academics has major differences from the GNG. Academics are not usually judged notable based on biographical coverage in general circulation magazines and newspapers, but rather by how influential their work is among other academics. The most common measure of that is how often their published peer-reviewed papers are cited by other academics. I did a Google Scholar search and found that one paper where he was lead author has been cited 129 times and at least six others have been cited dozens of times. Because I am not an expert in this field, I am not prepared to conclude that this level of citation is sufficient to verify notability for a young professor working in information science, but this is the metric that editors should be looking at, and not the GNG. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I will keep the article in the draft namespace and try to focus on the extent to which his work has resonated based on things like volume of citations by other academics. I also will change my perspective on this generally and try to base this entirely on what others say about him rather than what I think people should know about him. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgberg (talk • contribs) 02:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

How do you add images?

There's so many things I don't understand. I just need to know how to do it in general H0lly (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, H0lly, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Picture tutorial should get you started with images. Other than the technical side of how to use them and the guidance from the manual of style, one of the major things to be aware of is copyright. I won't go into image copyright issues right now, just want to flag the importance of it. The tutorial includes links to all aspects (technical, style, and copyright). Please do come back here with any questions. If the questions relate to a specific article, please link to it. Murph9000 (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@H0lly: Welcome. There are very diverse and complex issues regarding images, and we can give you more specific advice if you give us specific details about a specific image. Let me give two extreme examples: If you take an excellent, in focus photo yourself of a rare species of bird, and you are willing to license it freely on Wikimedia Commons, then everyone will give you a round of applause. If, on the other hand, you find somewhere on the internet a photo by another photographer of a sculpture by a contemporary artist, then you cannot use that photo because using it violates the photographer's copyright and the artist's copyright. When determining whether or not an image is acceptable to use, these are among the most important factors to consider: Who took the photo? When and where was it first published? Is there a copyright notice? (Please note that contemporary photos are covered by copyright even without a notice.) Is the subject of the photo itself subject to copyright? Has the photo been released as free of copyright (or has copyright expired?), or has the photo been released under an acceptable Creative Commons license or equivalent free license? You must provide convincing evidence that any photo you propose to use on Wikipedia meets our strict legal requirements. This may seem onerous, but I have successfully uploaded hundreds of images here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Question about rejected article

I am a little surprised that my first Wikipedia article (about Miletiy Aleksandrovich Zykov) was rejected, on grounds of inadequate sourcing, as it is a pretty faithful translation of an existing Russian-language Wikipedia article about the same person. I did not add sources but felt that mentioning, as I did that it was a translation of a Wikipedia article in another language would cover it. Übersetzer41 (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Would it help if I translated some or all of the sources in the Russian original?

Übersetzer41: Welcome to the Teahouse!
The impression a hasty reviewer would get on reviewing your draft article is that it contains no references at all.
While on more careful reading, it's clear that the article is based on sources, those sources are not pulled out or often identified well enough so that, in principle, a reviewer able to read Russian, and any other languages the sources used, would be able to check those sources and verify that the facts stated in the article are supported by what the sources say.
I'm not familiar with the Russian edition of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if they have significantly different sourcing and referencing editorial standards, but the English Wikipedia does not use other editions of Wikipedia as sources. It is allowed, however, for sources to be written in other languages. English sources are preferred, if available, but sometimes they are not.
So, what should you do next? I think if you try to turn the in-text source references into proper citations, that will overcome the initial objections of that first reviewer. Check out the instructions at WP:Citing sources for guidance.
And thanks for making English Wikipedia a more global place.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 14:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I am still feeling my way with Wikipedia as a neophyte participant (I only registered yesterday). I have put footnotes into my draft, there are really only Russian-language sources readily available about the subject but I have provided rough and ready translations of the footnote sources. I am still learning about editing, and need to learn a little more before re-submitting the article after making some more changes. In the first place, I want to link to some of the persons, institutions and concepts mentioned in the article.Übersetzer41 (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@Übersetzer41:. Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the Russian language sources you are citing meet our standards as reliable sources, then just cite them in Russian as opposed to translating them. Any reader interested in verifying the content can read the sources in Russian or use machine translation to get a rough idea of the content. If they are really interested, they can hire a professional translator. That is up to the reader. All that being said, if reliable sources are available in English, then those sources should be cited. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Good advice, I would just extend it slightly. If you have both English and Russian sources, and both are good, cite both of them. Too many good sources is much better than too few, and we can always trim them down later. Murph9000 (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses. The nature of the individual being described, Miletiy Zykov, a Soviet journalist who went over to the Russian Liberation Movement allied to Nazi Germany, and was concealing the fact that he was born a Jew, has some implications. First of all, he was a rather enigmatic figure, a lot of what was said about him was speculative and statements he made about himself have to be taken with a pinch of salt - the Russian-language article does not seem to take Zykov's statements about himself as necessarily good coin. (The only other Wikipedia article about him, in Polish, does credit more of what he said about himself, but that is even more poorly-sourced and has almost no documentation.) Zykov used several names and seems to have covered up elements of his past and origins, both in relation to Soviet authorities and Nazi German ones. Even his disappearance in Nazi Germany remains mysterious. Coming up with reliable sources about him would seem to be particularly difficult though the article cites most of what can be reliably documented.

A one-sentence mention of him in a book in English, as an associate of Vlasov who was actually a Jew while joining a group of Nazi collaborators, was my first introduction to Zykov's existence, but there is very little about him in English although there is much more in Russian. In fact I see Zykov as a neglected corner of the Second World War as far as English-language sources are concerned, and an English Wikipedia article would perhaps make him more widely known. Übersetzer41 (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Übersetzer41. Usually, "mak[ing someone] more widely known" is not a good motive for creating a Wikipedia article, as Wikipedia is only interested in subjects that have already been written about. But translating is one exception to this - as long as there are high quality sources in another language, an English article will be acceptable. (A subject with few online sources may often be another exception).
But please note that, as I have said a couple of times to other people on this page, Wikipedia has very little interest in what a subject says about themselves. Nearly the whole of an article should be based on what others have published about the subject. If these independent sources have quoted the subject, or discussed what the subject has said or published, then those utterances or publications may well be appropriate to go in the article; but something he's said that nobody has quoted or commented on will usually not be appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

wiki Team.. My article on 'Pie Mathematics Association' was deleted during review..

Dear Wiki Team.. My article on Pie Mathematics Association was deleted during review.. I have proofs to show that 'Pie Mathematics Association' is a non-profit organisation working for spreading Mathematics to the student community and general public through books, free lectures and Math models. The association is located in Chennai was founded by R.Sivaraman, who won a National Award from Government of India for his contributions to Mathematics and I had also attached references about this. Could you please guide me on creating this article since a Wiki article would help us to reach more people and serve the society better. Thanks ! Kalyanvr14 (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to help you to "reach more people and serve the society better"; it is not for promotion. A Wikipedia article can be written only about a subject which is notable by having already been given significant coverage in existing published reliable sources independent of the subject. Please read WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
There were two problems with your draft article. First it was deleted as it was written as an advertisement for the association. It was written just like you are describing here, trying to promote the association. The second problem is that you copy and pasted from the association's website, http://www.piemathassociation.com Either is enough to have your draft deleted. Since you appear to have a conflict of interest, you shouldn't be writing the article. -- GB fan 12:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Creating page

My username is replicater, which is also the name of the band page that I want to create. How do I do it. Thanks?Replicater (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Read the conflict of interest policy and the user name policy. Your account name should not be the name of a group, because the policy is one person, one account. We strongly discourage writing about oneself or organizations or people with which one is closely associated. I regret that it is necessary to start off by being discouraging. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Replace jpg with svg, How to request deletion of jpg

I am working through some backlogs and am good with updating old images. My question is how to tag / request old images for deletion. If I just update an image with the same type that is quite easy but I see if it needs a new file with a different type / extension I need to upload that new file and replace it in the article. The the old image file needs to be deleted but I cannot find out how to request that??

Enkode (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Enkode: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can find complete instructions for how to propose deletion of images at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Enkode: Note though that there is no reason to delete the original version of a file that has been recreated as an SVG. You should just leave it there in case people want it in a different format for some reason. You will need to manually change any articles using to to using the .svg file anyway. Joe Roe (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking for an editor

Hello,

I'm re-posting this question here from the Wikipedia: Sustainability Project. Any insight or suggestions on next steps would be very much appreciated. Thank you.

Hello, I am very new to Wikipedia. I am looking for an editor to help update a current Wikipedia entry, and a very helpful editor in the Teahouse directed me to this project. A brief background: The Committee on Sustainability Assessment (COSA) Wikipedia entry has been in need of attention for some time, and I volunteered to COSA to help draft a revision. As a COSA volunteer, I understand that I have a conflict of interest and this is disclosed on my user page. I have worked on an update to the entry, and as I understand next steps, I believe I now need a Wikipedia editor to review and provide feedback. My proposed revision is currently in .docx format. I am happy to upload or include it wherever most appropriate for review. Perhaps the COSA entry's sandbox? I'd sincerely appreciate any insight or direction. Thank you. K.Emanuele (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Link to original posting: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Sustainability task force

K.Emanuele (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@K.Emanuele: Because of your COI, I should as if you're getting paid to update the article. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, I suggest you put your draft up at Draft:Committee on Sustainability Assessment so that everyone can see it and provide feedback. Please also read Referencing for beginners and Identifying reliable sources if you have not already done so. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Writing a draft about a subject about which we already have an article doesn't seem advisable, Gestrid. It would require a history merge down the line, for one thing. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
If not that, there are other options, such as the suggestions listed here. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
If I have understood K.Emanuele's question correctly, it is about getting help with the existing article Committee on Sustainability Assessment. Creating a draft with the same name will just cause confusion and waste people's time. The best place for discussing how to improve that article is its talk page. Maproom (talk) 07:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for the very helpful feedback. I will review the resources included in your posts. To clarify, (1) I am not getting paid to update the article and (2) yes, the revisions I would like to propose are intended to improve the existing COSA entry: Committee on Sustainability Assessment. Once I have reviewed the beginner resources you have all listed, I will included the proposed revisions for review and discussion on its talk page.

K.Emanuele (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Article on Stormpath

I would like to get feeback on whether the article about Stormpath, Inc. now cites sufficiently independent sources and establishes notability. It seems better to be proactive in inquiring about this rather than resubmitting. Vshure (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

In a word, No, Vshure. The only source which appears to be independent of the company is the Network World one: all the rest are based on interviews or press releases. (I leave aside Techcrunch, which is just a listing, and cannot contribute to notability). Network World is a start, but it only talks about the product, not the company. You need a couple more substantial independent sources: if you can't find them, then Stormpath is by definition not (at present) notable, and an article will not be accepted however it is written. --ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone edit Wikipedia? If so how?

148.137.234.112 (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's most important editing guideline is Wikipedia:Be Bold. Just read that if you have any questions. If you want to know the technical side of editing, see Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia which has more of the details of how to actually add or edit text in Wikipedia. But there are no barriers to you just diving right in and fixing things. We encourage and invite people to do just that; with the understanding that someone may (and likely will) come along and fix what you do as well. --Jayron32 18:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

How can i create a private list of favorite articles?

how to create a private list of favorite articles? STEV56 (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, STEV56, welcome to the Teahouse. Within reason, you can do things like that on your user page at User:STEV56. Please do read Wikipedia:User pages first, to understand what is and is not permitted on user pages. The very quick summary of staying safe within the policy is that it must basically be (reasonably) sensible content which directly relates to your activities on Wikipedia, and it must not promote you personally. It should not be used for things which look like article or draft article content (but you can use your personal sandbox for drafts). If the page content is mostly a list of links to articles within Wikipedia, there shouldn't be any major issues, as that isn't particularly unusual. You just should avoid using it as a form of social media page. If you have any more questions, please do ask them here. N.B. it isn't "private", as everyone can see it, but it is personal. Murph9000 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
You can also watchlist favorite articles, as a way of keeping tabs on them and watching for vandalism and such. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Code not showing

Any reason why the following code won't appear on the page after saving? 

| workplaces = [[University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee]], 1963-65<br />
 [[University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1965]]<br />
 [[University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, 1965-67]]<br />
 [[University of Colorado Boulder, 1967-86]]<br />
 [[Arizona State University, 1986-2010]]<br />
 [[San Jose State University, 2013- ]]

Genevglass (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Genevglass, welcome to the Teahouse. I have cleaned up the article's infobox. The problem was that it was using {{Infobox person}}, which does not support that parameter, so I have changed it to {{Infobox academic}} which does support the parameters you were using. Now, we have a little bit of a problem. Your username suggests that you are writing about yourself, which is strongly discouraged under our conflict of interest policy. I have placed one of our standard CoI information messages on your talk page. We welcome your input, feedback, suggestions, etc; just need to carefully handle the editing. The best plan is usually for people with a CoI to suggest changes via the article's talk page, which can then be reviewed by a neutral editor to create an entirely objective article, completely free of any bias (and the appearance of bias). As a notable academic, I'm sure you can understand our concern, and why it is important for an encyclopaedia to place great value on maintaining a neutral point of view. Please work with us on this, so that we can both maintain our standards and hopefully also have the article in a state where you are happy with it. You are most welcome to contribute freely to areas of the encyclopaedia where you do not have a direct personal or professional connection. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit war, formal request, and badgering?

There is one editor who has been reverting most of my edits unless I post them in talk first. This seems to occur exclusively with my edits, and only in a particular article. What frustrates me is that he does this as if he was some sort of authority without offering points of objection and without participating in interactive talk discussions. The revert usually says something like "no consensus for this change". For large or potentially controversial changes on this article I first put the change in talk, wait a couple days, and if there is no discussion I make the change and there is no fanfare, with this one exception i will describe.

After one change I proposed in talk I implemented the change after some discussion, which included inviting the person I perceive to be badgering me to join the discussion. He did not. Then he reverted my edit without offering a reason, with instruction to get consensus. I thought I already had a consensus so I reverted the revert (once), invited him to make a second revert, but asked that if he does so to please come to discuss his objection in talk. He did not revert a second time, but I received the note below, which seems to be inconsistent with policies describing edit wars.

For a formal request for comment the required time is 30 days, twice the time since your account was created. On an informal basis at least a week would be reasonable. Having been away just four days and finding you have removed the text again I am close to reporting you for edit warring.

Am I potentially in the wrong? Is it improper for this editor to single out one person and make them jump through hoops others are not asked to jump through while not participating in discussion of proposed changes himself?

KSci (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello KSci. Welcome to the Teahouse.
In general, disputes about the content of pages should take place on the Talk page for the relevant pages. If material turns out to be contentious, it can indeed go through a 30-day RfC process to settle on consensus – if consensus can be achieved at all.
Most of the time, first and second reverts are not considered edit warring. Your correspondent may just be overreacting. But for highly contentious subjects like the ones you've been editing, treading carefully around other editors' sensitivities is good practice. Any time you get reverted, it stings a bit and then you engage in discussion to find out what the objections are. Editors who refuse to engage in discussion are not being good Wikipedians, but you have to have the right time scales in mind. Editors are scattered all over the world and do this as volunteers in their spare time; many are not online every day. So you have to diversify your interests and leave off editing in one contentious area for a while to let consensus discussions percolate as you edit in other areas.
But if you find that an editor persists in bad behavior – and article "ownership" is a form of this – there are places to report it, WP:Noticeboards, but you'll want to check carefully to see which one is appropriate.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the person who posted the article doesntwant u to edit it.. if u posted the article maybe put it on protected or edits are to be reviewed Randomo7 (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The article was started 10 years ago and bears little resemblance to the original. Where can I find out who posted it originally? KSci (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The person who posted it originally is of little to no consequence in this. Wikipedia policy prohibits ownership of content. Page protection controls are not allowed to be used in that way, they are only used as a mechanism to reduce or prevent disruption or vandalism, and constructive changes will never normally be considered vandalism (as long as they do not become disruptive editing). Once you submit an article or edit an article, you give up any rights to control the future of the content. You retain copyright ownership of your contributions, but you automatically grant a license which permits unlimited modification without your approval and no right of control or veto. All articles are essentially owned by the community as a whole, and it is community consensus that shapes their future. The page history does record every edit, so you can go back through it and find out who contributed what, but it really does not matter unless you want to talk to them about a particular change. Murph9000 (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The topic I am giving attention to is about criticism, which makes it a tough topic. Nonetheless, all the other editors I've encountered have been very reasonable people to work with and discussion with them has always be very cordial and relevant and resolve without developing into contentiousness. There is only this one individual who does not participate in discussion but reverts 100% of my non-minor edits stating "no consensus". It's as if I am violating a rule requiring a consensus before every edit, but this doesn't appear to be the case. It also doesn't appear necessary to keep the peace. In the time I've been editing on this topic I have not seen any discussion become a contentious dispute. I have two questions I still don't have a grasp on.

- Might I be acting unreasonably if I politely ask this person to stop reverting my edits unless he has an objection to discuss?

- Where can I read about what constitutes a "formal request for comment" and when such a request is appropriately made? I'd like to understand what this better.

Any clarification on the above would be greatly appreciated.

KSci (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@KSci: Hello. You can find out more about the formalities of the process by reading Wikipedia:Requests for comment. That is my factual response. Now, I will give you some friendly and completely unofficial personal advice: Why start out as a Wikipedia editor by getting involved in a highly controversial article? Why not choose articles about your hobbies, or your home town, or historic sites near where you live, or a great book that influenced you when you were growing up? Spending time editing in less controversial areas may serve to help you learn much more about our policies and guidelines and social mores. Once you gain such experience, you will be far better prepared to deal with the stressful editing environment of controversial articles. This is my friendly personal opinion, for what it is worth. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
As for politely asking this person to stop reverting your edits unless he has an objection to discuss, you can politely ask anything you want. But the other editor may believe that your edits do not improve the encyclopedia, and may be reverting in good faith. Of course, they should discuss the matter on the talk page, but a few days of discussion is not enough time to establish a clear consensus, especially if the change is controversial. If an editor has previously objected to a similar change, then a couple of days of discussion about a similar change is not enough, since that editor may be busy with real life off Wikipedia, and it is best to wait patiently for their input. There is no rush and no deadline on Wikipedia, and it can take weeks, months or even years to resolve disputes about controversial articles. Patience is necessary when editing in these areas, as is assuming good faith of your fellow editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328, thank you for the pointer to the "Requests for comment" document. I searched the topic's talk page for the an RfC template. There isn't one. A section for one wasn't created and there was no description of a dispute. A dispute would be hard for this editor to describe since no objection was given to discuss, despite my invitations. I asked him to join the discussion in talk before I made the change and placed a u|username template in the discussion topic to invite his participation (as I was advised to do here). It appears that the RfC talk could conceivably have been to intimidate.

Concerning your friendly advice, it is very well received. My only defense is to say that I saw a really rough topic on a subject I know well. The other editors have been quite reasonable, cordial, and easy to work with. It is only this one editor who reverts and ignores requests to discuss his concern.

I have found other related topics that appear to have been neglected for many months and have seen some apparent vandalism. I am working to improve them also.

Thank you for your gracious reply.

KSci (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@KSci: Ascribing the other editor's motive as "to intimidate" is an assumption of bad faith that requires persuasive evidence here on Wikipedia. How much experience do you have editing highly controversial articles? How much experience does the other editor have? Have they ever been blocked for "intimidation" or anything like it? I urge you to be very careful when making such accusations against other editors. If you do, you will be expected to furnish rock solid evidence. Please be careful. Thank you, and I wish you well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Point taken. Rest assured I don't want a confrontation, let alone the headache of make a complaint or worse, accusations. Good advice, however.

Thank you for helping.

KSci (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

How to resubmit a rejected article once updated

I had created an article submission for the TAG school in New York City, which was rejected on the basis of: 1) Insufficient referencing; 2) Generally articles on schools (elementary?) are not accepted. Since then, I have updated the page with content, and more references and would like to resubmit. I would also point to the fact that this school is one of 5-6 citywide Gifted and Talented Schools in New York City, and that, at least 3-4 of these already have wikipedia articles.

Jandocastro (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jandocastro. Are you ready to smack your forehead and say d'oh? I do that pretty damn often. In the rejection notice in the article, there's a giant blue button that says Resubmit. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jandocastro: Welcome to the Teahouse. Please read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I have participated in many deletion debates about schools, and I consider it highly unlikely that your article would be kept if moved to mainspace and then nominated for deletion. As a general rule of thumb, we delete a very large percentage of articles about primary schools, except for that tiny minority that are about schools of architectural or historic significance. This appears to be a run-of-the-mill primary school except for the fact that it accepts only the top 3% of students and therefore its students perform well. There is nothing in the references that you have provided that shows that this school is notable as Wikipedia defines that term. The fact that other similar schools have Wikipedia articles is not evidence that this school should have an article, but instead an indication that perhaps those other articles should be deleted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Help with tools and such?

Hi, I am new to wikipedia, and am confused with how tagging and other tools work. Help, please? BoyBeast (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, BoyBeast! It's pretty easy once you get the hang of it. The most common tags are cleanup templates. These are standardized messages that indicate problematic content. For example, when you see a questionable statement that has no citations, you can tag it with {{citation needed}}. Simply put {{citation needed}} directly after the questionable statement. If you notice many unsourced statements, you can put {{refimprove}} at the top of the article instead of adding lots of individual cleanup templates. Cleanup templates usually state their problems, but if it's often helpful if you explain your concerns on the article's talk page. This is especially true if you put a less specific cleanup template on the top of the article, such as {{POV}}. In most cases, anyone can remove a cleanup template once they feel the problem has been resolved. Some templates, like the POV one, indicate a discussion is occurring on the talk page, and they shouldn't be removed until the discussion ends. There are other kinds of tags, too, like speedy deletion tags, but they're more complicated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Further to NinjaRobotPirate's answer, you might like to know that there is a list of such templates at Wikipedia:Template messages, BoyBeast. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirect with Possibilities

There's a wikipedia page, Kerikeri High School which is marked as "Redirect with possibilities" and redirects to the Education section of the article Kerikeri. What is the correct etiquette to creating pages marked like this? I don't want to step on any toes, or violate policy/protocol (especially if the article was previously deleted), but the school is certainly notable enough to deserve an article. MrSeabody (talk) 05:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You can simply start editing and replace the redirect with the article. It will be considered a new article, so will be added to the new page patrol queue and may be subject to deletion, etc. But schools are given a lot of slack as far as notability is concerned so if you think you can make a good article out of it, I'd say go for it. Joe Roe (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, MrSeabody, welcome to the Teahouse. Since you have a relatively short editing history, I recommend that you do not just drop an article over the existing redirect. I recommend that you first develop your article as Draft:Kerikeri High School, under the Articles for Creation process. That gives you a much more forgiving environment for development, with feedback from reviewers. You certainly could be bold and just replace the redirect, but the article immediately comes under much more harsh scrutiny. AfC drafts are the low pressure way of developing an article to a good standard prior to being published. If you go directly to creating it in main space, the first challenge might occur immediately, e.g. if some editors thought that there was insufficient content to justify the article and that the redirect should remain (drafting should skip that initial hurdle completely). Murph9000 (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

How to get Andaman Sheekha approved

Hi i have created a very small page of Andaman Sheekha all details are authenticate.. the Andaman Sheekha is a very prominent news paper in Andaman, India... why it is not getting approved.. can someone help

pls help... wikipedia rules are too confusing..pls help

Sanjib Wikilover247 (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Sanjib. It is unfortunate that, like many people, you have registered with Wikipedia and immediately set about the difficult task of creating a new article. I always advise new users to spend at least a few weeks improving exzisting articles and learning how Wikipedia works before they embark on this difficult task.
The answer to your question is references! Wikipedia is not interested in what you, or I, think or know about the newspaper, and certainly not in anything that the newspaper or its employees or agents have said about it. It only interested in what people who have no connection with the newspaper have published about it in reliable sources. To get the draft accepted, you need to find at least two or three articles about the newspaper in major newspapers or magazines, or in books from reputable publishers (and not based on interviews or press releases), and write the article based entirely on what those sources have said about it. Please see Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for this advice.. I shall keep this in mind... i have good reference from reputed newspaper shall add that... and also do some editing works.... without miss..

thanks alot

really appreciate Wikilover247 (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Making Wikipedia page for artist I manage

Hi - I need help on getting some information up on a NYC based contemporary artist. I submitted a brief article and also a headshot and it was contested for speedy deletion. The information provided is 100% true and I own the rights to the headshots as we had them professionally done in 2015 for an exhibition. How can I go about this? Messiahjoshua (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Messiahjoshua: Please see our conflict of interest policy. Writing an article about someone you're professionally connected to in this way is inappropriate; Wikipedia is a volunteer-written encyclopaedia, not a means of promotion. Joe Roe (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Read the conflict of interest policy. Wikipedia is not here to help you promote an artist. Also, the fact that you own the rights to an image is not, in general, sufficient for us to permit you to post the image, unless you are willing to release the copyright under a CC-BY-SA copyleft, not only for Wikipedia, but to the world. Your user page was deleted because it was overly promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
If you want your article to exist on Wikipedia, you have to make sure that it meets notability and neutrality policies. Wikipedia is meant to be "the sum of all human knowledge" but it is not an indiscriminate collection of everything. But I'd like it if articles depended on verifiability, neutrality and non-originality instead of notability though. --Darth Tacker (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Google earth image

I would like to use a Google Earth image in an article I am writing. I think the image itself is copyright protected. I thought the solution would be to mark the place on Google Earth and then refer to it as an external link. Will it work and, if so, how do I do it? Regards, Vaaljapie (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Vaaljapie! If you want to use the map image to support what you've written you can cite it with the template {{Google maps}} (inside <ref> tags). Putting a link under External Links is another way to go (please see Wikipedia:External links for information and instructions). However, if the article is about a location, it may be preferable to include geographical coordinates which will automatically link to Google maps and several other mapping services. There are parameters for geographical coordinates in {{Infobox settlement}}, for example, or you could otherwise use the template {{Coord}}. These will place the coordinates at the top-right of the article. Hope this helps! Feel free to ask if you have more questions! - Reidgreg (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I will try it all. I hope there is no return bout. Regards, Vaaljapie (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@Vaaljapie: If it meets your needs adequately, Wikipedia's generic {{Coord}} and similar templates can be preferable, as they give visitors a choice of different mapping services. Obviously if your needs are only properly met by linking to Google, that's different. Set coords in the infobox in preference to a separate template, in general, for the main position link of the article. Be careful of geodetic systems if precision is necessary; GPS and most of the Internet mapping services use WGS 84, but some references and maps may use another system, which changes the physical point a set of coordinates maps to. If you come back for more specific advice, please link the article, so that we have the full context to work with. Murph9000 (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help as well. I am going to have a pleasant Sunday morning trying out all your advice. Alles van die beste from South Africa, Vaaljapie (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Your advice worked like a charm and kept me quite busy until Wednesday. Now for the next ones, if you don't mind. Can I show more than one position at the same time and possibly name each position. I would like to show the location of four forts at the same time and possibly name them on the map as well. Sorry about troubling you again. Vaaljapie (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

class=notpageimage|
Interesting Places
@Vaaljapie: You can certainly do that as individual links with {{Coord}}. Just don't use |display=title. For example:
I don't know of a way to get multiple markers on the map simultaneously, but you can certainly provide an unlimited number of map links. The map stuff we use in infoboxes is probably also worth a look (I don't have an immediate answer for that, I'll need to look into it).
Murph9000 (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Vaaljapie: Ok, {{Location map+}} (and other templates in that general family) may be of interest. Finding the right map for it can be a pain. Example floating on the right, source is higher up just due to the way floats work. Murph9000 (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again. Vaaljapie (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

How do I make a bot?

I'm thinking of making a bot to do this on articles;

  • N lives were lost --> N people died
  • no lives were lost --> no one died
  • lost his/her life --> died
  • lost their lives --> died
  • passed away --> died
  • exceptions: quotes and links

I've thought of naming it the time of writing this and now I think I'd call the bot "CasualtyBot". So how do I make the bot? --Darth Tacker (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Creating a bot. Everymorning (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Do not do this, you do not have community consensus to make sweeping changes. Just starting to do this manually might be viewed by some as Wikipedia:disruptive editing. Murph9000 (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I figured out I specified what tasks I'd like for my potential future "CasualtyBot" to do here, but now where do I make the bot proposal? --Darth Tacker (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Nowhere. First establish a community consensus for such changes, which I believe will be quite unlikely. The only possible place for that, due to the vast scale of your proposal, would be Wikipedia:Village pump. Murph9000 (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval is where you submit bots. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) would probably be the best place to get consensus for the edits. Without consensus, it's unlikely to be approved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking for a template

Is there a template that highlights bias in an article? Verified Cactus (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a template to note a lack of neutral point of view: template:POV Gab4gab (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Verified Cactus. I'm not sure what you mean by "highlights" but maybe you are looking for {{Unbalanced}} or another at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Neutrality and factual accuracy. We don't have a template that uses highlighting as in different background color to mark biased text. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Planning new assessments Wikipedia pages

Dear, When will a new assessment (Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment) of articles take place again? I'd like to know, so I can work towards a deadline.S Khemadhammo (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, S Khemadhammo, and welcome to the Teahouse. Articles (new and old) are continuously being assessed with the scheme at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. In that sense, the deadline is immediately after you create your article in the mainspace. In reality, when your article will get assessed depends on the topic and how active other editors (those who make assessments) who work on similar articles are. Note that for the highest ratings (A, GA, and FA) a review has to be conducted and for those the deadline is soon after you have initiated a review request. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Finnusertop:, thank you for your answer. I guess continuous is a keyword at Wikipedia, haha. S Khemadhammo (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-part question including Draft:Federico Pistono

This is a two-part question. The first part is specific and has to do with Draft:Federico Pistono. I have been asked to accept it, but it was deleted as per a deletion discussion, and one of the questions to be addressed by an AFC reviewer is whether the article will survive a deletion discussion. Do other editors think that it should be accepted? The second question, which is related, is whether other reviewers and other experienced editors agree with me that a previous deletion discussion puts a burden on the submitting author to demonstrate that the draft is better than the deleted article. (I have requested that the deleted article be restored to my user space or someone’s user space so that I can compare them.) User:Fixuture appears to disagree with me and says that the original deletion discussion may have made a faulty decision. In the specific case, the deletion discussion was confirmed by a deletion review. Do other editors agree with me that a draft that re-creates an article that was deleted by AFD should be strictly scrutinized to be better than the deleted article? (I often see drafts that re-create a title that was speedy-deleted, and then I just use my own judgment, but in the case of AFD, the judgment was that of the community.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Robert, I think as a minimum the new draft should be weighed carefully against the major points of the past deletion discussion, to see if they would apply again. If it looks like the compelling cases from the discussion would apply again, that would indicate a problem. AfD isn't supposed to be permanent banishment, as I understand it, but the previous issues need to be addressed before CSD G4 can be reliably avoided and it can avoid a straight replay of the previous AfD discussion and outcome. I don't think you need to necessarily compare it against the deleted version(s), just be confident that it is well clear of all possible CSD criteria and does not seem to come close to matching what was discussed in the AfD. Murph9000 (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to let another reviewer compare the current draft against the deleted article. The deleted article is archived at http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Federico_Pistono (and possibly at other wikis that preserve deleted Wikipedia articles so that I can view them with reading glasses rather than special admin glasses that I don't have). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I agree with you that the draft is weak, and I also agree that extra scrutiny of a draft is warranted when the topic is one which has already had an article deleted, and when that decision has been upheld by a deletion review. I would expect that a successful new submission would have references to outstanding new sources that would establish notability convincingly. That does not seem to be the case in this instance. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Picture

I did write the german article about Dwayne S. Milburn.... Now I am doing the english one... I cant upload the pic... this is what Comes up:

There is another file already on the site with the same content.

Why??

--Torsten Lang (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You may be uploading the same picture twice. I'm not sure if this is what's happening, but there's no need to upload it again. Just use the file name and format that's on the German article, put it in the English article, and put an English caption on it. White Arabian Filly Neigh 15:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Assuming you are referring to File:DwayneXXXXXXXX.jpg, which is uploaded to Commons, you can use that on any language's Wikipedia, as explained above. I suspect the confusion may be that photos uploaded to a specific language's Wikipedia, under a claim of fair use, can only be used on that language's Wikipedia. If you want to use such a photo on a different language Wikipedia, it has to be uploaded to that language's Wikipedia, with a new fair use claim, before it can be used. - Arjayay (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC),


Well, the Pics are in there now. Now, only the references and the weblinks need a makeover. I really do not know how this works. :-/

(Torsten Lang (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC))

The references are the vital thing if you want an article on the English Wikipedia. You ought to look at what another editor did on the German version to include reference citations. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks... this is nice and all... I still do not get it.... I cant do this. Again.... could someone please do a "make over" on the references and the web links? They are in the article, just look bad:-( Thanks Torsten Lang (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_527&oldid=741221878"