Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 716

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 710

←

Archive 714

→

Help with speedy deletion

I created an article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetX Can you please help to contest the speedy deletion. Thank you.Xware.rtos (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You can contest the speed deletion by clicking on "Contest the Speedy Deletion." This not only stops the speedy deletion, it prevents a renomination. That said, the next step is probably that someone will nominate this as an Article for Deletion. In AfD, people (including you) can make a case for Delete or Keep. An Admin will then rule. Could be quickly or 7+ days. My advise is make a copy of the content on your own computer just in case it gets deleted here. I will add, however, that this article was deleted back in October, and it appears you just restored the same content as a new article. So expect irate people coming down on it like a Ten Pound Hammer. David notMD (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

No, contesting a speedy deletion doesn't prevent another nomination. Perhaps David notMD is confusing it with Proposed deletion, where contesting does prevent a second nomination. Also it is misleading to say that contesting a speedy deletion "stops" the speedy deletion. It just gives you an opportunity to explain why you think the page should not be deleted, so that an administrator can take your views into account when coming to a decision. Breaking sticks (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Breaking is correct - I flipped my understanding of the two fast deletion pathways. David notMD (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Xware.rtos. Welcome to our Teahouse. I fear you are facing three problems here. Firstly, you have tried to create articles on topics related to your company which have been rejected for not meeting our standards of notability. I think you have detailed explanations on your Talk page for those. If you can address them, then you have good grounds for contesting speedy deletion - just hit the big blue "Contest this speedy deletion" button and give your explanation. I fear you will not be successful, however, sorry. (especially bearing in mind what David notMD has just written above. Heaven defend us from Ten Pound Hammers, though.)

The other problems you have relate to your username which breaches our user name policy. You will need to change this as, currently, it appears to be a promotional organisational name, which could be used by anyone at your organisation. We would allow different names for different indivuals, such as rtosMarcus, or rtosUdo, or rtosLarry etc etc., but not one corporate address. See Wikipedia:Changing username for this. I should declare that I have flagged up your name as an issue, so the sooner you can address this, the better it will be.

And - sorry to go on here! - the final issue we have is that any or all of those usernames should be contributing to the Wikipedia project as a whole, not writing about their company products. If they're here just to promote the Express Logic suite of software solutions, then they all have a conflict of interest in that they are writing about topics they have a direct interest in. i.e. they are probably not using in-depth reliable sources unconnected with the company, nor are likely to be doing so in a neutral manner. They would also be being WP:PAID, so would definitely need to make a clear declaration of their intersts on their User Talk page or on the article they are editing. Follow the blue links for details how to make those declarations. I fear you are may believe that Wikipedia is here to promote your company for you - that couldn't be further from the truth. You have a whizz-bang website which befuddled my monitor - I should rely on that to promote your products if I were you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

What to do when subject of a biographical article removes sourced information?

There is a biographical article that I started in 2008 (specifically at 17:32 on 5 February 2008) and have maintained intermittently. In 2014 an edit was made to remove information I had added to the article (about works published pseudonymously). I added back a shorter version of it and added an extra source where the subject had given the information in a published interview. Another edit was made citing "at the subject's request" as the reason to remove the information again. I asked a more experienced editor about this and they added a COI tag in March 2015. But did not add that information back in. I put a request on the talk page as to why the information was removed, but there's no answer yet. Should I attempt again to add this information back in? Or leave it alone? Felisse (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The article in question is Sarah Bird. Both times the content was removed it was the first edit by an apparently new editor. The subject of a biography does not control the content. It's not good practice to remove content at the subjects request without some further justification. Your source looks reliable to me. I think you'd be fine to put it back in with an edit summary mentioning WP:OWN. Gab4gab (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

question

can you put a little humor on your userpage on what you do outside of wikipedia? Thegooduser talk 02:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thegooduser - yes, you still can. See WP:USERPAGE for additional details. Chetsford (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Chetsford: So i can put it on? Thegooduser talk 03:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hard to say; given the number of times you've asked, I'd think there's probably some reasonable apprehension about what exactly "it" is. But there's usually pretty wide latitude for what one puts on one's userpage. Chetsford (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC):@Chetsford: You can visit my userpage and see "it" for your self under the section other things and tell me if i can leave it on. (I wasn't trying to be rude responding back to you) Thegooduser talk 03:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thegooduser - sorry I didn't mean to sound offended; I didn't perceive anything you said as rude! Anyway, I can't imagine any situation in which anyone would have an issue with this. Chetsford (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Thanks for your help! Happy Editing! :-)Thegooduser talk 03:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft Page Review

Hi there. I hope you might be able to help me by reviewing the article on my draft page (Draft_talk:Asian_Institute_of_Finance) and in particular to look at the references and sourcing where I have had some issues previously. Looking forward to your comments! Thank you Sandrapriya (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Sandrapriya. While we don't do formal reviews of drafts here (that's what the Articles for Creation process is for), I can tell you after a brief look at the article that its references do not seem to include the sort of independent, in-depth coverage that are needed to establish notability (in the particular WP sense). Too much reliance on the organization or its parent and on press releases and ordinary business announcements leads to an article that probably won't be accepted. It certainly seems like you should be able to find proper references for this institution, but the article will need to be written less like an entry in a business directory. Hope this helps. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you jmcgnh. That was definitely helpful. Would you be able me to guide me with some examples of proper references? Sandrapriya (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I wish I could be more helpful, Sandrapriya, but I've looked through several pages of a Google search on the Asian Institute of Finance and found not a single source that I would consider helpful in establishing notability. The sort of place I would look for further possibilities is the Malaysian national business press. If this organization is not having enough impact to yield some sort of in-depth coverage, I don't see how there can be a WP article about it.

I also looked at some other roughly comparable institution's WP pages and searched through the Straits Times and New Straits Times business sections and came up with no shining example of what a reliable source would look like for some other institution besides AIF. So much nothing! So many articles with inadequate sources! I will admit that finding proper sources can be pretty difficult. Not very many organizations are going to have an article like this one Wan, Ming. "Japan and the Asian Development Bank." Pacific Affairs 68, no. 4 (1995): 509-28. doi:10.2307/2761274. that I found by looking at Asian Development Bank.

— jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

What's the proper response to a search that does not turn up a hit?

Okay, so I search for "Firehawk." I get a disambiguation page. None of the items on the disambiguation page refer to the specific thing that I searched for, one of three birds of prey in Australia that spread fires; what is the proper course? Should I create a new page with what little I know, even though I am not a subject matter expert (after all, that's why I was searching)? Should that page be linked into the disambiguation page so that someone more knowledgeable may contribute to it? For all I know, someone may already be working on a page like it, how can I tell? What's the next step? Sysfrank (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sysfrank. Three species have been described in a scientific journal article as "Firehawks". They are the Whistling kite, the Black kite and the Brown falcon. The reference is “Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia,” Bonta et al. Journal of Ethnobiology, 37(4). This is newly published research and no one has yet written a Wikipedia article about the phenomenon. It would be a relatively easy matter to add a description of the behavior to the three species articles, cited to that article. You do not need to be a subject matter expert to write an article, as long as you accurately summarize what reliable sources say. Do not worry about whether or not someone else may be drafting an article. If you have the interest, just do it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see Cullen has beat me to it and already provided an answer...

Hello Sysfrank and welcome to the Teahouse.

I notice that the page for black kite has had a reference added regarding this recent scientific validation of long-held Aboriginal beliefs, but you have to agree that this is pretty new information; it doesn't yet appear on the pages for whistling kite or brown falcon.

Yes, the current firehawk page is a disambiguation page and it should probably stay that way. One possible fix is to add to the page a line like
* The Australian black kite or other species of raptor that spreads brushfires
– but this might violate a rule about disambiguation pages if "firehawk" does not show up in the intro section of the black kite page. And to add that, we would probably need a more substantial history of the species being called firehawk.

You could try making these changes yourself or,better, you could start a discussion at Talk:Firehawk or Talk:Black kite. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Global Pain Initiative

Hello, I am the Board Administrator for the Global Pain Initiative, a mission to educate the public that pain is, in fact, a disease and, as such, we are researching a cure for chronic pain. Would this be a notable article to write for Wikipedia? Also, would writing about the members of the board be notable? Thank you in advance for your answer. 47.205.92.156 (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not the article that would needs to be notable, it's its subject. A subject is notable only if it has been extensively written about in reputable published sources. Your proposal sounds to me like original research, which means that it is definitely not suitable for a Wikipedia article. (It is also misguided – pain is a normal, healthy, and adaptive response to bodily damage. But that's irrelevant to your question. Wikipedia has plenty of articles about misguided ideas, so long as enough has been written about them.) Maproom (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Chronic pain is an already existing article. In the Pathophysiology section, you will see "Chronic pain of different etiologies has been characterized as a disease affecting brain structure and function." There is no section on cures or research into cures. If you can find third party articles about attempts to find cures, that would be a reasonable addition to that article. Don't mention your thing you're an administrator of, especially if you can't find reliable sources to cite about it, but even if you can, it would be unlikely you'd maintain the proper neutral viewpoint to write about it given your involvement. Felisse (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi 47, welcome to the Teahouse. First, you are proposing making an addition to or creating an article on a medical subject. There are specific requirements for sources for medical topics, much more stringent than the requirements for sourcing of other subjects. You'll find more about that at WP:MEDRS. If after reviewing that you still feel there is something you can add to the encyclopedia, you'll need to follow best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. Specifically, if you wish to add to an existing article, you should propose your sourced changes on the article talk page. If you wish to create a new article, you'll need to do it via AFC, which is a program for New and conflicted editors where your work will be reviewed prior to it being published in the encyclopedia. John from Idegon (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

qualification for authoring a biography

My partner's father has had a distinguished career between bio-science and business. He is now 89 and has expressed interest in having his biography on Wikipedia. I have the background technical and writing skills to create this for him and have been reading up on the criteria for a biography and the process for creating one. My question is around the fact that he is my partner's father and that, because I am currently not employed, he is offering me some remuneration for the time I spend. Thus he is known to me and I could receive some payment for it although I don't see this as the same as being employed to write. Is this allowed according to the rules for Wikipedia? Is it sufficient to simply declare this relationship as I edit the article? Thanks. Tomp-uk (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tomp-uk. Thank you for disclosing that you will be paid. Please familiarize yourself with the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You should use the Articles for Creation process, where your draft article will be reviewed by experienced editors. Also, read Your first article. The quality of your references to reliable sources is all-important. Summarizing what your references say is the technique for building an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Tomp-uk. As usual, Cullen's advice above is spot on. But may I add a suggestion? It's quite difficult to write in an encyclopedic style about someone you know, even for a professional writer. You see, in an encyclopedia, every single thing you write must come from a reliable published source. Everything. You cannot interview him or his family for material. You can of course interview him, but you must use that information to lead you to published sources on which to base your writing. Also, before he can have an article, he has to meet notability requirements. Generally, a person must have been written about in detail in multiple reliable sources, totally independent of the subject. That means either there have been multiple newspaper, magazine or journal articles published about him, or he's been the subject of significant discussion in one or more books. Altho information from published sources associated with him can be used to supply neutral biographical details, without the existence of the previously mentioned independent sources, you don't have an article. I know this is a big chunk of information, so if we can break it down for you, please ask. We wouldn't want a money issue to interrupt your domestic tranquility, so it's best to be sure first. Perhaps some editor here might be willing to do a source review to help you determine if going forward is feasible. Obviously we'd need his name to do that. Good luck. Normally, I'm four square against paid editing, but you seem more nobally motivated than most paid editors. John from Idegon (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Source

Hello! Can I take any info from the sources?

http://www.mpbnet.com.br/musicos/olivia.hime/index.html

http://www.cantorasdobrasil.com.br/cantoras/olivia_hime.htm

Thank you, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

These sources are blog-like and therefore not the best option for Wikipedia.Domeikavietis (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

So, they can never be used? Noone takes info from such sources? Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources. Whether a source is reliable depends on the context (if you want to source a claim that X is a member of the town's football club, a link to the football club's site is enough, if you want to source a claim that X killed one of her teammates, you need much better), so we can never say never. Tell us what you intend to do with it and we can answer, but that answer is likely to be "no". Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I want to take marriagedate, the musucal instruments she plays, and info about children. Can I do it? Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Lidiia Kondratieva, you should probably familiarize yourself with our important policy on biographies of living person, especially what it says about quality of sources, and discussion if family members. In my opinion, there is already too much on her children in her article, assuming we're talking about Olivia Hime. John from Idegon (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

My article "Adaar" is rejected.

Im a new editor. I would like to know more about the rejection of my article "Adaar" Arundevarajankrishnan (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Both in the feedback message on your draft and on your user talk page you will find an explanation for the rejection of your draft. In each case the words in blue are wikilinks to more detailed advice. When you have read those pages you are welcome to come back to us if you have further questions. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article in your sandbox does not establish the company's notability. You need to show that there is coverage of the company in reliable third party sources - links to the company's own web site do not count. Also, the tone of the article - with phrases such as "a dream come true of four distinct individuals" and "masters of their craft who are passionately engaged in creating visuals of top-notch quality" - sounds too much like an advertisement. You should remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The draft has been speedy-deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". --David Biddulph (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

When and how do I list an editor with COI on an article?

Hi! I'm here again after a helpful response the last time round. My question is, do I have to gain consensus at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard before I can use the COI tag on the article's talk page? The article is Singapore Sports School and the school's Strategics Communications Team seem to be editing under Sspstratcomms, 66.96.214.180 and is determined to add primary-sourced content on its school facilities.

I don't want to come across as an arsehole, but there's really been so much promo content lifted from press releases in Singapore-related articles. Is there any Wikiproject I can join to sort of learn how to determine which sort of edits count as COI and puffery? Is there any peer review group to check my bias? Thank you in advance! NoCringe (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, any wisdom on this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This one is a slam-dunk. The user should be blocked as an apparent role account, and the people who use it warned not to edit the article directly. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply Guy! I think I will stalk some of the admins to get a better feel of which type of self-published sources are considered promo. NoCringe (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

wikipedia page of a construction company

Is it possible to create a wikipedia page of a construction company for public awareness? we will not promote any advertisement of our company. we only want to create a page for public awareness.KohinoorG (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@KohinoorG: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry but Wikipedia articles cannot be for "awareness" or otherwise merely tell about a company. That is still considered promotional. Wikipedia is only interested in what third parties write about an article subject. Not every company merits an article here. If you intend to edit about your company, you must read about conflict of interest at WP:COI and paid editing at WP:PAID before you do. If you just want to tell the world about your company, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I need ideas for a article specifically car manufacturers

CanadiaNinja (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello CanadiaNinja. Welcome to our Teahouse. I see you're a new user, so am just wondering whether you ask this becasue you've been set this as a project of some sort, or is it a personal interest? Whilst I doubt there are actually any car manufacturers of any size that don't yet have articles about them, we do have a suite of pages where other people can post ideas and requests for pages that they hope someone will create. These are arranged in a hierarchy by topic, and I see there are a number of individual vehicle models which have been suggested as meriting creation. You can find that list here: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport.

Do please be aware that creating an article from scratch is one of the hardest challenges any editor can perform here, so getting experience by making smaller improvements to other related articles might be sensible. If you find an article you're interested in, do look at the very bottom of its page where you'll see various 'Category' names. If you click one of those links, you'll get back a list of all the articles placed in that category. You could then browse through them all and look for any that are flagged for improvement, lack references, or are poorly written etc etc. This might be a very good place to start. Does this help? Maybe take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article, and try doing The Wikipedia Adventure. Do come back if you need any further advice from anyone. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Page - Velibre

Can you tell me how to see a deleted page that we created. The Wikipedia page was called Velibre and was about coffee capsules91.61.18.251 (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't it deleted a year ago? You could try WP:REFUND. Dbfirs 14:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

2 years ago: WP:Articles for deletion/Velibre GmbH. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, years fly past too quickly! Dbfirs 15:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

How can I answer a question asked in an alert?

I received an alert ( a fair question) I have not found how I can answer it, i.e. where I can write it! Please help! Thank you Mtl-371 (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mtl-371: alerts usually come in the format [user] mentioned you on [page] in [section]. I'd click on the linked texted after the word "in". You should be able to edit the section and reply. Happy editing! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking for assitance on an article that was not approved

The article was considered promotional, any assistance in cleaning up the article would be greatly appreciated.Jwaleswatching (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Link for convenience Draft:Eric George M.D.. Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the worst parts of the draft. Does not guarantee what is left makes the doctor notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Did not look at the quality of the remaining citations. If you intend to resubmit, in the Talk page for the draft you should be clear if you have a conflict of interest, or perhaps are being paid to create this article, as you have no other edit history. Lastly, not clear if the photographer has released copyright of the photo. David notMD (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jwaleswatching.The Louisiana Health & Fitness magazine source is gushing, promotional coverage clearly created as a result of the doctor's public relations efforts. The other sources do not appear to be independent. In its current form, the draft does not show notability, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Username change.

Is it possible to be banned for requesting to rename too much?

-Thanks. In Memoriam A.H.H. (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello In Memoriam A.H.H.. What an interesting question! I doubt you would be blocked as a result of requesting repeatedly requesting name changes, unless it became clear you were a troll, or otherwise here to cause disruption through your actions. You have to remember everyone here is a volunteer, and no-one appreciates a time-waster. However, as this answer on your talk page clearly pointed out to you last November, we don't make name changes lightly, and you appear already to have made a number recently. You were asked to wait a full year before requesting another change, and that doesn't seem unresaonable to me. Maybe it will give you time to choose the most appropriate one you want to stick with. Unless you have very good grounds for requesting a further name change (such as you had not appreciated the grave implications (~~no pun intended~~) of revealing your real name, I can't see why they would change their answer to you. So it's good news and bad news, I guess. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, I will wait a year before trying again. In Memoriam A.H.H. (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

"Article not written yet" request

Memory and Aging Project marked red in Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center article - should it be marked the same in another article (MIND Diet) that refers also to Memory and Aging Project? 67.173.119.133 (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for your question. I'm not familiar with this project associated with the center, but if it is something specific and unique about the center, it probably is better to incorporate it as a section of the Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center article rather than have it be its own article. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Red links (links to absent articles) should only be used if there is a reasonable likelihood that an acceptable article could be written on the subject, which requires both that the subject is notable in itself, and that it is encyclopaedic.See WP:REDLINKS. --ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

What about The Squires, 60's Chicago garage band?

How do we get information added describing the fantastic 60's garage band - The Squires- - from Chicago that toured the Midwest? All the members were from the west side of Chicago. 2601:246:4000:9A96:D4D:1C99:5EB6:7C8F (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. That depends on who "we" is; however, this garage band will need to have been written about in third party reliable sources that indicate which of the notability guidelines listed at WP:BAND the group meets. You may wish to read Your First Article as well. 331dot (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

How to use files across the languages?

I'm contributing for Sinhalese wikipedia. when i'm trying to use a file in EN Wikipedia from SI wikipedia it's not working.I think my question is clear.Thanks! Kaweendra (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy link: diff non-free image on siWP - the Wikidata for that one needs fixing, as it should link to File:The X-Files Season 11.jpg, not Template:Non-free video cover. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It isn't entirely clear whether you are trying to use an enwiki file at the Sinhalese Wikipedia, or vice versa. In the English Wikipedia you can't use a file from the Sinhalese Wikipedia; images have to be uploaded either to the English Wikipedia or (if free of copyright) to Wikimedia Commons. If you are contemplating uploading the file to the English Wikipedia you need to be aware that it is possible that the rules for the use of non-free content here may be different from those at the Sinhalese Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

how do I purchase cryptocurrency using cionbase?

how do I purchase cryptocurrency using cionbase?Jvfflash (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the top of this page it describes the Teahouse as "A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia", so your question doesn't belong here. For your question you might try the reference desk. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Jvfflash. Our purpose here is to answer questions about how to edit Wikipedia. For general information, read Coinbase and ask other questions at the Reference desk. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

WHY WAS MY ARTICLE DECLINED????????????????

- DUBA21 (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

See User talk :DUBA21#Your submission at Articles for creation: Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini (January 12). General Ization ^Talk 02:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

draft now deleted as copyvio for being unattributed copy and paste of the mainspace article. Nthep (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

How do I contact an editor of a page that I created?

I created a Wiki page for my grandfather, Cliff Padgett, a pioneering power boat builder from the early & mid 20th century. Now, several people are trying to delete the page because it lacks references. I have tons of stuff in my files, but Google searches turn up very few items. I just want to supply at least a little more info to the editors so they don't delete my grandfather's page, and I really don't know how to edit. I'm tech challenged and surprised I was able to create the page in the first place. QuincyBoatManQuincyBoatMan (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question, you can talk to them either by editing Talk:Cliff Padgett or by participating in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Padgett.

Also, sources do not have to be online. It is of course helpful if they are, but it is not required. If you have newspaper or magazine articles or other reliable sources you can add them to the article. WP:CITE explains how to do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

But the material does have to have been published, QuincyBoatMan, so that any reader can in principle check the references (e.g. by ordering them through a library). It's not clear from your wording whether the items in your files are published or not: If they are private memoirs or correspondence, then they cannot be used as references, I'm afrid. --ColinFine (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, QuincyBoatMan. I did take a quick look at that article before seeing your question here as I noticed it had been put up for deletion by an editor who's recent judgement and performance in nominating content for deletion is currently under scrutiny by the Wikipedia community. Whilst I did struggle to quickly find online sources to support retention, I did think it might not merit deletion either. Because of the period in which Padgett was building and racing boats, it is not necessarily going to yield much online content. However, if you've got newspaper clippings of his accomplishments and especially his world record, and can cite those, as suggested above, I think it will help considerably. As has been said, these things must have been published. Letters and personal notes and diaries etc. are irrelevant here.

If you cannot cite these because of your uncertainty on how to edit and add references, there is an alternative. I see you've already put comments on the article talk page, saying there's a 1000 word published biography of him. If, using your own words, you were to rewrite and rephrase the key content from that biography (noting that close paraphrasing is not acceptable), you could put that up on the Talk page, and then you could simply state the publication, date, author, page numbers etc that it's derived from, and another editor could insert that on your behalf if they wanted to. The key thing we rely on is "in depth" coverage in independent reliable sources, not just passing mentions. How signifant the world record is, or his other awards are, I have no idea, but this is the kind of thing that is important in showing that a person meets our standards of notabilty. It sounds likew that task is up to you. Bear in mind that there are many, many people who have done amazing things in their local area that are just never going to meet the notabilty standards of a world-wide encyclopaedia. That doesn't in any way lessen the signficance of what they have achieved or have contributed to the world. Hoping this helps, and regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Beetlebox and Nick Moyes - thanks so much. I really appreciate your taking the time to give me advice. I am compiling a number of references/sources that document Cliff Padgett's history. I have lots of photos and newspaper clippings. I'm certain that the historical museum can provide much additional documentation, since many of Padgett's memorabilia reside there. His trophies reside in the Quincy Boat Club. What kind of evidence would be acceptable re the trophies? I'm working on other critical deadlines, so I hope I can get enough references in a timely fashion before someone deletes the page.

QuincyBoatManQuincyBoatMan (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Best thing re trophies is a reference to a newspaper that reported that he won the award. Name of paper, publication date and ideally page number. Do you have that sort of thing in your clippings collection? One of Wikipedia's big gaps is for the immediate pre digital era, stuff exists in paper archives but not always online. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

He seems interesting. I found a source for one of the questioned sentences in the article and added a citation to it. Felisse (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi

HIThingsThatGo135 (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Chetsford (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone started a talk page for me on the Italian Wiki

Hi,

I now have a personal/talk page on the Italian wiki that someone else (Bottuzzu) built, and I got a message from that person to go there... https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:Keagiles

Can that page be deleted? I don't even speak Italian, and I don't like that someone is using my name.

Thanks,

Kea Keagiles (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Keagiles. All that was was a standardized welcome message (like this one) and was delivered by a welcoming bot. I don't now any itwiki admins personally, but I blanked the message for you in case that helps at all, and you can feel free to blank most anything that's posted on your talk page on any project, with very few exceptions. GMG ^talk 15:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help. Good to know. But maybe I should learn Italian now. :) Keagiles (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey, you and me both. GMG ^talk 16:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Keagiles: Your account is automatically created at a wiki if you view any page while logged in. Special:CentralAuth/Keagiles shows your account was created at the Italian Wikipedia 40 minutes before the welcome message. Many users have been confused and annoyed by such welcome messages in languages they don't know. I have thought about a proposal to ban automatic welcome messages to users who haven't edited a wiki and didn't originally create the account there. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, PrimeHunter. It was confusing. Keagiles (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources

Hello all. I registered in July, 2017 and since then, I have been reading Wikipedia policies to make constructive edits in the future. I have been reading WP:PRIMARY now and I think it is a bit vague and not clear. Can you please explain this policy thoroughly? Panspermia. (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Panspermia.. The short and sweet of it is:

Don't use primary sources if you can avoid it
Don't use primary sources pretty much ever if there are secondary sources available.
Don't make entire articles based on primary sources.
Don't interpret what primary sources say when you do need to use them.

There's a lot of "don'ts" in there, mainly because secondary sources are the real bedrock of the entire encyclopedia, and those are the one's that tend to "keep us honest" when there are different opinions about a subject among editors. It's also very easy to misuse primary sources and not even realize it. Other than that, you may find that a lot of WP policies are written in a fairly vague manner, and often that's by design, because the specifics are most often going to depend on the particular circumstances, which all can't really be spelled out in detail in policy, but can be covered by the spirit of the policy, which is something you eventually get a hang of by applying it in many different circumstances. GMG ^talk 18:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, GreenMeansGo, but can you give some examples regarding primary sourcing? Because I did not get it thoroughly. Panspermia. (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Panspermia.: I think I can answer you. A primary source is anything that comes from the subject itself. This would include a press release, a transcript of an interview with the subject, or a website by the subject, just to list some examples. To put in other way, if there was an article about "Panspermia.", anything written by you or directly from you would be considered a primary source. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes this is correct. I suppose I would also add that there is a closeness "in time" so that, for example, a newspaper from 1801, talking about an event from 1801, would need to be treated this way, as would things like court records, birth records... pretty much any kind of record, of the type that a historian may dig out from an old dusty box somewhere to write their Master's Thesis. GMG ^talk 18:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Frank Camacho

Hi, I believe Frank Camacho article has been created before by other editors and it was deleted under G4 CSD. I would like to recreate the article again as it will meet the Wikipedia WP:NMMA nobility on 27 January 2018 as the subject would has fought 3 fights on the top tier promotion. Currently Frank Camacho is redirect to List_of_current_UFC_fighters. Please advise, could the redirect be released for the article to be created and who/which Wikipedia group should I approach. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Cass. If you believe that the circumstances of the subject have changed, and the rationale of the previous AfD no longer applies, then you can surely feel free to recreate it. The discussion was four years ago, so it wouldn't be terribly surprising if that's the case. You really don't need any kind of special permission. You can simply go to the redirect, remove the

#REDIRECT [[List of current UFC fighters]]

and start writing as normal. The previously deleted article wouldn't be part of the one you're writing in any way, so you wouldn't really need a history merge or anything to preserve attribution.

Subjects can always go from non-notable to notable. They just can't go the other way round. GMG ^talk 14:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Hi, thank you for the advice. I would not removed #REDIRECT from List of current UFC_fighters page or its talk page as I can not find any redirect message. Kindly advise and thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Cass. If I understand you correctly, this link should get you where you need to go in order to edit the redirect. GMG ^talk 16:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo:, Yes, that should be the right page. Thank you very much. Could you advise where could I find other redirect page so next time I know what to do and where to find other pages that was redirected to List of current UFC_fighters? Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing Cass. When you're redirected to a page, there should be a little link in the upper left that says "redirected from TITLE" and if you click that link it will take you to the redirect itself. Alternatively you can add "&redirect=no" to the end of the url. So in this case instead of reading .../w/index.php?title=Frank_Camacho it should read .../w/index.php?title=Frank_Camacho&redirect=no. GMG ^talk 16:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi@GreenMeansGo:. Thank you so much for the advice. Appreciate it. Have a good night. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

You too! Good luck on the article. GMG ^talk 16:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, CASSIOPEIA. While GreenMeansGo's advice is technically correct, unless you are very experienced in writing Wikipedia articles I would strongly advise you not to do it that way, but to create a new draft using the Article Wizard. When you are happy with the draft, submit it for review, and the reviewer who accepts it will handle the redirect. Plese read your first article if you're not already familiar with it. --ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Eh. I've seen them around, and a little bird told me they had seven months and 10k edits under their belt. So I figured they'd probably be okay. GMG ^talk 20:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@ColinFine: and @GreenMeansGo:, Greetings, I have created 70 published articles and I am also a new page reviewer. I usually able to find the redirect link on the top left corner of a redirect page, but this time somehow I can not even locate Frank Camacho redirect page somehow, and wonder the would be a log somewhere in Wikipedia I could located the page for I asked GreenMeanGo the question. Info provided from GreeMeanGo on "adding "&redirect=no" to the end of the url" helps on locate other redirect articles in the future. Thank you guys for answering my questions and assistance. Appreciate it. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, CASSIOPEIA, I didn't look. Never jump to conclusions, Colin. --ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

ColinFine Hi, No apologies needed :). You are spending your precious time advising and care for the Wikipedia communities, and you comment is welcome. It is a work much appreciated. Have a good night. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi CASSIOPEIA I have restored the previous article and moved it to Draft:Frank Camacho. It was previously deleted in 2014 because he hadn't taken part in top flight fights. It should be safe for you to work on it there and add the more recent info that you say makes him notable. When you have done so it can be moved to mainspace. Cheers and happy editing. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers and GreenMeansGo, Hi Were Spiel Chequers, thank you for moving the page to draft; however, I have use the the advice from Green Mean Go and removed the "redirect" and wrote the article, where I have just finished. I noticed that the creator is USER:Rickyc123, who does some edits on MMA article and I am not sure why. However, I know that he copied and paste other editors draft content and recreated them while the draft articles were still waiting for reviewer to approve I came to know this as I am an active editors on MMA fighters/event pages and notice at least 3 MMA fighters page were originial not him which Ricky123 was informed - See here from this talk page [1]. Since now there is a copy which Were Spiel Chequer moved to draft and the copy I created was now stated as Ricky123 creation, I am a little confused and not sure how to proceed and what should be done. Also, I noticed there are many fighters in the List of current UFC fighters page are redirected back to the page itself but those pages had been created before and were AfD which is a little perplex to me. Kindly advise and thanks in advance. 18:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CASSIOPEIA (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA ... Well, the big question would be I suppose whether you used any of the content from the draft article, or whether you made it all yourself. If you did use content from it, then we would need to look into getting a friendly neighborhood admin to do a history merge to preserve attribution. If not, then we can probably convince someone to delete the draft as uncontroversial maintenance. I suppose either way we'll probably need an admin to press a button or two.

As to redirects that we're deleted at AfD, really the same thing goes as it did with this article. If the circumstances have changed, and the rationale of the AfD discussion no longer applies, then the article can be recreated. If very little has changed, then we should generally respect the consensus of the AfD, unless we have some other compelling reason to think it was procedurally flawed. For example, if it was somehow deleted as a vote, when there was no valid deletion rationale presented by either the nominator or the participants, or if there were substantial sources available at the time, but for some reason no one found them, which would probably most often be the case where a subject is closely tied to a non-English language. GMG ^talk 18:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

{U|GreenMeansGo}}, thank you for your prompt reply. The article I just create Frank Camacho I did it all by myself as same as all my other pages I created. I have looked at the "Draft" copy which was moved by WereSpielChequers, the fight record is the same as for Wikipedia MMA project Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts in the WP:MMA/MOS and WP:NMMA, it details how a MMA fighter's page should be written and including the fight record to have a unified writing style/a same template. If you look at all the MMA fighters article in Wikipedia they are written in such the way. The "Draft" copy was created by Embryomystic and my copy became Ricy123 as the creator - that is what I dont understand. Could you recommend a admin for me to clarify my questions please. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Well, looks like WereSpielChequers hasn't made an edit in about 45 minutes. So they may have gone offline for the moment. Probably best to give them a chance to tidy everything up before we go bothering a bunch of folks. A draft sitting around for a little while isn't going to hurt anything anyway.

As to the details of how history merging and restoring deleted content works, I really don't know, and I'm not sure I would understand it even it I could view it. For all practical purposes, it's just two different articles written by two different people. Same as if I decided for some reason to write my own article on Frank Camacho in my sand box. There would now be three versions by three people, but only the one in article space would really matter so long as it's uncontroversial the better version. GMG ^talk 19:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Google Scholar citation question

Hello!

I'm currently working on editing the Kelly D. Brownell article and I'm trying to cite some information. Specifically, I'm looking to add a citation for his published works, which according to various sources, stands at 15 books and 350+ articles. I've tried finding a single source that provides a concrete number (for example, the Library of Congress) but can't seem to find one that works well. So my question is, can Google Scholar be cited as a reference solely for the number of published works? I know it's generally not an acceptable source but for a narrow scope (the number of works only), can it be used?

Please note that I do have a stated COI declaration on my User and other relevant pages.

Any insight into this would be warmly welcomed. I do want to strictly adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and best practices. Thank you very much in advance.

Mdrozdowski (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Mdrozdowski. If the subject has a publicly published CV, you can just use that to pull a concise overall number. That shouldn't run afoul of our standards for self published sources, given that a CV is itself citing other publicly available and verifiable works, namely, the works published by the subject themselves. This is similar to how you don't need a source to say that a person wrote a book, because the book they wrote is the source which says they wrote it. GMG ^talk 17:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick reply; I appreciate it. He doesn't have a CV published per se, however, he does have a bio on the Sanford School of Public Policy page that cites a figure of 350 papers: https://sanford.duke.edu/people/faculty/brownell-kelly-d

In comparison, Google Scholar shows 474: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=new_articles&hl=en&imq=Kelly+D.+Brownell

The original article wasn't cited with good sources, which is something I definitely want to correct. If the bio page from the Sanford website will work, I'll use that. Current version of recommended edits to the article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mdrozdowski/Sandbox

Thanks again for replying so quickly!

Mdrozdowski (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Mdrozdowski. I'd say you would probably be fine using the Sanford bio as a reference, and I've seen similar "official bios" used on other articles on academics. Of course we would more prefer if an independent author had written an independently published biography on him, and if the two disagreed we would usually take the word of the independent biographer over that of an official bio But presumably, Duke University has some level of professional commitment to accuracy/academic integrity, and wouldn't just allow any of their faculty to baselessly inflate their credentials on their official website. So there is presumably some level of oversight there above what you may find for example on someone's personal blog, where they have complete editorial control and could publish complete falsehoods if they wanted.

Just glancing at the draft, there does seem to be some over-the-top language in there, things like known globally and Renowned internationally. These kinds of phrases don't actually add information for the reader, and just come off as niceties and a kind of aggrandizing puffery. I would probably recommend going through and asking yourself, if someone who really didn't like the guy was forced at gunpoint to write a factual article on him, what bits would they leave out, so that they sealed the deal and escaped, but didn't make the guy look any better than they had to. GMG ^talk 18:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. My thanks as well, for the guidance on the language. It's in the original article and I wondered about leaving it in. I think I'll err on the side of caution and remove it. If you have any other recommendations, I'd gladly welcome them. In any case, thanks much for all the help - I appreciate it.

Mdrozdowski (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Umm.. well Mdrozdowski, we should get our information from the sources, but we don't necessary need to get our wording, since many publications don't have any expectation of neutrality as we do. GMG ^talk 19:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Oops, sorry - I should've clarified. I meant that language is in the current Wikipedia article. I've removed it in my in-progress draft. :)

Mdrozdowski (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Map removed by ethnic activist

The map which appeared at the start of Indo-Aryan languagesand Indo-Aryan people has been removed 3 times by a recent editor, Axomika, on the basis that a somewhat recently scheduled Indian language (Maithili) does not appear on the map, which dates from 1978. This WP:SPA editor is interested in going through the steps to correct the map, leading to an edit war. Would any editors, including admins, like to step in with advice or action for this editor? I told Axomika about the Graphics lab on his Talk page, but he reverted my restoration of the map again.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the map to both articles. Axomika's behaviour looks to me like "if you won't play by my rules, I'll destroy your football". Maproom (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

How to get an article title updated?

Hi there

There is an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexient) about a defunct Canadian company called Nexient Learning.
There is also an extant US company called Nexient which does not have a Wikipedia article.
Google searches for "Nexient" are generating a preview of the Wikipedia page -- creating user confusion that Nexient is a) Canadian and b) defunct

What is the best way to get the article renamed to Nexient_Learning to reduce this confusion?

Solangia (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I have moved that article to Nexient Learning. (This does not imply that I believe your Nexient, or the other one for that matter, is notable enough to warrant an article about it. I just haven't checked.) Maproom (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)