Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 616

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 610

←

Archive 614

→

Removing the junk science insult.

The Wikipedia anti-psychiatry page refers to anti-psychiatry as a fringe view, and links to fringe science. This is bias pure and simple. Are psychiatrists sabotaging the anti-psychiatry entry? (I happen to know in some instances they are.) We anti-psychiatrists have been calling psychiatry pseudo-science for ages, and now Wikipedia is accusing us of pseudo-science. Every time a person Googles 'anti-psychiatry definition' the word "fringe" pops up. What gives, and how can I change this misleading and ultimately dismissive statement into something more neutral and less prejudicial (i.e. remove fringe)? "Psychiatry is to medicine what astrology is to astronomy." The late Leonard Roy Frank, psychiatric survivor activist, wrote that. There is an astrology organization included in your list of "fringe science" organizations, ergo, anti-psychiatry is not fringe science.Antipsych (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Antipsych and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia can be a frustrating place for activist editors, which you seem to be proclaiming yourself to be. Encyclopedic articles generally stick to mainstream views on topics and, by necessity, relegate minority views to lesser coverage. The meaning of "fringe" on Wikipedia may seem variable. For some topics, a view held by only, say, 5% of practitioners may be considered acceptable as "Alternative theoretical formulations" and a legitimate part of the scientific process. On another topic, that kind of ratio would put it in the pseudoscience category. It's very helpful to have published sources that unambiguously declare something to be pseudoscience, but in the normal course of scientific debate, that word can be used polemically to try to shut down debate, especially as the topic becomes more politicized.

I've seen the pseudoscience label being added and removed to Anti-psychiatry multiple times over the past few weeks. What has not happened is a substantive discussion at Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 8#Fringe started by Richard Paternoster. You need to start you efforts there, as the proper place to begin a discussion about an article's content. Eventually, you may need to start an RfC or use other aspects of the dispute resolution process. But the most persuasive thing you can do is bring forward reliable sources that support your side of the argument. [But also stay civil and remember that your activist stance may work against you.] — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

At least there is a discussion taking place about this addition of the "fringe" slur. I will see if I can offer any input. Thanks.Antipsych (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Vijay Kedia page up for deletion

Why is my page Vijay Kedia put for deletion?Akanksha Aggarwal (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Akanksha Aggarwal: There is a message on the page that explains why, and also a note on your talk page. See WP:USER for what may and may not be on your user page. RudolfRed (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Am I writing a new article right?

My new article, which can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Citybound is coming into shape. As I am new to Wikipedia content creation I just want some advice about how I am doing and, if anything, should I do to improve? BSOleader (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi BSOleader it looks pretty good so far. I've found a couple of apparently independent sources for you - gamasutra.com and pcgamer.com. By the way, WP:WikiProject Video games could give you more subject-specific advice. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't looked closely at the draft, BSOleader, but on a quick look I notice that nearly all the current references are to cityboundsm.com. Please understand that Wikipedia has very little interest in anything which the subject of an article says about themselves. So at present the first paragraph ("Development") is referenced only to things published by Citybound: in my view, such a paragraph has no place in a Wikipedia article. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

ClueBot NG editing rates

This might be a strange question to ask here, but how can ClueBot edit pages at a rate of 9000 every minute when the contributions page says otherwise? Thanks in advance. ~ Weird Al Legorhythm ^{(Hello, World!)} 21:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a strange question. Where did you get the rate of 9000 (edits?) every minute from? ~ GB fan 22:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Al Legorhythm, welcome to the Teahouse. The infobox in User:ClueBot NG says "Edit rate Over 9,000 EPM." EPM is not explained. It could be edits per minute (far from 9000) or edits per month (over 9000) but I think it's a deliberately vague joke. It comes from User:ClueBot NG/edit rate which originally said "Over 9000 EPM.",[1] linking to a well-known Internet meme referring to a large number. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that the point is that ClueBot is capable of handling a far higher volume of vandalism than the actual current vandalism rate, which fluctuates. 9000 edits a minute amounts to almost 13 million vandalism reversions per day. Vandals are irritating and need to be controlled but there is nowhere near that rate of vandalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Knocks on every item that even remotely looks like wood. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 15:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Vague source some book in the library

How do I tag or template a vague source. The article Tomostethus multicinctus lists some unidentified research notes as a source. This is akin to citing "a book in the Seattle Public Library." I want to tag it so that whoever added it fills in the source fully. The same source has been used other places on Wikipedia. The library or archive is not the source, the book or journal in the library or archive is the source. --2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. If clicking the link to the Seachable Online Orthinological Archive takes you to the actual source, then I suggest that you add the bibliographic information yourself. That improves the encyclopedia, while tagging doesn't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It takes me to an unidentifiable pdf of two pages of research notes. I tried searching SOOA, but could not find the original article. I am also editing on mobile, so doing citations can be difficult. Usually I do just correct, but if I don't have time, then someone else might get to it if I tag it. --2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

For future reference, relevant templates are here, but I doubt it would be helpful to add one in this context. You're discussing it on the article's talk page, which is the right thing to do. If you find you can't reach consensus about a given source, additional opinions from uninvolved editors can be sought by posting a query at the reliable sources noticeboard. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 05:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. I have been editing for ages, and I've never seen that page. (Usually all I do is add sources to very technical articles.) --2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Now I have to ask, if a source is bad, and I can't fix it, Cullen is suggesting don't tag, just let it sit there? Why even have tags? I search for botany articles with unreferenced tags and add references, but now those tags are bad for the encyclopedia? Why have them, then?--2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:86 (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There are different approaches to this. My approach is to tag content that I think is probably verifiable but for which I can't readily find a reliable source. For the most part, I do that in the hope that someone with advanced knowledge on the topic can identify a source and add the citation (or replace it with a better one). If I don't think the content is likely to be verifiable (e.g., extraordinary claims, contradictions of sourced content elsewhere in the article, etc.), I'm more likely to just remove it. If there's an active discussion underway on the article's talk page or at a noticeboard, I'd generally consider a tag redundant, which is why I recommended against tagging it. (That's just my take. We can always ping Cullen and see what he says.) Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 20:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

IP editor, you are reading far more into my initial response than I intended. I said "If clicking the link to the Seachable Online Orthinological Archive takes you to the actual source, then I suggest that you add the bibliographic information yourself." Never did I suggest "don't tag". I described a better alternative to tagging if and only if the bibliographic information is readily available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It does seem you are saying "tagging doesn't improve Wikipedia," but, okay, you're not. One reason for tagging is that it might discourage people from using a source like that if they have to go back and correct it, or maybe DYK people will notice it is insufficient if tagged. --2601:648:8503:4467:DD1A:8D69:38BF:77B6 (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think what is being said here is "Tagging is second best. If you can actually fix the problem, say by supplying a missing sources, or replacing a poor source with a better one, then please do so. If you see a problem, but don't know how to fix it (for example you can't easily find a needed source) or don't have the time to fix it, then tag so that others at least know that there is a problem. If you can fix, there is no need to tag." Tagging is better than leaving a problem untouched. It is not as good as fixing the problem, when that is possible. DES ^(talk) 02:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I called it a vague source. If I knew what the source was, I wouldn't think it vague. It's not possible for me to figure out. It's frustrating coming here. When the Teahouse first started it was the one place on Wikipedia you could ask a question without being lectured about how you were doing something wrong. I generally only edit Wikipedia by adding citations, so when I venture into other areas, like trying to figure out the right tag to use, I find it difficult to locate the correct information, and I'm jumpy when I come to the Teahouse, because it seems to be such a put down place. The editors I am used to working with and asking questions of are all gone. I assumed I was being lectured about tagging because it's such a common occurrence here, lecturing editors. "How do I do ....?" "Oh, why are you trying to do ...." "Don't do ...." --2601:648:8503:4467:BCAE:2D17:1DA3:5D49 (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are finding it frustrating, IP Editor. You did indeed describe it as a vague source in your initial msg in this thread, but none of us has seen it, and people use terms like "vague" differently. Since you are saying that it is not only vague, but there is no easy way to find the information needed to banish the vagueness and convert it to a good citation, then tagging or discussing on the talk page is the best that can be done. What Cullen originally said was, |If clicking the link to the Seachable Online Orthinological Archive takes you to the actual source,..."(emphasis added) then don't tag, fix instead. You complain that the Teahouse is full of putdowns. That surely isn't my intent, and i don't think it is the intent of most hosts here. We are (or at least think that we are) in the position of a driving instructor who is often getting questions such as "How do i best drive my car though the side of my house?" The only honest and useful answer is "Don't do that." Wikipedia has many policies, guidelines, and customs. We frequently get questions here from people trying, in honest good faith, to do something that is flatly against those policies or guidelines. For example, people saying "How do I get this article about my company accepted?" when the article is nothing but an obvious advertisement. There is no way that such an article will ever be accepted, and we need to tell the person asking that, and why. I for one want to help people understand Wikipedia, and enough of its policies and customs that they can do what they want, or as close to it as is possible. I truly try to obey WP:BITE, and indeed have often complained to other experienced editors that they should follow it more closely. This is not an easy task. We need to tell people "Don't do that" when "that" is something doomed to failure, but tell them in a way that will not be a putdown. If you have suggestions on how we can do it better, please share them with us. DES ^(talk) 10:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Assume that apparently inexperienced editors are not idiots and try to answer the question they ask. Stop lording it over apparently inexperienced editors that you know how to do things in Wikipedia they don't know how to do. Assume that writing an encyclopedia is more important than socializing. And, how you explain the answer to my question is not how it was said. He said if you can fix it, do that. Full stop. That improves the encyclopedia (I assumed "that' was fixing the reference), but tagging, what I was trying to do, and what I was asking about, doesn't (I assumed fix it). You spend so much time fighting vandals in Wikipedia that you assume everyone is and you treat everyone like a vandal. I remove complete unsourced nonsense from Wikipedia all the time and have to battle editors who demand it stay in. I add sources and get the addition removed. I once got into an edit war trying to remove a book written by D. F. Y. McMalangaster. It took the intervention of three administrators for me to be unblocked and allowed to remove the vandalism. Stop hounding expertise off Wikipedia. Stop scolding expertise for being upset when they get attacked by Randy and his 7 cousins from Boise who are preventing the removal of bullshit.

But mostly, why not answer the question asked without lecturing people, thereby encouraging adult content creators with knowledge of technical topics to participate. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:BE (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I offer you a friendly suggestion and you respond by freaking out and trying to put words in my mouth that I never said or implied. Very interesting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You explained, I said okay, maybe I got it wrong. Then someone came back and overexplained you, as if my accepting it was not good enough, and I got frustrated. Now you're here, focusing on your owie, saying I'm "freaking out." Not very interesting. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:B2 (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What is this

I don't know anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.75.65.68 (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

To which this are you referring to? --Jayron 32 13:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The donation pop-up disappear after I login

Howdy!

I'd like to make a donation. But when I'm logged in the message is gone.

Do I have to be logged out to donate?

Thanks!

Robertgombos (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robertgombos. Please see wmf:Ways to Give. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And Wikipedia pages have a "Donate to Wikipedia" link below the logo (not in the mobile version). PrimeHunter (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Done, managed to donate, thanks! Fuhghettaboutit

Fuhghettaboutit, PrimeHunter I have another question: being a photographer I own many images that I could upload to be used in various topics when other editors create articles. Is there any please where to upload them? (I own the copyright for the shots since I created them, do I have to do any disclosure etc?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertgombos (talk • contribs) 22:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Robertgombos. That would be great! Our sister site the Wikimedia Commons is where you should upload images you own and are willing to either donate into the public domain, or under a suitably free copyright license (licenses that are compatible must allow re-use and modification even for commercial purposes, though under most of them suitable credit to you upon re-use is required). Here's a link upload wizard there which should walk you through it. You will need to provide some disclosure but it's pretty low hanging. Just be aware of one pitfall: derivative works. If, for example, you snap a photo and something already copyrighted is captured in it (in a non-de minimis way) – say a t-shirt someone is wearing with a huge image of Mickey Mouse emblazoned – that would be a derivative work, that you could not release without blurring the non-free portion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Also Robertgombos, be aware that even if you took the picture and it is not a derivative work, you may not have the copyrights to release them as you please if you already used it elsewhere. For instance newspapers, editors etc. will usually have an exclusivity clause that forbids you from re-using it. You can even completely lose the copyrights in some cases (e.g. a wedding photography contract usually transfers the copyrights to the newlywed). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Tigraan, I am very well aware of that. I just have tons on images that (never published online or offline, sold - I own the copyright and some of them might be used helping other editors create better article) I shot with my cameras for various during the last 4 years of studies. Low Key photography, high key photography (I really want to create these two particular pages someday) are some examples.

add picture of keran in page

I want to add pictures of keran from my mobile .how to add pictures from mobile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yassir khoja (talk • contribs) 19:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yassir khoja. If these are photographs you yourself took with your phone of the Village of Keran, and you are willing to license them in the free manner that we require, then uploading them would be great. Thank you. Here's what you can do: go to the this link to the upload wizard at the Wikimedia Commons, then follow the instructions there. The commons is a free media repository, and images hosted there can be used natively on all Wikipedias and certain other Wikimedia projects. (However, it occurs to me that I have no idea whether uploads can be done directly from one's phone, or if there some intermediate step like downloading the files to a computer first. I would appreciate it if someone else who knows the answer to this issue [or could advise that it's a non-issue] could weigh in.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

How can I edit articles which wiki cannot allow or says prevent from vandalism

Hello sir This is very grateful for me to stand in a such a huge platform. Wiki didn't allow me To edit some pages which are protected so how and when can I edit all articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akram988 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Akram988, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can write an edit request on the article's talk page, describing what you wanted to change. If you keep editing on Wikipedia, you are also on your way to becoming an established Wikipedian who can edit even protected articles. For instance, the some protected pages can be edited by users who are autoconfirmed (that is to say, users whose accounts are more than 4 days old and who have made more than 10 edits on Wikipedia). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

i have created a page but when i search in wikipedia search button it is not shown there

Plz solve my problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yassir khoja (talk • contribs) 08:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You created your user page (which is not an article at User:Yassir khoja. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yassir khoja I have made a few neccessary corrections for you - removed a few templates that should only be used in mainspace and also corrected the type of infobox. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What links should I add in 'see also' section of a new article?

Dear Sir/Madam, How can I determine which links should I add in the 'see also' section, while I am creating a new article? P.Shiladitya (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, P.Shiladitya, and welcome to the Teahouse. A "See also" section is for links that might be useful to the reader, but that do NOT appear in the article. it is always optional. My advice would be to not worry about it until the article is in a fairly finished form. Alternately, you could add several links you expect to use in later article development, and remove each ad you use it.

I urge you to read Your First Article. Creating a new article is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, and can cause significant frustration. DES ^(talk) 17:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear @DESiegel: Sir, Thanks for your kind reply. --P.Shiladitya (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Need help copy editing so does not read like advertisement?

Hi! I could use any help copy editing so that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shot_Tower_Capital does not read like an advertisement. So far I have removed any flowery language and just stated the facts of what has been reported about the corporation. (I have added lots of citations and recent published information about this company to meet notability) Thank you for any help! EricPfromTustin (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The question, EricPfromTustin, is, What have people who have no connection with Shot Tower published about it? Wikipedia has no interest at all in what Dunn and Law say about Shot Tower: none. But, leaving aside the one that is just a listing, the first three references are all clearly based on interviews or press releases from Shot Tower (their language is almost identical, for one thing). If you take out of the first few paragraphs everything that is not cited to reliable independent source, there's essentially nothing left. Furthermore, the third paragraph (starting "Shot Tower advised") is not supported by even the sources that are adduced: Billboard says that Dunn and Law have worked on those things, not that Shot Tower will (that may be the case, but the source does not say it).

I know that I haven't directly addressed your question about copy editing. But nearly always on Wikipedia, the way to avoid sounding like an advertisement is by sticking to summarising what independent sources say, and ignoring absolutely everything that anybody associated with the subject has said about it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Should uncredited roles be added to movie articles?

In the characters section, I mean. The Verified Cactus 100% 23:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi The Verified Cactus. The answer it totally contextual. What the specific situation is; that the appearance can be reliably sourced; the depth of the role—exercise of encyclopedic judgment. In short, in my opinion this cannot be answered in the general.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 11:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Jan Tomasow, violinist

Hello! I've submitted an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jan_Tomasow,_violinist). The submission was declined on 26 March 2017 by KGirlTrucker81 (talk). The reason why it was declined is the following:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

I made some editing to my original submission and resubmitted the new version sometime in April. The edited draft was supposed to emphasize the importance or notability of the musician I wrote about but, it seems not have had any effect as I have not got any kind of information about the status.

Also asked the original reviewer some questions about her comment as I could not understand the meaning of acronyms such as "GNG! or "BIO" in the context.

I have not got any answer to my query as of today. I only know that the resubmitted draft is currently awaiting re-review.

Would it be possible to be informed about what is going on about my draft at Wikipedia?

Thankfully, Ruben

Rtomasov (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:GNG are the General Notability Guidelines, which all articles must follow, and WP:BIO are the additional rules for biographies of living people. Your article does not include any references to WP:Reliable sources that demonstrate notability. We need to be able to follow up on those "reliable sources that are independent of the subject".See also WP:Notability, WP:Your First Article and WP:Referencing for beginners. Rojomoke (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ruben, and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you related to Jan Tomasov? If so, please be aware that Wikipedia regards you as having a conflict of interest, and discourages you from creating or directly editing an article about him, because you may find it hard to write sufficiently neutrally. Please be aware that Wikipedia has no interest in what Jan Tomasov, or his friends, relatives, or associates, have said about him: it is only interest in what people who have no connection with him have published in reliable places (and if there is not at present enough such material available, then no article about him will be accepted at the moment). --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the purpose of an additional review by wiki Physics?

Hi, I have just finished an article on a particular optical spectroscopy technique in my sandbox and submitted the article for a review. Several hours later I received a comment: "Please request a review at WP:WikiProject Physics or WP:WikiProject Engineering. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)". I am confused now. Haven't I submitted the article for a review already? What is WP:Wikiprojects and what is the purpose of submitting review there? And finally, how do I submit an article for a review there, I do not see any "submit for review" buttons? Thank you for any help Clearscience (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Clearscience that is a rather confusing message. It is actually the AFC reviewer who would request assistance from a relevant WikiProject, not you, so you can ignore that message. I have just asked the subject specialists at WikiProject Physics to look it over. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @Robert McClenon:. Rojomoke (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Great, thank you for the clarification!

Clearscience (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Declined all my edits

Hello I made some edits for the article Numbers gang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Numbers_Gang why they all declined? thank you for your response B-Null (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, B-Null. Judging by the article's history, it seems to be because you adding copyrighted material. I can't actually see your edits because they have been supressed, as is policy for copyright infringements, so I can't comment much more than that, but please do take a look at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

edits for improval of an article with COI

Hi I have created the article Simon Cohen. I have a declared conflict of interest as I am currently working together with the subject of the page. With the help and advice that I have gotten from the Wikipedia community, it seems like the page could use some further improvement. I have suggested some of these improvements on the talk page but I'm unsure if I should move forward and edit the article on my own, given my COI. I'm grateful for any guidelines on this, as I hope to learn the best practices. Thank you MatildeZ (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi MatildeZ. If you have a specific improvement in mind, the best practice for COI editors is to request it on the talk page (in a "change X to Y because of reference Z" format), adding the "magic text" {{request edit}} at the beginning of your request. The "magic text" is called a template, and that template causes the request to appear in the list of requested edits that other editors patrol regularly. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tigraan and thanks for your reply! I'll definitely do that. Thank you!MatildeZ (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Resubmission

Hello, Ive resubmitted my article after the edits. However, my sandbox still shows the unedited article and not the one thats been re-edited. I want to ensure that the article submitted is the edited one. RadhikaAnilkumar (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi RadhikaAnilkumar, welcome to the Teahouse. User:RadhikaAnilkumar/sandbox has not been submitted and will be ignored as long as you don't submit it. Draft:Tharavadu (Restaurant) has been submitted, declined, resubmitted, and is currently awaiting re-review. You are welcome to edit it further before the review. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It looks like you have two versions, one in your sandbox and one in draft space: Draft:Tharavadu (Restaurant). The draft version is the one that would be published. I would suggest you edit that one to your liking and delete (just edit out) the one in your sandbox so it is not as confusing. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar etiquette

Hi! About a month and a half ago, I posted this discussion about barnstar etiquette at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards. However, nobody seems to have responded to my questions yet. Can you help answer them? Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you may put a Barnstar and other awards on your userpage. User page guildelines are at WP:UP. Yes, you may thank other users. It does not matter who gave you the Barnstar or why. RudolfRed (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thanks for the answer! Noah Kastin (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

How to title a biography of a living person with a commonly used name

Hello Community,

My name is Laura and I am a non-paid assistant to a musician. Due to an upcoming record release, the record company has requested that the musician create a Wikipedia page for himself "or they will do it". Since I am typing up and revising a first draft of the person's biography I feel I am the correct person to do this task. By the time of publication of the biography I expect to be an official 'co-author' or have the cover title read by Billy Davis 'with' (my name).

Billy Davis is a very common name and there are already many Billy Davis entries on Wikipedia. The Billy Davis I refer to was born with a common 'name' that are simply initials 'JC'. Billy didn't find out about his birth initials (name) until he went to school and his mother had to explain to his teacher that he would not answer to the official name on record. His driver license shows his name like this: J C DAVIS. Most people, even close to him, are not aware that of his birth name.

Billy is a musician, inducted into three Halls of Fame including The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. His instrument is guitar (electric) and he is also a song-writer. He spent 25 years as one of The Midnighters, of Hank Ballard and The Midnighters (as opposed to being in the back-up band, which Hank also toured with). He is registered with BMI as JC Billy Davis.

He is from Detroit currently and his facebook page is: Billy Davis Detroit.

My first instinct was to create a page called JC Billy Davis.

On initial review of the how-to materials I now have doubt as to how to title Billy's biography of a living person. Billy is currently 79 years old and is a working musician. His genre is not fixed; he writes and performs music of all genres; in Detroit he is heavily associated with the Blues (genre) community. He himself is not comfortable putting just one category upon his work. Recently a term called Roots Music has come into general use and this term is the closest I have found to categorize Billy's musical genre.

Thanks for any advice you may give to help me title this biography. I plan on doing the draft in the Sandbox.

Legrimster (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

A standard way to distinguish the article fform articles about other people known as Billy Davis would be to title it "Billy Davis (musician)". There's already an article on Bill Davis (musician), so it might be best to use what we call hatnotes, to distinguish the two musicians, Bill and Billy. But there's no need for you to be concerned about any of that. Just work on a draft article (concentrating on establishing that he's notable as Wikipedia defines that word). If it gets accepted by a reviewer, it'll be the reviewer's job to move it to main article space with a suitable title. Maproom (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Legrimster: Hi Legrimster, thanks for your question. Let's take your questions one at a time:

Titling the article: This is an interesting case, as there is also a Billy Davis (songwriter) who I assume refers to a different person than who you are writing about. We do have some guidelines around disambiguating topics with the same name. I agree with Maproom's suggestion above, and I wouldn't recommend using his birthname, simply because it is not well known or publicized-- article titles should reflect how the subject is generally referred to in published sources.
On the genre: Be careful about genre choices. Davis's genre may not be fixed, but what matters for article writing is what sources consider his genre(s) to be. If there are sources you can point to that associate his music with roots music, that's great, but otherwise it's not appropriate to add it. There are a lot of musical genres that spring up on Wikipedia articles that don't appear to have any substantive basis, so it's important that genres, especially newer ones, can be supported by an independent source.
On writing the article: It sounds like the subject is notable if they are in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, but just a word of caution to avoid promotional language when writing the article. If you'd like, I can look over the article when you're finished drafting it to suggest any changes.

Thanks for your questions! I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I assume we're not talking about Billy Davis Jr.. Common name, I know, but that Billy Davis is also 79 (or will be next month). Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 17:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Legrimster (Laura), and welcome to the Teahouse. There are several issues that must be addressed here.

The first issue is to determine whether this Billy Davis is what Wikipedia calls Notable. This is perhaps an unfortunate term for the concept. In Wikipedia terms a subject is notable if there are multiple, independent professionally published reliable sources that discuss the subject is some detail. Not a mere passing mention, not entries in directories, not announcements of his performances, not blogs or fan sites, and not press releases or stories based on PRs. Sources such as magazine or newspaper articles, or equivalent online sources.
Second is that you have a clear conflict of interest on this issue. You need to declare this, preferably on the talk page of such an article, if it is created, and you need to be very careful to write neutrally and include only content that is clearly supported by reliable sources, and to cite those sources.
Third, writing a new article from scratch is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia. It is best if a new editor works on other things for a while first. But if you want to go ahead with creating an article, please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule, Ypur First Article, and referencing for Beginners. Then, I strongly urge you not to create a new article directly in mainspace, but to use the article wizard to create a Draft under the Articles for creation project. This will allow an experienced editor to review your work once you think it is ready, and that editor will move it to mainspace if it passes review. Otherwise the new article will be subject to all the Wikipedia rules. from the moment of its creation, and could easily be deleted within minutes or hours if it does not comply.
Fourth, you and Billy need to be aware that it will not be your article. Once you post something to Wikipedia, anyone may edit it in any way. Anyone may change it or add additional facts to the article, even unfavorable facts, provided that there are sources cited to support them. If there are matters on public record that you and he would not want widely published, don't create a Wikipedia article about him.
Finally, we get to the issue of the article title. It could be called "Billy Davis (roots musician)". See Billy Davis for a list of articles that we already have on people with some version of that name. The main rule is that the title should be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, followed by a qualifier in parenthesis if needed to make the name unique on Wikipedia. Profession is the most common qualifier for biography articles, followed by year of birth. See Wikipedia:Article titles for more detail on this.

I hope the above was helpful. Please feel free to ask any followup questions you wan t right in this thread (section). DES ^(talk) 17:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Legrimster. Regarding the issue of notability, I believe that there is a very strong presumption that a musician who is a member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is notable, although you need to prove that by providing references to significant coverage in reliable sources. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame web page for The Midnighters makes it clear that Billy Davis is considered a full fledged member of that group, so that claim to notability is entirely legitimate. You began by discussing a byline for a an article about Davis. We do not ever use bylines on Wikipedia since a well developed article may have dozens or hundreds of contributors. If you are the main contributor, the article history will make that clear. I am a Detroit native. If I can be of assistance, please let me know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Whole numbers

2=[{[{[2^2-2]^2-2}^2-2]^2-2}.....] We can express every whole numbers in this way... Just by replacing 2^2-2 by n^2-n(n-1) Udeepta Bora — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udeepta Bora (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for editing Wikipedia, Udeepta Bora! I am confused about what your request is. Can you please rephrase it? Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe that the above is a true statement of number theory, although its expression is not as clear to me as it might be. But I don't see what it has to do with editing Wikipedia. Did you want to add this fact to a Wikipedia article, Udeepta Bora? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 03:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Udeepta Bora: I see at Special:Contributions/Udeepta Bora that you have been adding this to articles. It's a true statement since n^2-n(n-1) = n^2-n^2+n = n, but I don't see the relevance of expressing a number in a complicated way which involves the number itself. It's like saying "An elephant is an elephant where you put a haddock on top and then remove the haddock". True, but not very helpful if you don't already know what an elephant is. I agree with the removal by other editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Turnaround time/Submitting for review

I have saved the draft and saved changes.Where can i see the option to submit for review ? Can any one help me ? I know our dear editors are super busy with reviews but wanted to know an estimate of whats the turnaround time or a probability of article going live on wiki ?

IPSid (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi IPSid. Once you are done editing a draft, you can submit it for review by placing this code at the top and saving: {{subst:submit}}. There really is no way to guess how long it will take for a volunteer to come and perform a review—it makes take moments or weeks. However, in this case I have deleted the draft as a blatant copyright infringement of ideapokes' website and other sources, as well as its use of close paraphrasing.

If you own or have the authority to release that text for use here, you would have to formally release it into the public domain or under a suitably-free copyright license (to the world, irrevocably). However, the text was highly promotional (which is why I also deleted the draft as blatant advertising), so going through a process to verifiably release that text would not be useful here.

I'm not sure this company is notable (in which case no article is even possible) but if it is, an article would need to not be a commercial, and cannot violate copyright.

If you are intent on trying again, please comply with our mandatory disclosure requirements for editing by persons with a financial stake in a topic (as obviously applicable here). It's not very difficult. You can just add to your userpage a filled-out {{paid}} template, e.g., {{paid|user=IPSid|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits and Maintenance Templates

Hi -

I'm a new editor and recently made revisions to an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Arbor_Blues_and_Jazz_Festival) that had a maintenance template header. I believe I addressed several of the concerns addressed in the header, but not all. For example, I updated the article and added additional citations for the current material, but I didn't do anything about the original research issue.

So - what should I do about the template? Not sure how to delete it, or whether I can delete portions of it.

Any advice or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks! Timezero0093 (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Timezero0093. If you look at the template in the article which bundles these concerns, you'll see in its text a link in this form: "(Learn how and when to remove these template messages)". That is a page I wrote to address these issue. If you go to the Specific template guidance section near the bottom of the page and reveal the instructions for "{{Multiple issues}}", you will find further tailored material for the issue in your question. If after looking at that page you have any remaining questions, please do come back here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Fuhghettaboutit. I deleted one tag, but left the other two as I still believe they're germane. I will work on addressing those in the future. I appreciate the assistance.Timezero0093 (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting help with translation

Hi! I received a notification that I had a message on my Wikipedia Arabic talk page. I also noticed that someone posted a discussion on what I think is my Wikipedia Arabic talk page. Can someone help me find my actual talk page message and translate it for me, as I do not speak Arabic, and I cannot get Google Translate to do an adequate translation for me? Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I used Google Chrome's translate feature and it looks like a standard welcome message. Here is a screenshot. Random character sequence (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, I just got a similar message myself on Arabic Wikipedia. Maybe they're doing a mass welcome today! Random character sequence (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation, Random character sequence! I wondered why I would have gotten that message, considering that, if I recall correctly, I have only ever been to the Arabic Wikipedia to read that message. Thanks again for the translation! Noah Kastin (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Noah Kastin: Your account is automatically created at a Wikimedia wiki if you visit any page at the wiki while logged in at another wiki. Special:CentralAuth/Noah Kastin shows where your account has been created. Some wikis have bots which automatically post a welcome message to new accounts. The logs indicate your account creation and the bot post was the same minute and in fact the same second 23:30:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC). That makes it very likely that the bot responded to you visiting the wiki and not the other way around, unless the bot is malfunctioning, and you viewed or refreshed a Wikimedia page at another wiki the same second as the bot post to see the notification, and then also managed to click the link to the Arabic Wikipedia that same second. Your browser may have a browser history which can show where you were at the time. The other edits by the bot at the time were also to accounts registered the same minute as the edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, PrimeHunter! It does seem reasonable that the bot would respond to me visiting Arabic Wikipedia and not the other way around. I might have visited the Arabic Wikipedia without realizing it, due to the fact that SammyMajed, who I had recently encountered due to this discussion, has a link to the Arabic Wikipedia in his signature, which I might have accidentally clicked. At any rate, thanks for the information! It is definitely useful. Noah Kastin (talk) 06:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Noah Kastin: Yes, Noah, I can confirm that this message is actually a welcome message. I have welcome messages in WP Ukrainian, WP Lithuanian, and WP Malayalam. I do not know why though. • Sammy Majed • Talk • Creations • Wikipedia Arabic • 15:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@SammyMajed: Thanks for the update! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 16:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Introduction to Myself

Hello, I am a new editor. I have been updating music related things for months now. I am looking to make pages for new singles from artists that are on the rise. Most of the time, I update the Hot Christian Songs article on the Billboard site. With this responsibility, I would like to be confirmed as a editor of Wikipedia. If I'm not accepted I will try my best to get a better application. Thank you for your time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BraedenAEW (talk • contribs)

Hi BraedenAEW. The moment you edited Wikipedia (I assume by an IP address, since you didn't make any of the edits you are speaking about above using your account) you became an editor. There is no confirmation process. You are an editor of Wikipedia. The only "acceptance" is as you gain experience and become better known using a single account you will probably start to feel more connected by that single identity.

While it's possible that these artists "on the rise" are notable, and their singles are as well, the fact you said that automatically makes me wonder whether they aren't. New artists that have become quite famous may be, but they will be the rarity. Understand that articles need to be about notable subjects, as we use that word here to mean having received significant and non-trivial coverage (not mere mentions) in reliable, secondary sources that are entirely unconnected with the topic of the article, from which a verifiable article can be written, without any original research involved. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is never the place to first write about any topic, but follows the world already taking note of topics by writing about them. The essay Wikipedia:Up and coming next big thing may be informative.

And even if an artist has become well known and written about out in the world, such that an article is warranted, often an article on his or her singles and albums belongs in a single article on the artist, and not as multiple, stand-alone entries. Please see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (music).

By the way, on discussion pages like this one (but never in articles), you should announce yourself by signing your posts. Just place four tildes (~~~~) after a post like yours above, which will automatically format as your signature with a timestamp when you save. These can also be placed by clicking on the button in the interface you should see that looks like or . Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@BraedenAEW: If you are asking about WP:CONFIRM, your account will become autoconfirmed after it is at least four days old with at least 10 edits. RudolfRed (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting move back to draft

How do I initiate a request for moving an unfinished article back to draftspace from mainspace. Shri Shantinath Temple and Seva Sansthan, Sangamner. was deleted as A7 before. The user went to AfC, where it was rejected again User:Priti Saini/Shri Shantinath Temple and Seva Sansthan, Sangamner. She then bypassed AfC and had it created in Mainspace. I tried messaging her, and even removed much of the spammy content in the article to elicit a response, but to no avail. She remains incognito. I don't want to delete this again, and would like her to work on it in draftspace. How do I initiate a proposal for the move. Jupitus Smart 05:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Jupitus Smart! As the move seems likely to be controversial, I would suggest following the directions laid out at WP:RM#CM. Thanks again for asking! Noah Kastin (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure that is how its usually done, @Noah Kastin:. Because I have done requested moves before, and I have never seen a case of a mainspace to draftspace move there. I checked again now, and there is not 1 instance of such a move even now. Jupitus Smart 09:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I would just move the article to Draft:Shri Shantinath Temple and Seva Sansthan, Sangamner, Jupitus Smart, but in this case we would then have duplicate drafts, what with the version in userspace. Perhaps you could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help what the best approach would be? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I have acted upon your advice, @Cordless Larry:. Hopefully something will come of it now.Jupitus Smart 15:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart and Cordless Larry: Thanks for cleaning this up! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 15:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all. That has been taken care off. Jupitus Smart 16:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

confirmed user

When do I get confirmed to Wikipedia?--Proposed deletion tagger (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

See WP:CONFIRM. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Asking for feedback: replacement for Teahouse Header page

This discussion has been moved to WT:Teahouse

Greetings, Recently I added a Header 2 page that may be an improvement of the current Teahouse header. If you have any comments or suggestions, please add them here. While everyone is welcome in this discussion, I would be especially interested in feedback from our current Teahouse hosts. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

JoeHebda, This kind of discussion about how to improve the Teahouse itself belongs on the teahouse talk page, where I saw you placed a version of this notice. It should not be on the main teahouse page, which is for questions about how to use Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 17:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for posting here. I did strikeout above so there is no need to make any comments on this page. — JoeHebda • (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Translation

Hello!

Can I translate ANY english wikipedia article into a different language or are there some articles that are relevant in some countries and not in others?

Pianoguysfan^talktome 21:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a good, and difficult, question.

I've seen an article translated from German Wikipedia rejected when created on English Wikipedia, because its subject was found to be not "notable" by en:WP's standards. It wasn't that the subject was of more interest to German speakers than to English speakers; but each Wikipedia has its own rules, and it seems the rules governing notability at English and German WPs are different.

And I imagine that if you took articles on Brazilian villages from en:WP, translated them into Mingrelian, and added them to Mingrelian Wikipedia, while it doesn't yet have article on some Brazilian cities, people there might wonder what you were up to.

I think the best place to get a good answer will be the Help Desk, or equivalent, of whichever Wikipedia you plan to contribute to. Maproom (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Please Help me.

Please how can I get a Wikipedia editor to write an article about me? Can you please get an editor to write an article about me because it is against the rules to write an article about me by myself which is why I need someone to do so for me. Thanks, I will be expecting a reply soon... — Preceding unsigned comment added by KING JOFRE (talk • contribs) 19:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi KING JOFRE and welcome to the teahouse. You need to be aware that Wikipedia is not a web-hosting service, but if you can show that you are WP:Notable in the Wikipedia sense that you have been written about extensively in independent WP:Reliable sources the you can request an article at WP:Requested articles. Google can find only a facebook profile, and that is neither independent nor reliable, and probably isn't you. Dbfirs 19:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

What about if I provide you with links to my Tv show on youtube to see the celebrities who have been on my show so you can be assured that I am a known brand in my country / continent...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KING JOFRE (talk • contribs) 00:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia articles are based on professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject but completely independent of the subject. Your TV show does not demonstrate that anyone who does not work for you cares. Being a known brand does not matter.

Also you should not write articles about yourself or your business ventures, especially those that promote or advertise your business. And if you are a "known brand," we need to block you because we do not allow user names to represent brands. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

How do i undo an edit done by the bot at Rudra (band)

I recently added few images and made reference to articles and blog posts, one of the blog is not a reputable source but the bot did an undo on all the images i uploaded and other links as well, how can undo my edits and remove the non reputable links ? KannanNaidu (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) The simplest way would be to go to the article history, select the appropriate revision, open it and Edit. Once you correct the version and save it, you overwrite the current version, effectively undoing all intermediate changes.

But I can see you did it already: [2] [3] :) --CiaPan (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, KannanNaidu, and welcome to the Teahouse.I note you added a cite to https://heavymetaltribune.wordpress.com/ which I am dubious about. I don't know this particular source, but anything at wordpress makes me nervous. Are you confident that this is a reliable source? Also, please read my note about cite formatting at Talk:Rudra (band). Full (or at least fuller) source metadata is needed. DES ^(talk) 07:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@KannanNaidu: I followed the DES's request above and expanded one ref for you as an example. Please see special:diff/781131183.
For more hints please visit Wikipedia:Citation templates. --CiaPan (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: ok, i have removed the ref to the wordpress site. Thank you for the cite formatting guide. KannanNaidu (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@CiaPan: Thank you for the cite edit ref example. Yes, i did select the appropiate revision and edit again. KannanNaidu (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@KannanNaidu: Good work! :) --CiaPan (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)