Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 606

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 600 ← Archive 604 Archive 605 Archive 606 Archive 607 Archive 608 → Archive 610

review

I hate to ask a question but I have searched through the teahouse. I have written a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Richardredpath

and need it reviewed. I am the inventor of the Digital Driver's License that soon will be the standard and want to convey the technology underneath. I am not advertising anything just the facts. It is good mathematics. I would later show how the disconnected works in the page but that requires pictures. I cannot upload a picture of myself yet I guess. So I am not sure I did things right.

Richardredpath (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Richardredpath, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia articles are based on what has been written about the subject in reliable sources that are independent. What this draft seems to convey is what has been written by the subject based on his patents. In any event, writing autobiographies is not encouraged. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I saw the article for Jerry Cuomo and used that as a template source entry point. The patents are stated to verify an independent reliable source. I am the inventor of the Digital Driver's License that will work like plastic. There has been for years a number of efforts to create a digital driver's license and none successful they require a connection to validate and also privacy control does not exists. So hence my article. I am also the lead inventor for the Someone is typing... patent on your phone. The intent of the article is to Wiki who invented the Digital Driver's License and the Mathematics behind it. I would add more for the how the disconnect works but that requires pictures in the future. My question is, It says push a button for review but there is no button to push for review. By the way Benoit Mandelbrot was in my department who invented Fractals. I also added personal interests but felt it was not appropriate but it was on Jerry Cuomo's Wiki. Not sure that is valid.

Richardredpath (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

By your own admission, much of this is WP:Original research. You need to get it published elsewhere before it can go in Wikipedia. Patent applications and issued patents must be treated as self-published, non-independent, primary sources for Wikipedia purposes. Please also see WP:Autobiography and WP:Conflict of interest. The article on Jerry Cuomo is not the best example to use because it also might be an autobiography, or might be written by someone related to the subject. There must be some reliable independent sources that have written about you or about the digital licence. I wonder if there should be separate articles. What does anyone else think? Your main user page is not the correct place to create an article. It would be better to create it in draft space at Draft:Richard Redpath or in a subpage of your user space such as User:Richardredpath/Richard Redpath Dbfirs 18:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

answer: Realiable published sources do exist, the issued Patents with the USPTO are published. This is a highly vetted system. You cannot get any more vetted than a statutory requirement by the US government and all over the world.

(2) WP:Conflict of interest answer: There is no conflict of interest, I am not selling anything. I am trying to convey the two cornerstone processes that enable a Digital Driver's License, disconnected authentication and privacy control. Being able to point to a wiki is so much easier than trying to explain. Also the origin. Now I could start with an interesting story how the idea was formed but that is personal.

(3) WP:Autobiography answer: This is far from an audio biography and I would invite removing anything of personal information. I see that Jerry Cuomo had personal interest and wondered myself. I welcome what is needed to edit. Also there is no point of view. I am simply outlining the mathematics and of course want to diagram the disconnected operation how it works when I can upload pictures.

So you all let me know what is needed

Richardredpath (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Patents might be a reliable source for some claims, Richardredpath, but they do not contribute to establishing the notability of a subject because they are not independent of that subject. What we require is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, reliable websites, scholarly journals or books. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
It seems you may have already established an opinion but I will give it go here with some more information. The two cornerstone patents discussed as evidence of the origination of the truly disonnected driver's license were granted 2015 and 2016 are notable and have changed the landscape of identity like we have never envisioned before. The up coming One World Identity Washington DC May 2017 Conference has made IBM the key note speaker due to this disuptive technology of which I created and worked on for three years. You cannot buy the key note speaker role as One World Identity must be neutral as the leader in disseminating information. I certainly get an email from them for you if you wish. In One World Identity's own words “This is truly is changing the Identity landscape and is the only real solution they have seen to date”. At this conference we will present a live deployed working model with the audience. For the Wiki I haved edited the personal interest and will remove the career section which simply leaves the intro and the two facts of the patents. Like I said I simply took an example which was not a very good one to derive a new wiki. I also mentioned I want to include in the web page a pictured discussion of how the disconnected model works but have not done that as I cannot upload pictures (yet). One fact though is that over 100M people in the USA will be using my algorithm and already 100s of millions of people around the world use my chat patent seamlessly of which I am the lead inventor unlike others documented as co-inventor. The Wiki math discussion is made quite elegant and easy to read. So let me know. This is epic and no more plastic cards for anything required. Also the join this discussion keeps forgetting where I clicked and append previous, who knows why.

Richardredpath (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Richardredpath. I haven't read your draft in any detail and don't particularly have a view on it. What I do have a view on is Wikipedia's notability policy. I think that you might be confusing notability as it is defined on Wikipedia and its more common, everyday meaning. When we talk about notability here on Wikipedia, we mean coverage in published, independent sources, which articles can be based on. An e-mail won't cut it as it's not a published source. I'm not say that the subject of your draft is not notable but you need to demonstrate this by citing published, independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Richardredpath: the grant of a patent is no evidence of what we call notability. Officially this is because the patent is not independent, it is a document created by the inventor. If your invention has really "changed the landscape of identity like we have never envisioned before", you can wait until a newspaper has noticed and written about this change, and cite the newspaper article. Maproom (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
In reply to your comment; I will supply the newspapers article though I think the depth is quite shallow. Patents are not documents created by inventors they are legal documents with statutory requirements that require proof of origination and validation that they are indeed unique and not obvious; a creation that is prominent and important (synonyms for notably). They are a recipes that must describe a solution that can be duplicated for an application. But from previous posts here, just newspaper trash and magazine articles are good enough though I think they are way vapid and for entertainment. I look forward to providing that. I have been using Wiki for a decade and a donator. I mostly use it to look up algorithms for implementation, acronyms for standards or processes that need to be understood.

Richardredpath (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

My comment that "Patent applications and issued patents must be treated as self-published, non-independent, primary sources for Wikipedia purposes." was a direct quote from Wikipedia policy. Patents are created by inventors or by their lawyers under instruction from inventors, so are not independent. I agree that newspaper articles might not provide the depth that you would require, so try to find some respected scientific journals that have written in depth about you and your invention. There is always a WP:Conflict of interest in an autobiography Dbfirs 21:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, patents are about inventions, not inventors, Richardredpath, and this article is supposedly a biography of Richard Redpath. Some sources about Richard Redpath are therefore required. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I will get that for you Larry. Also you might want to read the article which is about DSA Group Homomorphism my invention (new concept) it is interesting and disruptive to the whole industry. Also later I will show how the disconnect works too but that requires pictures.

98.122.175.133 (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As you have already been told multiple times, Wikipedia is not interested in new concepts. Maproom (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Richardredpath:It seems to me that you do not get the point which others are trying to make.Okay you have a patent for your product but your product is not known to many widely(example in your city/state/country).It is not known if the industry will reject your product or it will accept it.There is a certain amount of uncertainity.If we were to accept your article and the industry rejected it Wikipedia and its policy (Which states that we have articles only about notable stuff) would get disreputed . You are welcomed to add the article about the product when the product becomes a success .Right now I do not think it is relevant to add it .FORCE RADICAL (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Richardredpath: If you wish to selflessly contribute to WP, consider writing an article on digital drivers licenses in general, citing secondary sources. Such an article may not glorify your name, but it would help the understanding of the subject. Further, you may suggest your bio as an article for creation--Quisqualis (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not really about success, Forceradical. It's about coverage, which is how we determine notability. Unsuccessful products often get significant coverage on which we can base articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
What strange names for users Forecradical and Cordless Larry and so on.

You will be using my algorithm DSA Group Homomorphism blockchain thats a fact and know nothing of how it works and you all already use my other patent on your phone today. By the way your blockchain Wiki is awful. Your RSA is pretty good. Not sure of the value of Wiki then if your not trying to enable people to look up things like a digital encyclopedia. I use it to look up algorithms (to use them) and their origins as well as standards, So your loss and I am sure there are plenty of those biographies that should have not be there according to your exceptional case standards. Just seems like a forum for arguments now and no matter what input I get from one person some other one chimes in and conveys "but thats an exception". I was just following through as directed, and I am sure you didn't even read the information which was outlined so anyone can understand. Read the material and be responsible instead of commenting so quickly; that should be fair enough. But as I said you all have formed your opinions and like Mathew Brodick said in the movie WarGames, the winning hand is not to play at all. I saw a Wiki of my colleague and thought I would donate but that was a great mistake on my part. So sorry I ventured in and did all that math markup work. Its sad

98.122.175.133 (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't formed my opinions - if you provide independent sources that discuss your life in depth, I will support the creation of an article. If such sources don't exist, then any such article will be deleted per WP:NOTABILITY. If there are existing articles that fail the criteria, then please do let me know and I will look to have them deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Cannot use Findlink

How is this used? It generated my search automatically, and I clicked "search". It churned the blue Firefox icon, and then... the same findlink page is sitting there before me. Is it broken?--Quisqualis (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Quisqualis, welcome to the Teahouse. It seems to be working just fine for me with Firefox. If I go to this link for example, it returns exactly the kind of results I'd expect. Opening the view diff links on that page in a new tab or window does not, however. Mduvekot (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

"Opening the view diff links on that page in a new tab or window" is something I have not tried, but thanks for the warning.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Works for me too. External tools (something not at en.wikipedia.org) are sometimes unstable. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
How do I provide the input it expects from me? Is there an input field?Quisqualis (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't enjoy belaboring this, but I want to improve Gait belt. It needs links. Findlink is a dead page. Even using this link. Is it permissible to place a link to a screengrab image of the page I'm seeing on findlink?--Quisqualis (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

How to publish Wikipedia pages in another language.

Hello! I wrote an article about a German actor who I recently saw in a movie. Having googled him and not found a Wikipedia page I thought I'd make one in. Because I'm German and he was in a German film I wrote the wikipedia article in German, but now it was declined. How can I resubmit it in German? What should I do?

Sevenseassixlands (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There are many different Wikipedias, each containing articles in a different language. This one is the English version. You need to submit your article at the German Wikipedia. Hope this helps. Rojomoke (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Sevenseassixlands - It was declined, not because the actor is German, but because it doesn't have proper references. In my opinion, the subject probably is notable, but references are needed to establish notability. You are welcome either to submit it in German to the German Wikipedia or to resubmit it in English with references. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thank you everyone so much for your help! You have been very kind. I have now added more information and a few secondary sources, including two national press organisations and a big studio announcement, to support the notability of the subject at hand. Is this sufficient! Thank you for your patience.

Sevenseassixlands (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing "420 Collaboration" to improve cannabis/marijuana articles (easy tasks for novices available)

Not a question

Given that it's the 4/20 holiday, I thought to let folks here now that WikiProject Cannabis is holding a collaboration from 15-30 April to improve and expand cannabis coverage.

If there are any novice editors interested in this topic, please come and visit us at the project collaboration page. We also have a whole list of articles that need simple expansion, and some simple rote tasks like making templates and sorting categories. Not sure where to start? Just come and post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cannabis/420 Collaboration and tell us what you're interested in and what your skill level is, and we'd be happy to direct you to some tasks so you can hone your skills while learning more about our topic! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the upcoming

"420 collaboration",

which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017!

The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion.

For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney, I'm not sure this is the best place for your notice. The Teahouse is a place for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. There are plenty of other, more suitable venues to publicise WikiProject collaborations. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
And I had to protect the article 420 (cannabis culture) just now after a request at WP:RFP, so at least that article would not be editable by novices. I agree with the above: the Teahouse might not be the best place to post the request for help. Lectonar (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I thought to mention it here since we have a specific intent to help novice editors, and "how can I help?" appears to be a common question here. And I figured with today being a holiday, there might be a number of readers interested in building their skills on a timely topic. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that there are likely thousands of unofficial "holidays" worldwide, Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney, so using the Teahouse to make announcements like this is setting a precedent that could overwhelm the page. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

New Topics

I just learned how to modify an existing post but how do I create/post a new entry altogether?Katerinas8 (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Katerinas8, welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean a new Wikipedia article then I suggest using Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If you mean a new section in an existing page then see Help:Section. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
If you mean a Talk page, there is an option at the top of the page. There is an "Edit this page" button, and a "New section" button to the right of it. The Edit button is bold, and I at first had trouble "seeing" New section. Hope this helps.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The bold "edit this page" is only in the MonoBook skin registered users can select at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. The default Vector skin says "Edit" without bold. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Article moderation before posting

Hi, I had posted an article titled 'Rolta India' which got deleted by the moderators. The reason for this deletion was stated that the article was promotional. I have since then toned down the article so that it doesn't look promotional. I just wanted to get it checked before posting it so that I might not post anything promotional which is purely unintentional but might be against wikipedia's policies.

I wanted to know how do I go about this. Thanks! Jovian 13 (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The article is Rolta India. Jovian 13: you have dealt with the promotional language, but there's still a need to establish that the subject is notable, by including citations of reliable independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject. The article currently cites four sources. The first was written by the company itself, and the second and third are based on interviews with one of its directors, so none of these are independent. The fourth source is a directory entry, with no discussion. While the article lacks any evidence that its subject is notable, it is in danger of deletion. Maproom (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
What was said above, thank you @Maproom:. For the time being, I have moved the article to Draft:Rolta India to be worked upon; in the present state it would run the risk of being deleted again. Lectonar (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me

What is the "new account suspicious activity" filter? i got it in my first edit and I don't know what it is exactly. Lil Johnny (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lil Johnny. The details of the filter are hidden from public view because possibly problematic users shouldn't know what triggers the filter. Edit filters are automated with limited intelligence and can also be triggered by unproblematic edits. Just ignore it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Lil Johnny. Your first visible edit from this account was to place a PROD template on another editor's talk page. That is pretty sophisticated for a first edit. That may have been the trigger but I am not sure. As long as you edit productively, there should be no problems. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Another editor is continually undoing my work. What can I do about this?

I have begun editing a list of people from Detroit. The changes I have made seem very simple: 1) Some rappers are incorrectly listed twice, correctly as music artists but incorrectly as visual artists. I tried to make it so rappers are only listed as music artists, but another editor is disputing this. 2) An astronaut was incorrectly listed as a visual artist, so I moved them to separate section just for astronauts. Again, this was disputed. 3) Some of the people seem to be clearly listed out of alphabetical order, however, my attempts to put the list in alphabetical order have been disputed. They are telling me that I have to ask first before making these changes, and wait a week or more for "appropriate discussion"? This seems crazy. Leela872 (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Leela872: I think your edits to List of people from Detroit were reasonable, personally. Things like alphabetizing by last name shouldn't have to be discussed on the talk page. Categorization might be more contentious, but Detroit is not my area of expertise, so I'll defer to other editors to engage in talk page discussion. (It probably wasn't necessary to start three separate sections on the talk page for these issues, but that's not a huge deal.) Funcrunch (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The best person to comment is the other editor, John from Idegon. Let's hear their thoughts. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
What called my attention to these edits was the removal of Eminem's name from the list. As it were, he was listed twice and the entry under visual artists was removed. None of her edit summaries mentioned that, just that rappers were not visual artists. Another entry that she moved while alphabetizing was not from Detroit. I was doing recent change patrol on Michigan place and school articles at the time and reverted the change. When I messaged her, she still didn't mention the fact that Eminem was a dupe. On whole, I should have looked deeper, and hopefully our new friend has learned the utility of leaving descriptive edit summaries, making incremental edits so you can leave a descriptive summary and addressing issues raised completely and without snark. We're all hoomans. John from Idegon (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main problem here is that the editor continually undoing my work isn't even reading before they reinsert their incorrect information every time I correct this list. Not only are they not even reading the corrections I'm making to the list, but they are not reading my explanations. For example, above they say "When I messaged her, she still didn't mention the fact that Eminem was a dupe." That is completely incorrect, since when they messaged me yesterday, I very clearly wrote back yesterday, "I did not remove Eminem from that list, I removed Eminem from the section where he was incorrectly listed with visual artists like painters and sculptors, and left Eminem where he is listed correctly with other musicians." That was yesterday! And here we are a day later, and they are still refusing to correct these mistakes in the list! They told me I needed to "post on the article's talk page saying why you think it should be re ordered. If no one disagrees after a week or so, then go ahead and reorder the article." So, I posted clear descriptions of these three issues on the article's talk page yesterday, and so far no one, including John from Idegon, has responded on the talk page. So, to the others in this conversation, do I really need to wait a week or more for "appropriate discussion" with this editor who is not even reading my editing or my comments? That seems ridiculous! Or instead of waiting at least a week, can I go back to putting these corrections back into this article now, so that 1) I can correct the error where this lists rappers like Eminem twice, including incorrectly as a visual artist, 2) I can correct the error where it lists an astronaut as a visual artist, and 3) I can correct the errors where people are listed out of alphabetical order? These all seem like completely obvious errors, I am not sure why this editor is undoing my obvious corrections and refusing to allow these changes, and this editor's insistence that I wait at least a week to correct their obvious errors seems completely counterproductive to creating an accurate list. There are several other mistakes I have seen in this and other wikipedia articles, and if this other editor is going to continue to undo all my work and force me to delay each correction for at least a week, then there are unfortunately going to be many easily fixable errors in these articles for an unreasonably long time. I would really appreciate any help with this! Thanks, Leela872 (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

review

Dear all, hello! I've written an article on Cargo iQ, with two unsuccessful submissions. I understand why it was unsuccessful the first time (because it was based on primary sources written by the subject). The second time referenced using news coverage of the subject.

Just need a pointer/s on what needs to be corrected this time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cargo_iQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsed Biscuit (talk • contribs) 15:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You added a list of references, but you only cited two of them. (I have commented off the uncited references, so they aren't visible in the draft. But they're still there for you to copy and use if you find a way of citing them.) The ones you did cite do not establish that the subject is notable: one is based on statements by the subject's directors, and the the other appears to be an specification document rather than a discussion of the subject. Maproom (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Maproom and the reviewer, Parsed Biscuit. You need to demonstrate significant coverage in independent sources, which probaly means citing at least four or five properly independent sources. You also need to make sure that all of the main points of the article are supported by references - see WP:VERIFY on this. You can reference each source multiple times if necessary, but it needs to be clear how the sources support all of the material in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys i need help again

i need help about my article how i add colored table with all colors example:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_in_Great_Britain_and_Ireland look at List of natural disasters to have affected the British Isles, ordered chronologically you know how to add colors in the tabels when i add them? I need them at my color scheme using in tabel please help me

Silviu (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Silviu, welcome to the Teahouse. If you don't see the latest edits on a page then try to bypass your cache. Click the "edit" link at at section heading to edit that section. Click edit on an article to see how that article does something. I see you use VisualEditor. I don't know how table operations work there or which things are possible. Click the pencil icon at the top right of VisualEditor to change to the source editor. List of natural disasters in Great Britain and Ireland#List of natural disasters to have affected the British Isles, ordered chronologically colors table cells with code like style="background: rgb(245,222,179)" | before the cell. There are other ways to specify the color. See more at Help:Using colours. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

hello i need help again

hello how i add in my article colored tabel example:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_in_Great_Britain_and_Ireland look at List of natural disasters to have affected the British Isles, ordered chronologically schemes like a caption how i add these colors on my tabels from my article Silviu (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

hey why not appear?

Silviu (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ugh

Silviu (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@TalismanOnline: This is not a live chat, quit spamming the board. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

sorry for spam i not saw my questions

Silviu (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC) please forgive me i only saw discusion with review and i think teahouse it's broken and i spammed when i wanted see my question please don't kick me for that

The teahouse is not broken, you are just not using it right. Do not delete messages that have been replied to and do not erase or alter other people's posts. Instead of creating a new section every single time, edit an existing section. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Creation rejected due to no references but references do not apply

I tried to create a sub page for the ER Studio page that would be a place to present macro concepts. I have worked with that tool for over a decade and I find that the macro system is paradoxically both powerful and poorly supported. I have built a large set of macros to aid in my day to day use of the tool and realize if I could share my ideas there is a good chance others could use them and improve them.

Unfortunately, macros themselves are things a user builds to assist in various administrative functions of the tool. If I wanted to include references, the only possible references would be to the existing documentation for the language. The macros I have built are probably of interest to m,any people who use the tool. Likewise there are probably macros other people use that I haven't considered but would gain from.

The page I wanted to submit is found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tpantazi/sandbox

contents of draft

In case my sandbox in not visible, the basic content was as follows:

Automation Macros

Automation macros are similar to triggers. They are designed to be executed by actions taken while using the GUI for ER Studio. They macros are called handlers. There are three of the macros available for use:

BasicHandler - which handles adding of objects to the diagram such as models, entities, tables, columns, etc.
UpdateHandler - which handles changes to existing object in the diagram such as entities, tables, models, submodels, relationships, columns, etc.
DeleteHandler - which deletions of objects from the diagram such as entities, tables, models, submodels, relationships, columns, etc.

Manual Macros

Manual macros are run by the user but are designed to perform standard operations that are generally common for data model users. A few examples of the macros are reports that detail schema designs, macros that ensure naming standards and macros that automate adding commonly used attributes or columns such as create date or update date. I generally put these into the following categories:

Process macros - these macros do things that manage standards or naming procedures. Reporting macros - this is pretty self explanatory, but to list a few favorites we have a Schema report that lists various levels of detail about the tables and columns, we also have several higher level reports that list only tables and maybe things such as storage parameters.

Tpantazi (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as this was a start page, I did not include any actual macros that I have built but I did expect to begin showing them once the page was accepted. Tpantazi (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tpantazi. I am sorry but I am afraid that you may have some misconceptions about Wikipedia. We do not have sub pages of encyclopedia articles. We have articles about topics that are Notable, and our articles summarize what published, reliable, independent sources say about a topic. We do not include articles about things that are "of interest" but lack coverage in reliable sources, and we do not publish original research of any type. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Tpantazi and welcome to the Teahouse.
I'm afraid the article you are trying to produce is not the sort of thing that belongs on Wikipedia. We have a policy statement at WP:NOT that discusses various things that "Wikipedia is not" and among those things are user manuals or software documentation. Perhaps you should try readthedocs.org or GitHub as a place where you can develop your contribution and make it available. I don't think you'll be asked to supply references there. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 19:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about iXpress article

The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IXpress is included in the list of articles that may contain original research. The references are all pointing to the company or to videos in youtube by the company. can it be fixed? and if so, how? Thank you. Rogerx2 (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're asking, Rogerx2. Are you asking how you should go about improving iXpress, or are you asking that somebody else do it? If the first, the answer is to find reliable sources about the service, and replace all the unreferenced or inadequately referenced material in the article by material based on the sources. If the second, I'm not sure there's much you can do. You might ask at WT:WikiProject Buses or WT:WikiProject Ontario if there is anybody interested in working on the article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you ColinFine. I am triying to fix it, but after reading find reliable sources all I could find were articles like this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/waterloo-region-new-buses-federal-provincial-funding-1.4027874 with almost no information I can use. If the company web and youtube can't be used I don't know how to fix it, so I will ask at WT:WikiProject Buses. --Rogerx2 (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Rogerx2 You can use the company's website for uncontroversial factual information, such as dates and places. But unless the bulk of the article can be sourced from independent published reliable sources, then the subject is by definition not notable and the article should be deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, ColinFine I would apreciate it if you could give me a hand. I tried to nominate the article using the PROD template but another user told me that I did not do it properly and that I was doing vandalism. I'm not sure of my mistake. I read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and tried to follow the instructions to nominate listed on proposed deletion. Should I have opened a deletion discussion instead? --Rogerx2 (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Rogerx2. Secondarywaltz clearly misused the word vandalism here. I'm not even sure what the concern was, but I'm guessing he or she missed the fact that you substituted the template, after missing it on your first edit. Normally, if anyone removes a prod (even the article creator) it cannot be returned and so an XfD process is the only option left. However, here it was apparently removed only because the person thought you had not added it properly, so I think it could be returned. But if it is removed again, do not return it. At that point an articles for deletion debate would be your next step. I would usually say make sure you comply with WP:BEFORE, but your prod summary indicates you have already looked and failed to find suitable sources to indicate the subject is notable. I would also suggest you use that word, and link it, as a more focused basis for both the prod or for the AfD (what I think you were getting at with your prod nomination text anyway).

For example, instead of "The articles I could find don´t help to fix the article", you might say something like: "I looking for [[WP:IRS|reliable]], [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary]] and [[WP:INDEPENDENT|independent]] sources to fix this article but was not able to find any, indicating the subject is not [[WP:N|notable]]." If you do add back the prod, and its removed and you wish to go to AfD, you can find instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Also, some users use Twinkle to make nominations easier. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Fuhghettaboutit I will follow your instructions. Thank you very much for your answer. It was very useful. --Rogerx2 (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Rogerx2: That template is to be used for proposed deletion where it is believed that the deletion would be uncontroversial and you failed to post any notifications to creator or frequent editors and appear to be a new editor on a mission to delete. What part of "If this template is removed, do not replace it." don't you understand? You may be correct, but you should nominate it for deletion so that it can be discussed. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Secondarywaltz. I am sorry if I did not use the right procedure. I did not intend to do it on purpose. I tried to improve not delete the article because it was listed as having original research at the Community Portal. I looked for references but I could only find mentions, no in depth coverage by independent secondary sources so I understand it's not notable. Please let me know if you would like to fix it or if I should nominate it for deletion. --Rogerx2 (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
To be fair to Rogerx2, I can see how your edit summary when removing the PROD template might have caused confusion for a new editor, Secondarywaltz. It does sort of sound like you meant that Rogerx2 didn't post the template correctly. Rogerx2: if you want to nominate the article for deletion now, you should do so via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
...although I am pretty sure that independent sources exist, which would demonstrate the notability of the topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Cordless Larry The articles for deletion instructions are long, so if there are any independent sources with "Significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" please let me know how to find them so I won´t make the same mistake again. I will really appreciate it and I would use them to improve the article rather than having to nominate it for deletion.

This are the ones I coud find:

The rest were small mentions about changes in routes. ¿are this enough? --Rogerx2 (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty more here, Rogerx2. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Cordless Larry sorry to bother you so much. That is where I looked could you please give me examples of the ones I should add to the article so that the notability would be met. My problem was that most seemed to be just mentions of routes and did not talk about the company. If that is enough, I will add that. --Rogerx2 (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I would focus on improving the article by sourcing the material that is already there and expanding it where possible, Rogerx2. I doubt anyone will question the article's notability, and if they do then this can easily be demonstrated in an AfD. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
That is my original problem for what I was asking for help. None of the valid references I found can be used for this: "The "i" in iXpress stands for "intelligent", as vehicles on the route were among the first to implement on-board intelligent transportation systems. The technology has since come to all of GRT's vehicles" or for the seven paragraphs after the one starting with "iXpress uses the same fare and ticketing structure as GRT’s other bus routes..." Maybe I should focus on other articles. This one seems to be too hard for me. Thank you in any case Cordless Larry, because I have learned a lot in the process. --Rogerx2 (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
If you can't find a source for an unsourced claim in an article after having done a proper search, Rogerx2, then you are perfectly entitled to remove the claim, per WP:VERIFY. Sometimes, it is necessary to remove material from articles to improve them. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
That will make it much easier, Cordless Larry, Tomorrow I will give it a shot. I will add the valid references and remove all the info I can´t verify with them. It will be much shorter, but probably better. --Rogerx2 (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan, Rogerx2. If anyone challenges your removal of unsourced material, be prepared to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, but remind them that, per WP:BURDEN, the onus is on the editor wanting to restore deleted material to provide reliable sources for it. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I will do that, Cordless Larry. Thank you for your guidance. --Rogerx2 (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Rogerx2: Excuse my impatience but I don't have much time to spend on Wikipedia these days. I easily found other sources that you didn't and so I think you need to open it up for discussion. You may be right that these bus routes should be merged into the GRT article now that the ION LRT line is being built. Do you know what I mean? Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Secondarywaltz no need to apologize, I realized I made some mistakes. I had not seen that article, but I agree that merging into the iXpress section of Grand River Transit sounds like a very good idea. At least that one has one reference and it will be much easier to improve. I will try to do the nomination recomending the merge. Please check in case I make a mistake. --Rogerx2 (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Secondarywaltz. I followed the steps but I don't quite understand one of them. Can you please give me a hand with this: "If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant Wikiproject(s) through one or more deletion sorting lists. Then add a template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.". Thank you in advance. --Rogerx2 (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Rogerx2, you seem to have nominated the article for deletion (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IXpress, an incorrect capitalisation, which has caused some issues that I will try to fix) rather than proposing a merger as described at Wikipedia:Merging. I suggest that you post a note on the deletion discussion page saying that you want to withdraw the deletion nomination. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, I fixed the log entry by moving the deletion discussion page. I then realised that I could have just changed the log from this to a capital "I", which might have been simpler, but it's fixed in any case. I still suggest requesting that the AfD be closed in favour of a merger discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Cordless Larry for fixing it. I think Secondarywaltz was recommending me to create a deletion discussion and propose the merge there because according to a reference I cited above and I added to Grand River Transit, iXpress and ION will be merged and the current because of the lack of independent references. But if you can please open that merger proposal the propper way I will withdraw it. --Rogerx2 (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Cordless Larry. Two users already voted to merge as proposed so even if it is not the recomended way, I ask that we finish the debate there. Next time I will know what to do. Thank you. --Rogerx2 (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's best now that others have given their views, Rogerx2 - otherwise it will get complicated. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Cordless Larry. This has been harder than I anticipated. --Rogerx2 (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry, Rogerx2. The AfD page capitalisation might well have been a quirk of Wikipedia's software rather than anything you did - article titles that start with a lower-case letter are unusual, and it seems they retain an upper-case first letter in the URL. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
It has been an interesting crash course Cordless Larry. Thanks again. --Rogerx2 (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

cant use findlink and cannot locate my post

Email from wp, went to this page, my post is #60 in scrollbox, cannot find on TH page w/ control f. Why, and what is going on?Quisqualis (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Also why are edits to Ixpres being attributed to me, when I have no knowledge or interest in this Canadian urban transit service, and definitely never heard of it before an hour ago?Quisqualis (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Just click on this link and it will talk you to that section you posted earlier. Also, the Ixpres article does not exist, so I don't understand how that is happening. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
As MRD2014 said, the article Ixpres doesn't exist. Did you mean iXpress? If so, where do you think that edits to that article are being attributed to you? Your username does not appear in the history of that page, and that article does not appear in your contribution record. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This page currently has the section #Question about iXpress article. I guess that is somehow connected to your belief that edits are being attributed to you. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
sorry, that's the article. I first noticed it in my email inbox, then found 2 contributions, none of this have I yet read. Could the glitch be on my end (too many tabs), or on your part?Quisqualis (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Quisqualis: Do you mean that notifications of edits by others are being mailed to you? "attributed" to you means it's claimed that you made the edits. If it's just about notification mails then I guess you clicked the iXpress link in #Question about iXpress article, accidentally clicked the watch tab/icon (a star by default) to add the article to your Watchlist, and you have a checkmark at "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed" at the bottom of Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this. I wonder why I appeared in the #Question about iXpress article's History, though. I know I never visited #Question about iXpress article, as I don't know what the "question" might be, or what sort of page that refers to (meaning the "#"). How did I end up in the History? It seems impossible. Further, I haven't visited my user page in months. It's all a bizarre mystery to me.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Quisqualis, that "#" simply means the wikilink is pointing to a section on this page. For example, typing #cant use findlink and cannot locate my post links to the top of this section. It's the same thing as typing Wikipedia:Teahouse#cant use findlink and cannot locate my post. — Gestrid (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought one had to mention the page before the section, although I got that from copying from the URL, which not only is redundant, but leads only to the article, not the section. I had tohope the reader would glimpse the URL and go to the section, but it bothered me. I had no idea, but now I may. Learning Wikitext by trial and error gives a few errors here and there.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Quisqualis, I would recommend you read Help:Link for help on using both external links and internal wikilinks. — Gestrid (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. It ought to limit my error rate!--Quisqualis (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Quisqualis: If you haven't changed email settings recently at Special:Preferences and you aren't used to receive email notifications of edits then maybe you aren't using your watchlist? It's a very useful feature to discover edits to pages of interest. See Help:Watchlist. If IXpress is listed at Special:EditWatchlist then you can remove it there or on a tab on the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to my watchlist, I'm inundated with emails. Having never visited, read or edited IXpress, it never was on my list. I first realized my "connection" to the subject was via an update email regarding the "question". Strangely, around 11:00 UTC, I found that the edit history and the emails had all disappeared. I believe Cordless Larry found and fixed something within WP's innards.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Legally speaking, can a Google HTML meta tag or a similar resource be added to a wiki page via their search console to make indexing easier?

My fellow and appreciated contributors:

Asking this because an approved page I created has not indexed in Google after eight days of being public (no NOINDEX tag & last edit was 8 days ago before I added an INDEX tag today, the page is patrolled I think). And so I was wondering about the legality of 'claiming' the site via Search Console at Google to help the process and what would be the best method for that if allowed.

If it could be done, where in the body of the article text should I place a google tag?

Thank you so!

MarthaDaisy MarthaDaisy (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi MarthaDaisy. If this is about Alice Waddington then it's currently the third Google hit for me on the search Alice Waddington. It varies how long it takes for search engines to index pages. You cannot place anything in an article to speed it up. I don't think you can get access as webmaster of Wikipedia in Google. I don't know whether anyone in the Wikimedia Foundation has registered. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
My Google search for "Alice Waddington" also shows Alice Waddington at #3, right after IMDb and Instagram, and before Twitter and her own web page. That is very good placement for a new article, in my opinion. We do not attempt to manipulate Google search results here at Wikipedia. Instead, we produce excellent, relevant content and let Google do what it does best.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Wonderful news-- the page apparently indexed a few hours ago, about a week after its creation. Thank you for your educational answer, Cullen, if I knew how to 'thank user' at posts using the Wikipedia function for it I would. Always appreciated;

MarthaDaisy MarthaDaisy (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

review

I've updated a existing page for an international cricketer, can some one please review it? cheers page is located here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Najaf_Shah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xibar (talk • contribs) 06:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I see there's a short but normal-looking article at Najaf Shah, and a longer but badly written version at Talk:Najaf Shah, a page which should be used only for discussion of the Najaf Shah article. I guess that the content now on the talk page should be merged into the article itself, but with improved referencing and more paragraph breaks, and without the promotional language, embedded user signatures, and use of all-caps. Then the talk page would be free to be used for its intended purpose. Maproom (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the material you've posted on the article's talk page is not yet ready to be included in the article, Xibar. You might want to consult Wikipedia:Writing better articles and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as you improve the prose. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

thanks for your comments, I'm new to wikipedia article writing still finding my ways through though. so if I understood correctly I have to

– Improve grammar of the article, paragraphing and removing caps – Merge discussion of the Najaf Shah article into article itself (will it not get deleted, the reason I was using talk page was to get your reviews) – not sure on what you mean by improve referencing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xibar (talk • contribs) 21:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

In theory, it was a good idea to post your suggested text on the article talk page, Xibar, but my guess is that not many editors visit that page and so it would likely have been a long time before anyone spotted it. On the referencing point, you need to make sure that all of the key points in the text are supported by sources. At present, there are several paragraphs that are completely lacking in references. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Corrections

How do I make corrections or updates to an article? ThaUndaDogg (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@ThaUndaDogg: Welcome to Wikipedia. To edit an article, click the "edit" button at the top of the page. After you make your changes, use "preview" to see how it will look and then "save" to save the changes. See HELP:Edit for instructions on editing. There is also a tutorial linked there, if you would like to try that. Come back here if you have more questions. RudolfRed (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Help posting an article

Hello, I would really like your advice on how to successfully publish an article on Wikipedia IntelligenceWriting (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IntelligenceWriting. There is lots of relevant advice at Your first article. Note especially the absolute requirement that an article be based on reliable published sources independent of the subject (so that if there are no such sources, the subject is not appropriate for Wikipedia); and the advice to get a few weeks' or months' practice at editing Wikipedia before starting the difficult task of creating a new article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

War

Why do people from Somalia have War with each other — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchell Warren (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mitchell Warren. The Teahouse is a place for asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia. General questions can be asked at the Reference desk. Please read Somali Civil War. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

find a reviewer for page

Hi there, I am new to Wikipedia. I need to find a reviewer for page I did for "Roomslanka". I am waiting for months. Can you please help me to find a reviewer? or review this small page? That would be a great help.

Have a nice day! Thank you.

Regards

Shiran Roomslanka (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Roomslanka: There is a large backlog of drafts to review, so it can take awhile. It looks like your draft was recently reviewed and declined. See the note on your talk page at User_talk:Roomslanka. RudolfRed (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Roomslanka. Your draft article has been declined. Your only references are to the company's own website. We require references to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Your draft article cannot be accepted without such references. In addition, you must change your username, because we do not allow company names as usernames. That implies shared use, and an account can only be used by one person. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding to a semi-protected article if you are not auto confirmed.

I am trying to add parts of a draft that I have made in my sand box to a wikipedia article, however, I am unable to add anything because I do not have an auto confirmed account. What should I do? Nordliam (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nordliam, welcome to the Teahouse. You are auto confirmed. What article are you trying to edit? --NeilN talk to me 18:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Nordliam. Looking at how you are situated, the assignments you have been given and which of them are protected, I am guessing this is about editing bat, which is only semi-protected. As above, you are autoconfirmed (since your account is more than four days old and you have in excess of 10 edits). The pink background message you see at the top of that page after clicking edit is just an information notice, informing of its protected status and is not a notice of your inability to edit. Did you actually try to input content, then try to click save, and encounter a problem? What specific steps did you take, and what specifically happened or did you see when you tried to save?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

archive bot not working?

I added an archive bot to a talk page, but it hasn't archived anything. What am I supposed to do? The Verified Cactus 100% 00:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi VerifiedCactus. You copied in an archiving request from another page rather than creating one outright. You have asked that the pages be archived to Marching Band once a year. I will undo that and set up a reasonable archive. Nothing will happen until the bot that does the archiving runs tonight. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 01:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_606&oldid=1065747893"