Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 740

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 735 ← Archive 738 Archive 739 Archive 740 Archive 741 Archive 742 → Archive 745

Want to add more information about slavery to Wikipedia

Hi, I want to add more information about slavery and forced labour to Wikipedia, but my contributions are being deleted, sometimes only in part but sometimes wholesale. I've been told I'll be blocked if I try to add it back in, and I keep expecting to be blocked just for disagreeing on talk pages. If that happens again I hope someone will come talk to me on my talk page. Although this problem has occurred in a number of articles, I would like to focus on Belgian Congo and Lever Brothers for the time being. In the case of the Belgian Congo, my contributions were removed wholesale with the exception of a single sentence acknowledgement about the forced labour regime. In the case of Lever Brothers, my contributions were only partially deleted but the result is very weird. It seems like stuff was deleted more or less at random just for the sake of keeping the word count down.

Here are references I provided for the existence of forced labour in the Belgian Congo. I consider the first two to be of the greatest quality and relevance. (Note:References on Lever Brothers have also been included in this collapsed section below.Nick Moyes (talk))

Extended content

Marchal, Jules (1999). Forced labor in the gold and copper mines: a history of Congo under Belgian rule, 1910-1945. Translated by Ayi Kwei Armah (reprint ed.). Per Ankh Publishers.

Marchal, Jules (2008). Lord Leverhulme's Ghosts: Colonial Exploitation in the Congo. Translated by Martin Thom. Introduced by Adam Hochschild. London: Verso. ISBN 978-1-84467-239-4. First published as Travail forcé pour l'huile de palme de Lord Leverhulme: L'histoire du Congo 1910-1945, tome 3 by Editions Paula Bellings in 2001.

Rich, Jeremy (Spring 2009). "Lord Leverhulme's Ghost: Colonial Exploitation in the Congo (review)". Project Muse. Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History. Retrieved 17 March 2018.

Hochschild, Adam (1999). "18. Victory?". King Leopold's Ghost: a story of greed, terror, and heroism in colonial Africa. Boston: Mariner Books.

Buell, Raymond Leslie (1928). The native problem in Africa, Volume II. New York: The Macmillan Company. pp. 540–544.

Zoellner, Tom (2009). "1 Scalding Fruit". Uranium: war, energy, and the rock that shaped the world. New York: Penguin Group. pp. 4–5.

Lewis, Brian (2008). "Sunlight for Savages". So Clean: Lord Leverhulme, Soap and Civilisation. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 188–190.

Edmondson, Brad (2014). "10: The Sale Agreements". Ice Cream Social: The Struggle for the Soul of Ben & Jerry's. San Francisco, California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Makelele, Albert. This is a Good Country: Welcome to the Congo. pp. 43–44.

De Witte, Ludo (January 9, 2016). "Congolese oorlogstranen: Deportatie en dwangarbeid voor de geallieerde oorlogsindustrie (1940-1945)". DeWereldMorgen.be. Retrieved 17 March 2018.

"Lord Leverhulme". History. Retrieved 17 March 2018.

Mitchell, Donald (2014). The Politics of Dissent: A Biography of E D Morel. SilverWood Books.

"Un autre regard sur l'Histoire Congolaise: Guide alternatif de l'exposition de Tervuren" (PDF). p. 14. Retrieved 17 March 2018.


Here are references I provided for the use of forced labour by Lever Brothers. I consider the first to be of the greatest quality and relevance.

Marchal, Jules (2008). Lord Leverhulme's Ghosts: Colonial Exploitation in the Congo. Translated by Martin Thom. Introduced by Adam Hochschild. London: Verso. ISBN 978-1-84467-239-4. First published as Travail forcé pour l'huile de palme de Lord Leverhulme: L'histoire du Congo 1910-1945, tome 3 by Editions Paula Bellings in 2001.

Rich, Jeremy (Spring 2009). "Lord Leverhulme's Ghost: Colonial Exploitation in the Congo (review)". Project Muse. Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History. Retrieved 17 March 2018.

Buell, Raymond Leslie (1928). The native problem in Africa, Volume II. New York: The Macmillan Company. pp. 540–544.

Lewis, Brian (2008). "Sunlight for Savages". So Clean: Lord Leverhulme, Soap and Civilisation. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 188–190.

Edmondson, Brad (2014). "10: The Sale Agreements". Ice Cream Social: The Struggle for the Soul of Ben & Jerry's. San Francisco, California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Makelele, Albert. This is a Good Country: Welcome to the Congo. pp. 43–44.

De Witte, Ludo (January 9, 2016). "Congolese oorlogstranen: Deportatie en dwangarbeid voor de geallieerde oorlogsindustrie (1940-1945)". DeWereldMorgen.be. Retrieved 17 March 2018.

"Lord Leverhulme". History. Retrieved 17 March 2018.

Mitchell, Donald (2014). The Politics of Dissent: A Biography of E D Morel. SilverWood Books.

"Un autre regard sur l'Histoire Congolaise: Guide alternatif de l'exposition de Tervuren" (PDF). p. 14. Retrieved 17 March 2018.


Here are some additional sources, which I listed only on the talk page because I have not reviewed them personally. They are listed by Jules Marchal as sources he used in writing Lord Leverhulme's Ghosts.

Chalux, Un an au Congo Belge, Brussels, 1925

Denis Leopold, Les Jesuites Belges au Kwango, Brussels 1943

A. Lycops, O. Louwers and G. Touchard, eds, Etat independant du Congo. Recuil usuel de la legislation, 7 bols, Brussels, 1902-1913

Henri Nicolai, Le Kwilu, Edition Cemubac (Centre scientifique et medical de l'ULB en Afrique Centrale), LXIX-1963

W.A.G. Ormsby-Gore, Report by the Hon. W. A. G. Ormsby-Gore M.P. (parliamentiary under-secretary of state for the Colonies) on his visit to West Africa during the year 1926, London, September 1926, command paper 2744.

Jacques Vanderlinden, Pierre Ryckmans, Brussels 1994

Charles Wilson, The History of Unilever, 3 vols, London 1954

The following deposits from the African archives that are stored in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Brussels: AI: Affaires indigenes AIMO: Affaires indigenes et main-d'oevre du gouvernement general FP: Force publique GG Leo: achircives due gouvernement general a Leopoldville H: Hygiene MOI: Main-d'oeuvre indigene SPA: Sevice due personnel d'Afrique T: archives de la 3e direction generale, tome A 47, dossiers T (terres)

Also semi-official publications from the AMC (Annuaires due Ministere des Colonies), BA (Bulletin administatif et commercial du Congo Belge), BCB (Biographie Coloniale Belge), and BO (Bulletin officiel)

Ashy Waves (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I found instructions above on how to create a sandbox article and pasted my version of Belgian Congo there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ashy_Waves/sandbox Is there a way to make a second sandbox article for Lever Brothers? Or can I only have one sandbox article? Ashy Waves (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
On my talk page someone left a comment stating, "Stop spamming your proposed content all over the place and read WP:CANVASS. Also, do not create RFCs with invalid opening statements." This seems to confirm my fears that I may be blocked soon just for disagreeing with people on talk pages. If that happens I hope someone will talk to me on my talk page. Ashy Waves (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


Hello, Ashy_Waves, and welcome to our Teahouse. (Note: I see that since I started drafting my reply to you, you have been blocked indefinitely by NeilN for disruptive editing. Here is the advice I would have given you had you continued to be able to contribute in a constructive manner)
Although I'm not qualified to comment on the topics you want to create content on, I can make some suggestions on how best to fit in with the editing practices we expect everyone to follow here. Problems can sometimes occur when those new to editing either don't quite understand how things are done here, or continue to ignore the advice of experienced editors in the belief they're 'righting great wrongs'. I can see that you've become somewhat frustrated by the engagement you have had with other editors on the Talk Pages of certain articles, or from feedback you've personally received. My best advice is imply to consider what those other editors are saying, and stop to see if there is a better way to go about improving articles. I sense that you've wanted to insert rather long essay-like paragraphs on slavery to the Belgian Congo article which, prior to that contained virtually no mention of the subject. I'll admit the latter surprised me, but I think you've already been advised about concerns over some sources and the need not to add 'undue weight' to topic that received 1000+ hits a day. It's a case of progressing slowly and substantiating statements, and ensuring they're added in the correct place. Detailed stats in a lead paragraph would be the wrong place, for example.
It probably would be inadvisable to try to reinsert content which has been contested. And it's good that you're engaging on the talk pages with other editors who know how things work around here. Consider instead writing one single, neutrally written (i.e. balanced) paragraph as a new section on slavery, and proposing that on the article's talk page for others to consider. You should continue to try to reach consensus there over content and reliable sources. I cannot envisage you being blocked as a result of presenting, concise reasoned arguments on any talk page, providing it it clear you're here to edit and improve neutrally written encyclopaedic content. We do occasionally get individual editors who are here on a mission to cleanse topics, or who try to slant them to one extreme viewpoint - those type of editors do tend to get blocked eventually. So, we never say person/regime X was a monster - we show evidence that demonstrates the good things they did and evidence from reliable independent sources to show that they had darker sides. All has to be balanced and neutrally presented, with good sources that are themselves deemed authoritative, independent and reliable. I hope you can manage to do that in a succinct and constructive way, whilst working alongside other editors.
I see you've copied a version of the entire Belgian Congo as you had edited the article into your sandbox. You had no reason to do that, as we can all view any article at any point in time by displaying what we call "diffs" - like this one. We require all editors who paste whole chunks of articles to work on in their sandboxes to credit the sources. You can do this retrospectively by making a Dummy Edit and explaining in the edit summary where the content came from. Better still, please remove it, as we don't need to see it. Either way, do not for a moment think of submitting it as one might normally do with new draft content in a sandbox; this would not be an acceptable way to carry on. (i.e. we already have one article on that topic - we never consider alternative versions; we edit the original by consensus.) You asked if there's a way to make a second sandbox page. Yes - you simply edit the url. But once again I advise you not to copy an entire article in the vain hope you can submit a new one - you won't be allowed to. It's OK to paste sections of an article if you plan to work on it and perhaps offer revised wording on a Talk page for consideration. Again, when pasting any content into your sandbox from another page, credit all past editors by referring in the edit summary to the source of that content i.e. include a link to the source page. I suspect I haven't addressed your key concerns about how to get all you want to say into an article. The reality is you probably won't. But try to understand how we do things (the best way being to learn to make minor edits and uncontroversial changes first), and work with others to find a way forward. I hope this helps a little. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) and too late! You obviously feel very deeply about your content, but you need to understand that Wikipedia articles need to be balanced. Adding many paragraphs on a topic tangential to an article title will not make you popular with other editors. You will not be blocked for disagreeing, but if you persist in adding large amounts of content that the majority of editors consider to be of minor importance to the particular article, then you possibly risk action by administrators. I suggest that you slow down and discuss edits on article talk pages. Dbfirs 14:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Why did my article disappear?

So,I wrote, or started to write an article. On the article I put that it was under construction and there would be more to come. The title of the article was Dracula Chronicles. It is about nothing that is already on here ( I looked) Because it had Dracula in the title, I was told to add it to on of the many Dracula articles already here. I was also told that there should be a contest button to get the article put back as it was removed within a couple minutes of my publishing it. This button was never there and then I couldn't find any help to explain my situation and get it fixed. I'm finding this extremely frustrating and I'm wondering if there is some kind of appeal process I can go through to get this fixed. Just because it has Dracula in the title, doesn't mean it's more of the same stuff that's already on here. someone please help me! This is the first article I've tried to publish and it's already giving me grief! Thanks! DraculasAngel — Preceding unsigned comment added by DraculasAngel (talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, DraculasAngel, and welcome to the Teahouse! Explain the situation to the admin who deleted the article at User talk:TonyBallioni. If the two of you disagree, you can post a message at Wikipedia:Deletion review to seek others' opinions. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
DraculasAngel, what you wrote wasn't an article at all. There is no reason to discuss this with anyone. The page was just an advertisement for your group and a teaser of books you want to write about. There is no way the page will be restored. ~ GB fan 20:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
DraculasAngel It is likely that the "Contest this deletion" button was present on the page you created, but it was deleted before you could contest it. As it was tagged for speedy deletion, as long as an administrator feels that the speedy deletion criteria given is valid, the page can be deleted without delay or discussion. It is correct that in theory you could appeal to Deletion Review, but what GB fan states is also correct in that it would be a waste of time for you to make an appeal if the page was too promotional in nature. Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes like telling the world about your group. Your group needs to have been written about in independent reliable sources that indicate how it is notable per the guidelines listed at WP:ORG. You also have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest in writing about your group directly, and you should avoid doing so. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, DraculasAngel. As an administrator, I can read deleted articles. Here is my honest advice: Do not bother trying to appeal this deletion, since the deletion was entirely justified and the chance of it being restored is essentially zero. Your article was nothing more than an unreferenced attempt to promote your non-notable work in progress. Instead, read and study Your first article. Please do not submit anything other than completed, well referenced encyclopedia articles about notable topics to the main space of Wikipedia. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I think you should userfy DraculasAngel's article, like it says here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers "One common error among newcomers is to create an article in mainspace about themselves, their garage band, or about their original theories on a certain topic. One way to deal gently with this is to userfy the article, and leave a note saying why. {{nn-userfy}} is designed for userfying autobiographical articles." Ashy Waves (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I couldn’t really make heads or tails of what that page was, but I deleted under A10 because it said the page existed to inform people about Vlad the Impailer (I think they called him Vlad III). Looking back, I should have changed the target to that instead of the book, but we don’t need a 2nd page that is a Dracula fan page. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

revision history

i want to revise the topics in wikepedia( help me to check history of visited pages) as i am a doctor and preparing for my exams ,i also like to change change the medical encyclopaedia as it is offline in android app can it be also in my laptop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakashgupta123 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Prakashgupta123. I'm really sorry - I'm not quite sure what you're asking of us. If my answers below do not assist you, could you ask it again in a different way, please?
If by 'revise' you mean 'study' - then I hope Wikipedia articles help you study and prepare for your exams.
If by 'revise' you mean 'edit', then yes, anyone is free to edit any article. But be aware that medical articles have VERY stringent criteria for references. The opinions of you, your teachers, or any out-of-date text books is not sufficient. You can find more information at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).
Every page on Wikipedia has a 'history' tab at the top of the page in Desktop (i.e. non-mobile view). You can check the history of every revision or check the number of visits to each page over time by clicking the 'page view statistics' link you'll find on the View History page itself. (You can see daily visit figures going back to mid-2015)
I successfully view and edit Wikipedia in four different ways, which you ought to be able to do, too. PC Desktop; PC laptop; iphone mobile and on an old Android tablet.
There is nothing at all to stop you copying a page from Wikipedia and pasting it into a word processor for offline reading, or printing it onto paper or saving as a PDF. (There are links on the far left side of each page in Desktop view to help you do this)
My sincere apologies if I have misunderstood your questions. Regards from the UK, and good luck with your exams. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

picture request

Hi - I know you're not supposed to edit the pages of people you know personally, but if they have a page but there's no photo is it ok to ask them for one and add it? Thanks Biochemlife (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Great question, Biochemlife! The answer's a qualified 'yes'. Because copyright resides in the hand of the photographer, if you know that person, please go ahead and take a photo of them and upload it yourself. If that's impossible, ask them to create a freee Wikipedia account and ask them to upload it from that account themselves. What we can't accept is you uploading a picture they've sent you with a note saying 'it's ok to use this, mate' , or something similar. Do you think you could manage that? If not, come back and we'll provide a link to how they can supply a photo of themselves and release it under the appropriate licence. Again, remember that it's the photographer, not the person in the picture who holds the copyright. Tripods and self-timers are wonderful things! regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the response - The page in question is for a scientist who works where I do, so I will ask her if I can take a picture. Biochemlife (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Brill. That's the best way. You might even wish to consider asking them if you could make an additional 10-15 second video of them. (Tripod useful!) The Women in Red Wikiproject and others have been encouraging short videos of notable people to be made. They obviously can't be used as reliable sources of fact, but imagine having short sequences of notable people where they work and where you can here them saying in their own words something along the lines of "Hi, I'm Dr Smith, I'm a scientist here at Foo University where I study the DNA of chemo-organo heterotrophic respiratory-catabolising organisms and at weekends I enjoy voodoo and welding..." Nick Moyes (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Formatting error at Bad Dragon?

I tried copying the company infobox template from Google and filling it in with relevant information, but the infobox fell apart. Could someone tell me why? The Verified Cactus 100% 15:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Hi VerifiedCactus. You had managed to insert a couple of pairs of unnecessary }} characters which closed the Infobox too early. The Infox template should both start and finish with curly brackets. Any others used within it should be 'sub-templates' such as for that for a bulleted list, and must always be in matching pairs. Going through your diffs it was easy to spot the odd additions, plus there's a really useful script which you can deploy which gives you different colours of source code for references and templates, so any wrong colours highlight a coding error., If you'd find this useful, I'll dig out the link for you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I think I'll be fine without the script for now though. The Verified Cactus 100% 15:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd forgotten - it wasn't a user-installed script: In fact, "Wikitext syntax highlighting" is a great little tool, currently under beta-testing, and easily selectable from one's 'Preferences' settings. Nick Moyes (talk)

User:Deermouse page has been established,

Creating the user page under guidelines MoS, I would introduce myself as an editor in the making. You are invited to visit User:Deermouse page and post a critique of your choice. There are many things to learn; I am being attentive.Deermouse (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

List of owners of English football clubs

This article has Blackpool FC's ownership at 80% one person and 25% another - the maximum sum can only be 100% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:2119:EF00:858F:FEE5:62CC:BE40 (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. The numbers also contradict the current values in the main article Blackpool F.C. - just mentioning it here as additional info. Generally speaking, the article's talkpage (or the main article's talkpage) would be the best place to raise such concerns, but maybe someone knowledgeable (aka. not me in this case) here is able to help too. I have formatted your original message a bit to avoid external links in the header, and I have now also added a maintenance tag in the article to notify other editors. GermanJoe (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Meeting a friend

I want to see someone that I like on Wikipedia. But, I do not know any of her articles. How can I see her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnbeatableFlame154 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, UnbeatableFlame154. Welcome back. Your question does not make sense, I'm afraid. We're here to help build the world's most amazing free encyclopedia. We're not here to meet people. Please see : What Wikipedia is not. Many of us here do get to know other editors in the course of our work, but only in the anonymous context of collaborating and helping one another to edit and improve Wikipedia. We do arrange various meetups and editing events] around the world, but I suspect that's probably not what's in your mind. Please remember that the Teahouse is here to answer questions on how to edit Wikipedia, not how to find stuff. That's what Google's good at. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, UnbeatableFlame154. If you know the username of another editor, you can leave a message on that editor's user talk page. But otherwise, Nick Moyes was correct above. We talk to other editors here mostly about how best to work on the encyclopedia, not for general social chit chat. There are other sites for those purposes. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

New Article - Congressional Gold Medal, Paul C Fleming

Hello:

I often use and donate to wiki. However, I finally updated an article for the first time and signed up for my username. It's on Texas A&M's site and I added my grandfather, age 93, who just received the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor. If there is any verification needed, I have pictures, video, the medal, etc. Is it sufficient to just change something? How do you guys check all this? Thanks! Marti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martifleming (talk • contribs) 17:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Martifleming. Welcome to our friendly Teahouse, and congratulations on making your first edits here. It's so easy to do, but somehow seems so scary at the same time. Oh, and thank you for contributing to Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) too - none of it comes to us - we're all volunteers here. It all goes to the many outreach and support services that the WMF provides around the world.
I'm really glad you came here and asked those questions. The answer is yes, content does indeed get checked and verified by all sorts of routes. I can really see your edit is well-meant, though you might just find it does get challenged. This happens a lot - purely so we can keep Wikipedia accurate and based on verifiable information sources, rather than simply what people know to be true. If it does, please don't take offence, or take it as a slight to your grandfather. My first question would be to ask if there was any local news coverage of this story - it sounds like the kind of thing that might receive coverage, either by the university or by local media. If so, that would be the ideal thing to offer as a reference to prove verifiability. I would hate you to take offence, but photos of unpublished correspondence is rarely taken as sufficient evidence - purely on the ground that people do actually doctor these kinds of images. Of course, the University article also now has conflicting statements - seven alumni stated as being honoured; eight alumni listed. I wonder what you think of these observations, or if you need any more support to reflect the honour his country has bestowed on your grandfather? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@Martifleming: Update: Well, at least we've now demonstrated how we check and verify things - and so quickly too! I see another editor has spotted your edit, and reverted it for lack of support, and that they left a polite message explaining the reason for this on your Talk page. This is quite normal, so please don't be offended by this - it's actually a great demonstration of how we all operate for the greater good, and none of my comments above are rendered irrelevant, nor is the removal of your grandfather's name irreversible. (A little trick I sometimes do when I have facts at my disposal that I can't currently prove to everyone's satisfaction, is to leave a note on the article's talk page, stating what I'd like to add, but can't necessarily support at the present time. That will stay there forever - and you may find other editors willing and able to help you insert the supporting sources, or to mobilise a photo, or to encourage you to submit that news story to local media or to the University itself.) Nick Moyes (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Martifleming. What we would need is a citation to a published reliable source or sources that show a) that Paul S. Flemming won the Gold Medal of Honor, and b) that he attended Texas A&M. Newspaper stories would be good, but other sources would be acceptable. We don't need scans, date of publication and name of work and title of article will do. See WP:CITE for more information. http://www.homeofheroes.com/verify/recipients_f.html does not seem to list him. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


M: prefix

As you know M: is being interpreted as "meta". I'm trying to create a page which has M: in the title and obviously it's not working. How could I prohibit the interpretation as a prefix? Adler (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Worth a read is WP:TSC. {{Correct title}} seems appropriate here. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@Adler.fa: adding ping. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@Adler.fa: See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Colons. You have to choose another name and you cannot prevent the "M:" name from linking to meta. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Protecting My Pages

I wanted to protect my user page. But how can I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnbeatableFlame154 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi UnbeatableFlame154 pages are only protected if they are subject to frequent persistent vandalism. Your userpage does not qualify. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
In addition to what Dodger67 says, it is very bad form for one editor to change another editor's userpage without good reason, and noone has edited yours since it was created, UnbeatableFlame154. See this page for more details. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding initials in the title of a biographical wiki

Hello:

The page I created, Vadrevu Raju, does not have a "Move" option. I would like to add his informal name (V.K.) to the title [i.e., Vadrevu (V.k.) Raju]. How can I make that edit? Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemangold738 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jemangold738, welcome to our Teahouse. You are unable to make any such moves until your account has made at least 10 edits. See WP:AUTOCONFIRM for details why. That said, I'm not totally convinced that a name change would help users find the article more easily than at present. Always best to discuss these things on the article's talk page. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Nick Moyes that such a page move is a bad idea, as it will make the subject harder to locate for no real reason. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Maximum Number of Words in Book Plots

Is the maximum number the same as the maximum number of words required in film/movie plots? Thissecretperson (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Thissecretperson, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no exact word count limit. Please see Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary and particularly its its "Length section. See also Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works, and MOS:PLOT ll of which suggest that 400-700 words is usually sufficient. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for suggesting the articles-I was struggling with trying to find the right ones. Thissecretperson (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Whether the references are required for an edit?

I had submit an edit without any reference, and then it was rejected, so, whether the references are required for an edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Cloud (talk • contribs) 01:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chris Cloud: Welcome to the Teahouse. You must mean Draft:Cloud-Clone, which was not deleted. Instead, your submission was declined. Maybe you didn't intend to click the submit button? The best thing you could do would be to read the explanation and some of the links it provided, and then if you have questions about the details come back here. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Marina and The Diamonds Discography

The Discography page for Marina and The Diamonds is very outdated and every-time I go to update sales and certifications on her albums and songs some editor called snap snap reverses it, even when I have credible sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:703:100:3730:644C:1AD8:1E16:D271 (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello there 2601 and welcome to the Teahouse! Perhaps KatnissEverdeen could answer that? --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I can't speak for SnapSnap, though the reason I reverted the edit is because of the note directly below your addition of the RIAA certification (which you seem to have not seen or ignored) which reads "DO NOT ADD RIAA CERTIFICATIONS; since US chart peaks are not used for singles in this article, US certifications should not be added either, per WP:DISCOGSTYLE#Listing_certifications". Because there is a note there, that means that there has been consensus by other editors not to add that particular content. If you feel you have a strong reason for including it, I would suggest discussing it on the article's talk page first and see how other editors may feel about the situations. Hope this helps, and happy editing! :) Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 16:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
If you're the same IP user using diamondgarden.net and marinaandthediamonds.wikia.com as references, these sources are anything but credible. As per WP:UGC, user-generated sources such as forums and fan wikis are not reliable. Regarding the RIAA certifications, there's a hidden note in the page explaining why they are not supposed to be added. snapsnap (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Who?

I was wondering who wrote Mental Chronometry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.162.167 (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2018

Welcome to the Teahouse. You see the tab saying "View history" at the top of this page? It's at the top of every page and contains a list of all the edits that have been done on a page. See Help:Page history for more. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, IP editor. According to the revision history, this article was written by Zazim way back in 2006. Zazim has not edited since that year. Several other editors have made major and minor changes to the article since then. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

inquiry

Hi, May I know why my first article was decline? Thank you, I am wiling to learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bebzpalomo (talk • contribs) 06:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi ! Your article was decline because your submission read more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner. --Clément Chevallier (talk) 06:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Enable thanks after edits?

Hello. Some editors have a thank link at the end of an edit, shown in the 'View History' page. How is this enabled? Rolmops23 (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Rolmops23: that feature is automatically enabled for all logged-in editors, but not for IP addresses. The documentation is here. --bonadea contributions talk 07:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft declined

Hello. I am creating an article for our Organization. But we still don't have any reference to site aside from those where we got the foundations of our group. I wish for a guidance for my draft will be accepted. It says that we should add secondary references about us, not by us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crctofficial (talk • contribs) 05:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have taken the liberty of adding a new section heading as it appears that your question does not refer to the section in which you placed it. Without references to reliable sources independent of the subject, the draft will not be accepted and there cannot be a Wikipedia article. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I need some help!

I wrote a Korean Wikipedia article about 'The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life' which is written by Erving Goffman. I explained the book and also introduced about the writer, Erving Goffman. But someone delected that part(about author) and sent debate message to me that I should explain about him at the 'Erving Goffman' page. But The context which is about writer was not too long and I think it is very important to introduce him to understand the book, so I think it is okay to mention him. I want to listen to your opinions!--Yeon So Jeong (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This page is for advice on editing the English Wikipedia. Questions regarding the Korean Wikipedia need to be asked there, not here. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@Yeon So Jeong: As David says, each language Wikipedia has very different ways of approaching subjects, not to mention every editor having their referred way of constructing an article. On English Wikipedia we would expect the page on The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life to mention and link to the main article about the author, assuming there is one. On en.wiki there is. Here, we would consider whether it is the book that is notable or the author - but how Korean Wikipedians address these issues really is a matter to discuss there, and we can offer no opinion to guide you - but thank you so much for coming to our Teahouse today. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@Yeon So Jeong and Nick Moyes: IMVHO, if there were some specific events in the author's life, which triggered the impulse to write the book or which substantially influenced its contents, they may be mentioned in the article about book. But any extended description (and especially facts not directly connected to the book) should be placed in the author's biography. At least that's how we usually write in en-wiki and pl-wiki. --CiaPan (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I don't know Korean at all, but according to interlanguage links, the corresponding articles are ko:자아 연출의 사회학 for the book and ko:어빙 고프먼 for its author.
And ko-wiki page correlated to this Teahouse is possibly ko:위키백과:키다리 아저씨, linked in a side bar here. --CiaPan (talk)

Ip adress

Hello,

I was doing a bit of research on an organisation and I stumbled upon a discrepancy in the wikipedia article with another one I found. I figured I might make the small correction, but then after I made it, I learned that one's IP address gets recorded. I have no clue how Wikipedia works. Now, I'm afraid of what someone could theoretically do with my IP address being plastered there. I tried to revert the edit to see if I remove my record of having changed it but it simply recorded each of my efforts to change it back. I then hastily made an account and now I am wondering if there is some way I can a) have my username show up instead of my ip address, or b) delete the record of my edits altogether.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saoaot3120 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Saoaot3120: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. All edits must be attributable to either a username or IP address. As you found out, entries in edit histories cannot be removed. Others may know more than I do but I don't believe there is a way for you to shift your edits under your IP address to your username. I think that the only thing you can do is remember to use your username going forward which, as you are aware, hides your IP address. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

google does not see my article

Not that you cannot get to it, if you know the exact address or get to the article through a long-established article in an alternative language. But the article does not show up in google searches.

This is a newly-written article and I have submitted it for review, but also published — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marek Gelbhart (talk • contribs) 11:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Marek Gelbhart: I have answered you on your user talk page. Please only ask a question in one location. Thanks 331dot (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Why did my article get deleted repeatedly?

I have written an article on MIT-ADT University. but it has been deleted with a reason of promotional content but the article does not have any promotion or advertising content then why it has been deleted? Kindly let me know how can I improve my draft for getting it approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhameja.Kunal (talk • contribs) 05:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to our Teahouse, Dhameja.Kunal. I am unable to view deleted content, but I can see the subsequent draft you are working on at Draft:MIT Art ,Design and Technology University. Creating a new article from scratch is one of the hardest tasks for anyone to achieve on Wikipedia, let alone a new editor like you. Remember that this is an encyclopaedia project, and that information must be presented in a clear, concise and informative way. It should be well laid out, and only contain information that can be found in what we call reliable sources that are independent of the subject. At the moment the content and structure of your draft is very messy. You don't need sub-headings for all the clubs and course offered - in fact you don't even need to list them. Just base what you write on what those sources say, and nothing more. If there are no sources to support what you want to write, then the simple rule is: "do not write it!" A two sentence entry that is clear and informative is far, far better than four paragraphs of promotional waffle. As a start, might I invite you to consider which elements in the following, unreferenced sentences that you drafted sound inappropriate for a neutral encyclopaedia: Formerly owned by the infamous Bollywood star, Raj Kapoor's family, the MIT Group of Institutions bought this campus on 4th August, 2002. In an attempt to pay respect to Mr Raj Kapoor's dream, the land’s original serenity was retained while developing it into a large educational campus. In spite of its proximity to the traffic-prone Pune-Sholapur Highway, the campus is in the lap of Mother Nature and exudes peace and tranquillity.? Just tell us that MIT is a university. Tell us where it is, and provide links to references to support what you write, and to prove it actually exists. Then you could add an external link to the university's own website. Then your job will be done. Nobody cares what clubs it has, or how someone feels it is lovely and tranquil, so you should leave this out unless there has been significant media coverage that makes it worth reporting upon. You might wish to look at other school or college articles, remembering that far too many of them also try to write in flowery terms like these. Check their structure and layout, and do please read: Wikipedia:Your first article. Remember: "less is more". Finally, I have just checked for exisiting articles, and you will also need to clarify any connection with or distinction between Maharashtra Institute of Technology - World Peace University, MIT School of Business and Maharashtra Institute of Technology, Aurangabad. Hoping this will assist you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Dhameja.Kunal. I'm going to disagree a bit with the otherwise excellent advice that Nick Moyes has given you: it is not enough to find references that show that the place "actually exists". Many things actually exist in the world, that do not merit an article in Wikipedia; for example, me, my car, my house, the shop where I buy my fruit and vegetables. What we require is that at least a couple of people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to write in some depth about the subject, and been published in reliable places. The "no connection" is important - Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what any subject says about themselves, or what their friends, relatives, employees, or associates, say about them; so if the only material published is from such sources, then it is not possible to write an acceptable article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
yes, I agree with what ColinFine has said about articles needing to meet our notability criteria, especially Notability for organisations in your case. That omission was because I assumed a University would meet these standards and be unlikely to be accepted for deletion - as explained a bit better at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. But I was wrong not to have mentioned it at all, Dhameja.Kunal, because we are talking about a new article being accepted, and nowadays the bar for accepting new pages is higher than for deleting existing ones. Thank you for pointing this out, Colin.  I have just dug out this essay (i.e. it's not a formal policy or guideline) which also gives some useful guidance on how to write on this topic, noting that genuine universities are, de facto usually considered 'Notable': Wikipedia:College and university article advice. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Where/How to appropriately workshop revisions/expansions to a section of an existing article?

Greetings. Long time reader, only recent editor.

Up to this point my edits have been limited to adding references and updating information on lists. However, I've noticed an insufficiently-thorough aspect of an level-4 vital article, which I would like to expand with new information. I want to make sure that I go about the process correctly rather than just kicking in the door. I know I need to use a formal, neutral writing style, support the information with verifiable references, and check everything twice before I submit it. I'm still working my way through the style guide, and won't begin the process until I feel comfortable that I am in adherence.

My question is really about how to workshop the material before making the edits. There's an intimidating amount of complexity to the Wikipedia system of checks and balances. My instinct is that I should submit the drafted revisions on the Talk page first, but that feels deceptively simple. What are the process steps I'm failing to perceive?

Any and all guidance on the topic would be greatly appreciated.

Go knowledge! Ja0n8 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  • @Ja0n8: You should initially draft changes in your sandbox. Once complete, ensure that all material is suitably referenced from reliable sources, as this is always a potential point of contention. If you are satisfied with the edits, you can either be bold and implement your changes wholesale in the article, or post you proposed changes to the talk page for discussion by other editors. Given that this is a level-4 vital article, guaranteeing consensus prior to altering the article is advisable, tedious though it may be, as the alternate may be an edit war. Other than this, best of luck with your edits. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for review

User:Deermouse would ask for a review of the user page and in particular the Section 4.5 Prospect for discussion. The article mentioned has grown to phenomenal proportions with magnetic attraction of non-subject material and appears to be under Rice University's Ambassador Program. As a Wikipedia user/visitor, the article was a total bust for the purpose I visited it (information I wanted to get from the subject of human nutrition and how the human body processes and uses it). Thank you for being here.Deermouse (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If you want people to look at an article, in this case Human nutrition, name the article in question rather than directing editors to your user page - an unnecessary detour. The fact that a few students from Rice University contributed to the article in 2013 is not germane. If you think the article can be better, make it so. David notMD (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

New User-setting up a page

I am new to Wikipedia and have created an account. I would like to start a new page----is that the same as writing an article-confusing terminology? The information/article/page is about a living person (academic-scientist). I have checked and there is not one presently on this person.

Does my username show on the article?

I see there is a sandbox but I was looking for the Wizard(?)instead of writing in everything without a format as a guide, to begin the page/article, do you know where I find that Format for Title of Article, side box information, format of basic body of page?

I have read some of the help pages but still very confused, do you have a link to where I should begin, thanks for your assistance, this seems somewhat complicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomBian2020 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@ThomBian2020: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first caution you that successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time, practice, and effort. New users who are most successful at creating new articles first started small by making edits to existing articles, which helped them get a feel for how Wikipedia works, and they gradually worked their way up to more substantive edits and eventually creating articles. It might help you to follow this track before attempting to create a new article, there is no deadline and you can take all the time you want to learn about Wikipedia before you dive in. You may wish to use The Wikipedia Adventure, a tutorial of sorts for using Wikipedia.
If you still want to dive in and attempt to create an article, you should read Your First Article, and then you can visit Articles for Creation where you can write a draft and submit it for review before it is made a part of the encyclopedia; in this way you can find the issues before, instead of after it is in the encyclopedia, where it will be treated more critically. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@ThomBian2020: Writing an article is a type of page creation (not all pages are articles). Your username will show up in the page's history (like here), but not in the article itself.
Some pages we have to help create articles:
My usual advice for writing articles:
1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find about the subject. These need to be sources that not everyone can put on the internet (so no Facebook posts or something like that).
2) Focus on just the sources that are independent of and not dependent on the subject (so not the subject's website), but still specifically about the subject and going over the subject in-depth (the source needs to talk about the subject for more than a couple of lines). You need at least three of these sources. If you can't find at least three such sources, the subject may not meet our general notability guideline and trying to create the article will result in it being deleted.
3) Summarize those sources, adding citations to the sources at the end of each summary. I do this in Microsoft Notepad, some other editors use Notepad++, but most programs are that do not use heavy formatting are fine. You could use something Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer, but there may be problems copying your draft to the site.
4) Combine the summaries where possible (but do not come up with new statements not found in those sources), repeating and stacking the citations where necessary.
5) Paraphrase the draft just to be extra sure you don't have any copyright violations or plagiarism.
6) Upload this draft to the Article Wizard.
7) Expand the draft using sources from step 1 that you put aside in step 2. Don't start off with these sources, you want to notability to be clearly established in your first draft.
This pathway, if properly followed, is pretty much guaranteed to work. Skipping steps or trying other stuff may get the article stalled in draft form indefinitely or even deleted.
Oh, and most importantly: All statements, positive or negative, about a living person are held to the highest sourcing standards possible. See WP:BLP for more information. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I hit publish by accident

I think I accidently published an article for Anthony C. (Ant) Bell. I need to unpublish it because it is not finished. It is my first article. I need to know how to save a draft.

Vanitaapplebum (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Vanitaapplebum: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You did save your draft; "Publish changes" is equivalent to "save changes". It does not mean your draft is formally part of the encyclopedia. Your draft is at Draft:Anthony C. (Ant) Bell. 331dot (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@Vanitaapplebum:, I have also posted a few additional links with some basic information to your user talkpage. If you haven't done so already, I strongly recommend to read through WP:Your first article with a lot of useful information and advice for new editors. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay thank you both sooo much! It really helps. Vanitaapplebum (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Reference for publication date of story or novel

In Wikipedia I very often see the date of original publication for books and stories without reference. Is it appropriate to add a citation for this date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snapdragon630 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Snapdragon630. Assuming I understand your question correctly, a great deal of information on a publication can be cited to the original publication itself, since the original publication, as a source about itself, contains its own basic information such as publication date, author and publisher. GMGtalk 12:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Snapdragon630 it is generally considered that in an article about a publication, that publication is an implicit source, and details, such as the publisher and copyright and publication dates, which can be read from the publication itself, need not be explicitly cited if that is the source. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Help me please

I accidentally placed the redirect 〦 with the templates and names to delete an article. I need it moved to WP:RFD somehow, but I am not very skilled at doing that. Can someone who understands my question help me? Thanks Goveganplease (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Goveganplease. I have fixed it. The discussion is now at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 19#〦. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Goveganplease, the character is in fact one of the Suzhou numerals, the one for 6. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
It was Goveganplease who changed the redirect from Suzhou numerals to 6 [1] so I wonder what is going on. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry, I thought the character was absolute rubbish at first. I had no idea any meaning was attached to it. The character can be reverted back to the Numeral's page. Goveganplease (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

to include a name ...

Is it possible to include Dr.Krishnaswamy Srihari , the Dean of Whatson School of Engineering at SUNY, Binghamton into the notable Alumni of College of Engineering , Guindy ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.181.42 (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably not, if he isn't independently notable. "Notable alumni" need to meet Wikipedia's definition of notability, as described in Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people). He doesn't have a Wikipedia article either. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_740&oldid=831991449"