Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 950

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 945

←

Archive 948

→

New user

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia! Is there any suggestions you would make to help me get started having a positive impact on the Wikipedia community?> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclipsefc (talk • contribs)

Hello, Eclipsefc and welcome to the Teahouse. If you consider learning how to edit Wikipedia as equivalent to learning to drive a car, the first thing to do is to understand the way the vehicle and the road system works. To that end, I'd suggest you take our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure, which introduces you to the basics, and lets you earn fifteen different badges along the way. There are other ways to find out about how this encyclopaedia operates, so Help:Getting started is also a good page to visit. New car users start on familiar roads, going slowly and carefully. Likewise, new editors are well advised just to make very small but worthwhile edits to existing articles, and topics you are already interested in are probably the best to look at first. Looking for poor spelling or grammar is one way to familiarise yourself with making and publishing changes. As you learn, you might find statements in articles that aren't supported by good references, so you might want to learn how to improve them by adding reliable sources. So, Help:Referencing for beginners is a good place to learn how to do that. We have two editing tools you can choose to use, and both have drop-down 'Cite' templates to help you insert citations at the end of a factual statement.

Car wash: Some editors get motivated by the idea of cleaning up the myriad of articles with minor issues, and we have a Wikipedia:Task Center to help them find ideas. Others think the only way of contributing is by creating a new encyclopaedia article. Just as with a car, we never advise setting off straight away along the fastest motorways. The equivalent here is trying to create a new article from scratch without fully understanding what's involved. We see many car crashes here by new users who don't take the time to learn the basics, or who don't heed the advice of other road users. So, we offer them a wizard at Articles for Creation where we advise all editors to start drafting new articles, and then submitting it for review and feedback only when they're ready. Just as the highway patrol will pull an unroadworthy vehicle off the road and possibly scrap it, so we will speedily delete any page on a non-notable topic that is put into the encyclopaedia, or which doesn't meet our standards in other ways. The most important thing to remember is that we never add our own opinions to any article; all statements must be sourced and Verifiable by anyone else. So citations (references) are key.

Avoid head on collisions: Two cars heading in opposite directions down a very narrow street are going to hit head on if they don't consider one another's presence and right to be on that road. We work by consensus (agreement) between editors, so we expect everyone to discuss contentious edits, and agree on the best way to proceed. If someone undoes (reverts) an edit you've just made, don't add it straight back in. Instead, get out of the car and go have a polite chat with the other driver on their talk page and ask what their reasons were for reverting you (it'll often be shown in an 'edit summary' - so do check for one first). Those who continue driving without considering other road users will soon be forced off the road; here we call that 'being blocked'. But before that happens, an editor will have been approached by others on their talk page and advised what they're doing wrong. Only if they ignore that advice and act disruptively will there by any problems.

Each user has their own personal car park whey they can practice driving before heading out on the road. This is your 'Sandbox', and there's a link right at the top of every page to it. There you can make test edits or start to draft new content, if you wish.You also have a userpage, and it's a good idea to put a few lines about yourself and your interests there. Avoid revealing any personal information or promoting non-wikipedia-relevant content. You also have a talk page for discussing editing matters, and I'll pop by and leave you a welcome message full of some more helpful links.

For some who step behind the wheel of a car it can be a scary experience, and one never to be repeated. For those who start slowly and take one stage at a time, it can be the beginning of a lifelong and fulfilling journey of sharing the world's knowledge with countless others. Good luck on your own personal Wikipedia adventure. We're here at the Teahouse with our tools and tyre pump to fix any problems that you as a road user encounter along the way! Nick Moyes (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Wow, thank you for being so friendly, I really appreciate it. I will take the Wikipedia Adventure, thankyou for the help!

Eclipsefc(talk)

I keep getting blocked

I'm not even sure if this is the right place to raise this.

I keep being blocked from editing and from using other facilities such as the talk pages. This is always as a result of someone else's activity - all I've ever done is correct a few spellings, tidy up some grammar and clunky prose, and so on. A few weeks ago it Sia dI was blocked for a year, with abuse of multiple accounts cited (I've never done anything of the sort) ... today I'm suddenly and without explanation able to edit again!

Anyone able to explain why this keeps happening, and maybe try to put a stop to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.229.224 (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. If you usually use a user account to make your edits, please log in again and see the guide to appeal blocks.

However, I would guess (most likely) that you edit "anonymously" i.e. without having registered an account. In that case, the short version is that you should probably register an account. The very long version includes reading the technical details at Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses.

The medium-size version is that the only real tool to prevent disruption from "anonymous" editors is to block the associated IP address. However, internet service providers often rotate those among customers. In all likelihood, someone else with the same ISP as you is misbehaving and causing some IP blocks to drop, and you get into them from time to time. There is no real cure apart from you registering an account (or changing ISP, or using a VPN or similar); we have to block some IPs. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Rejection

Why my sand box get rejected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.218.170.54 (talk)

The question above is the only contribution to Wikipedia from your IP address. You will have to tell us which sandbox, otherwise there is no way that we can answer your question. Dbfirs 11:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

2019–20 Northern Counties East Football League

Hi all, Is anyone available to create a page for the 2019–20 Northern Counties East Football League which includes the Premier Division (in the 9th level of English football) and Division One (in the 10th division of English Football). Thank you very much and I hope that this can be done very soon please. Baileymorecroft (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If you have references to published reliable sources, and you can show that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, you can generate a draft through WP:AFC. You'll find advice at WP:Your first article. As far as the "very soon please" is concerned, there is no deadline. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Undisclosed Payment Issue | Barkha Sharma

Hi, The page Barkha Sharma had been flagged for an undisclosed payment issue. However there are no clear reasons provided for this. I was just curious to understand what can be done to resolve an issue like this for a page as a contributor. Castdates (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

JJMC89 flagged it in March, and you and that editor are already having a discussion about why and how to resolve, at the Talk page. Best to continue there. David notMD (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: Sure! Thanks for the edits you made to the page. Now I understand what was wrong with the way it was written.Castdates (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Not a Cannes winner?

Having your short film be put on the Cannes Short Film Corner does not technically mean you won a Cannes Film Festival award, it simply means that you paid for your short film to be put there.

I think this blog supports my claim. blog

--FromFrank✎Talk♬

It's confusing. Ledesma's 2007 entry was to the Short Film Corner,, not Cannes proper, but he did in fact win a first prize there of about 10,000 Euros. Refs can be added to this effect. David notMD (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

What to edit

How do I know which articles need editing?

--XTMontana (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)XTMontana

Welcome to the Teahouse, XTMontana. There are plenty of possibilities listed at Wikipedia: Community portal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Changing article name

I have started an article, but i want to change the name. It is stuck at "User:GalaxyJongup/sandbox" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaxy Jongup (talk • contribs)

If I get the link, I can help you — Preceding unsigned comment added by XTMontana (talk • contribs) 17:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You probably mean User:Galaxy Jongup/sandbox.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Galaxy Jongup. Your unreferenced draft article about a newly formed Korean boy band is nowhere near ready for the encyclopedia. Please read Your first article and follow that advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with Cullen, Not ready — Preceding unsigned comment added by XTMontana (talk • contribs) 17:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggest an edit

I want to suggest an edit to a wiki page but I cant work out how - can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.203.161 (talk • contribs) 2019-05-07T16:03:40 (UTC)

The simplest approach for edit requests for fully protected, template-protected or semi-protected pages is to use the View source tab on that page and use the "Submit an edit request" link at the bottom right; this automatically loads the correct talk page template. --XTMontana

Yes, I saw that on the Wiki help page. But I dont see any View Source tab on the page I would like to suggest the edit for. This is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_clubs_in_the_European_Cup_and_UEFA_Champions_League#Performance_Record_and_Ranking_of_Premier_League_Clubs_According_to_Best_Result_in_the_UEFA_Champions_League

if you let me know what the edit is and where you need it to go  I can complete it for you--XTMontana

As far as I can see, English clubs in the European Cup and UEFA Champions League is not protected. What is the problem you are having, IP user? --ColinFine (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I saw the same thing that's why I just said what is the edit you wanted and I could have added it in
XTMontana

XTMontana: please don't use a citation to refer to another user: it's unnecessary and confusing. Just WP:ping them (as I have pinged you in this message). --ColinFine (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Beethoven

I know this isn’t about Wikipedia but I just wanted to ask if Ludwig van Beethoven was autistic because I am autistic myself and I get a bit sensitive ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.196.116 (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I suspect a lot of people in history would have been on the spectrum, but I dont think we can really know. As you say, this sort of question isn't on target for this page (which is about helping people edit Wikipedia), but it's possible that if you raise it at the Reference Desk somebody might know if the question has been discussed. (Not sure which department of the Reference Desk, though. Entertainment? Science? Humanities? I'd probably post it at Miscellaneous). --ColinFine (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Considering Autism wasnt really a thing back then, he possibly could have had it, but we wouldn't have known. He could have also had Asperger's for all we know

Yes I do have Aspergers not autism and I realised it wasn’t discovered back then — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.196.116 (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

sandbox to talk

I moved my sandbox, into a "Talk" but now I can't use the visual editor... I'm not finished with my article and want to move it back to Sandbox. I'm worried I've messed up the pathways now....Please help me! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annette_Mangaard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naomidodds21 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Naomidodds21, I'm not sure what you were trying to do, but everything appears to be in order on Annette Mangaard and Talk:Annette Mangaard. You can easily continue to edit the article now that it is in the mainspace. Eman 235/talk 18:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding image to article

I need help adding a group photo for my article (newkidd) info box, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaxy Jongup (talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Galaxy Jongup: commons:Category:NewKidd appears to have some usable pictures of members of the group, but no shots of all of them; if no freely licensed photographs of the group are available, perhaps something like this photo, which is used in our Radiohead article, could be constructed. (You can ask me to make it, if you want.) Eman 235/talk 18:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

http://image.newdaily.co.kr/site/data/img/2019/04/23/2019042300212_0.jpg i used this image, i pasted it in the editing of the info box. all of the members are in the photo. why can't i use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaxy Jongup (talk • contribs) 18:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Galaxy Jongup, you can't just link any old image in a Wikipedia article; images have to be uploaded to either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. In this case, the image you tried to use is probably nonfree, which is only allowed in certain circumstances—this is not one of those cases. Eman 235/talk 19:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello

I got a message from you, I was wondering how is it possible to create a page about somebody on wikipedia

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaineDespot (talk • contribs) 19:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CaineDespot. Please read Your first article and our guideline on autobiographical editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Article might get deleted

I have heard my article might get deleted. I have worked over 2 hours in this. What have i done? I have looked for a public photo without logo for an hour. What can i do or remove or add so my article won't get deleted? It is NewKidd article (draft) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaxy Jongup (talk • contribs) 20:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Your article, Draft:NewKidd, has not been marked for deletion. However, it is nowhere close to being ready for publication in the main article space. You have to find several reliable, independent sources to show that this group is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. This disqualifies social media and other self-published sources. You need to show that this group has been written about extensively in third-party publications, like mainstream news organizations or trade publications. WP:MUSIC/SOURCES is a good place to look for sources relating to music topics. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Replacing photo on page

Hi, I would like to replace the main photo on the page for the Rio Cinema London with an up to date version, I have uploaded a new image to wiki commons but can't see how to go about this or if its possible, I work at the cinema doing the marketing. thanks

this is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Cinema,_Dalston

and these are the links to the uploaded new image

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_RIO_Cinema_Dalston.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodylondon (talk • contribs)

Hello, Woodylondon, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please take a seat, turn off your phone and enjoy the advert-free show!

Changing an image used inside an infobox is best done using the source editor, not the Visual editor. You can switch between the two by clicking the dark pencil icon in the editing toolbar. You will note that there's no need to include the File: prefix, or the 'thumb' and caption text. So you'd only need to replace | image = Rio Cinema (Dalston).jpg with | image = The RIO Cinema Dalston.jpg

That said, I cannot see why you think your image is better than the one already on the page. Yours, although a nice shade of red, doesn't clearly show the frontage very well, nor the cinema name, whereas the current one taken in 2016 shows it perfectly. What's your rationale for wanting to change it? This is how the article would look with your picture in it, and I don't think it's an improvement. I reckon if you took another image from the point where the original photo was taken, you would then be able to improve the appearance of the article. Whilst you would have a Conflict of Interest were you to edit article content, I don't see much of an in issue in simply changing an image, so long as it doesn't alter the interpretation of page content. If you do want to get content changed, the best way to do it at arms length as an involved editor is to make an 'edit request' on the article's talk page. See WP:EDITREQ for more details on this. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

References, Inserting/formatting equations and subscripting chemical formulas.

Greetings,

I would like to contribute the following content to the "Mixed flowing gas testing" page and I could use advice on several subjects (all in bold below): Do references get "footnote" numbers? Can the number of atoms in a formula be subscripted? How? How do I format an equation? May I replace the "Industry specifications" with their current versions (and add one)? And, I would like to add references, which I believ I can simply paste in, as I promised Gronk Oz (see below). (If there is/are help pages I'm missing, feel free to point me to them and send me away. Thanks for your time and attention.) Bob:

article material collapsed

MFG testing was primarily developed by William H. Abbott at Batelle in the 1980’s. Much of the work was described in a series of “… Progress Report[s] on Studies of Natural and Laboratory Environmental Reactions on Materials and Components,” by Abbott, issued in 1981, ‘83, ‘84 and ‘86.[1-4] Abbott published two papers on MFG testing in IEEE Transactions in 1988 and 1990. [5-6] Other research has evaluated MFG testing.[7]

While standard practice MFG testing requires careful definition, monitoring and control of temperature, humidity, gaseous pollutant concentrations, volume exchange rate and airflow rate, there is considerable potential for variations in mass flow, environmental mixing and gradients in the chambers used. The only realistic benchmark for MFG testing is the use of metal reference coupons.[8] Copper is the most commonly used material. Silver has also been used. Copper weight-gain rates are typically four times that observed for silver. Coupons are typically hung in the test chamber located in proximity to the materials under test.

Metal coupons should ideally have large surface area and small edge thickness. Coupons are prepared per ASTM B810-01a. Coupons are weighed before and after exposure. The surface deposits are assumed to be copper (I) sulfide, Cu2S, in the case of copper coupons and silver sulfide, Ag2S, for silver. The weight change for both metals is assumed to be due strictly to the addition of sulfur. The deposit thickness is determined by multiplying the coupon weight change by the formula weight for the metal sulfide divided by the density of the metal sulfide times the atomic weight of sulfur times the total surface area for the two faces of the coupon (minus any drill hole for hanging). Thickness (cm)=(Weight Change (g) x F.W. (M_2 S) (g⁄mol))/(ρ_ (M_2 S)(g⁄〖cm〗^3 ) x A_(r,std) (S)(g⁄mol) x Area (〖cm〗^2 ) ) Thicknesses are typically converted from centimeters to Angstrom units. Common practice is to report the calculated copper and silver corrosion levels per ISA 71.04 [see Specification, below] reactive environment exposure severity levels. The levels are “G1” (mild), “G2” (moderate) and “G3” (harsh), reported as equivalent months or years. For equivalent months, for copper, the thickness of the deposits in Angstrom units is divided by 300 for G1, 1000 for G2 and 2000 for G3. For silver, the thickness in Angstrom units is divided by 200, 1000 and 2000, respectively. For equivalent years, the exposures in months are further divided by 12.

Industry specifications 1. ASTM B827-05(2014) —Standard Practice for Conducting Mixed Flowing Gas Environmental Tests 2. ASTM B845-97(2018) — Standard Guide for Mixed Flowing Gas Tests for Electrical Contacts 3. ASTM B810-01a(2017) —Standard Method for Calibration of Atmospheric Corrosion Test Chambers by Change in Mass of Copper Coupons 4. ASTM B825-97 (WITHDRAWN, NO REPLACEMENT) —Standard Test Method for Coulometric Reduction of Surface Films on Metallic Test Samples 5. ASTM B826-09(2015) —Standard Test Method for Monitoring Corrosion Tests by Electrical Resistance Probes 6. ASTM B808-10(2015)—Standard Test Method for Monitoring of Atmospheric Corrosion Chambers by Quartz Crystal Microbalances 7. EIA 364, Test Procedure 65A 8. IEC 60068-2-60:2015 RLV 9. IEC 512-11-7: Test 11g 10. ISA 71.04-2013 — Environmental Conditions for Process Measurement & Control Systems: Airborne Contaminants'

References 1. Abbott, William H., (1981). Sixth Progress Report on Studies of Natural and Laboratory Environmental Reactions on Materials and Components, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, OH. 2. Abbott, William H., (1983). Seventh Progress Report on Studies of Natural and Laboratory Environmental Reactions on Materials and Components, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, OH. 3. Abbott, William H., (1984). Eighth Progress Report on Studies of Natural and Laboratory Environmental Reactions on Materials and Components, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, OH. 4. Abbott, William H., (1985). Ninth Progress Report on Studies of Natural and Laboratory Environmental Reactions on Materials and Components, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, OH. 5. Abbott, William H., (1988). The Development and Performance Characteristics of Mixed Flowing Gas Environment, IEEE Transactions on Components, Hybrids and Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 11(1), pp 22-35. 6. Abbott, William H., (1990). The Corrosion of Copper and Porous Gold in Flowing Mixed Gas Environments, IEEE Transactions on Components, Hybrids and Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 13(1), pp 40-45. 7. Chao, J.L. and R.R. Gore (1991). Evaluation of a mixed flowing gas test, Electrical Contacts - 1991 Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh IEEE HOLM Conference on Electrical Contacts, Chicago, IL. 8. Chao, J.L. and R.R. Gore, (1991). Evaluation of a Mixed Flowing Gas Test. Electrical Contacts - 1991 Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh IEEE HOLM Conference on Electrical Contacts, Chicago, IL.'

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertgutter (talk • contribs) 19:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Robertgutter. Yes, the Mediawiki software handles footnotes for references automatically, if you put the citation in the text where it is used, between <ref> and </ref> tags. See Referencing for beginners for more information.

I don't know about the other questions, but Help:Formula may help with the equations. For the rest, I suggest asking at WT:WikiProject Chemistry. --ColinFine (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The subsection of that page (see WP:MATHCHEM) might be especially relevant to you. Like Colin, I can't help much more, either. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Change artist profile picture

Hi, I will like to change Fonseca's (singer) profile picture. Can someone help me with this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreitta27 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Andreitta27, first of all, people don't have profiles on Wikipedia, they have articles. (This might not seem to be an important distinction, but it can trip people up sometimes.)

As for changing the picture in the article Fonseca (singer): that's probably fine, but you need either a freely licensed picture, or a picture you took yourself and are willing to release under a free license. If you have an appropriate image, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons with this page. Eman 235/talk 22:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

How do I deal with an editor who is stalking my edits and undoing them because he's angry at me?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The editor Newimpartial is upset with me because I removed unsourced (and sourced-to-self-published sources) material on John M. Ford. Apparently he's very much a fan of that article and feels that the unsourced and poorly sourced material should remain. But all that aside, he's going to other edits I've made and just undoing them for no reason. Check the recent edit histories of Jason Momoa, PureScript, Between the Lions - he's never edited any of those pages before. Is this harassment? What do I do about this? SteamboatPhilly (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You both appear to be edit warring. Stop, discuss the issues on the talkpage if it continues seek admin intervention. I've also left them a message on their page too so I'm not singling you out, things like [[1]] doesn't seem all that constructive. Citing grammar seems to be a pretty accurate summary. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

SteamboatPhilly, I am not "angry with you". I do wish you would comply with policy and stop Edit warring, for which you were blocked once already [2].

As far as these edits are concerned [3] [4], I reverted them because of misleading or inadequate edit summaries, an issue I previously identified for you [5] and have given multiple examples including these: [6] [7] [8] [9]. I was not "stalking" you; I simply looked at your most recent edits to check for WP:CIR issues. Except for the summaries, they were mostly ok.

However, you have continued to use misleading edit summaries [10][11] and cast ASPERSIONS in both edit summaries [12] and in article talk page discussions [13], though I asked you politely not to [14] [15]. You have used similar language, frankly, in your posting here, though I have never been rude to you.

If you can learn to observe WP:BRD and the WP principle of consensus, I am sure you can become a productive editor, but edit summaries like this suggest a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality that is sure to bring you into conflict with other editors. Newimpartial (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, Hell in a Bucket, I stick by this edit - there was nothing wrong with the grammar of the "is known for" construction. Newimpartial (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok that is fine but it also wasn't misleading and that article is not yours, see WP:OWN. It was a petty reversion for no other reason then you didn't like it, the content had very little change and it could accurately be termed grammar. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I still disagree, Hell. A change between two equally grammatical phrases in an article can't be summarized accurately as "grammar". We have the word "style" for that. And none of us OWN any articles, AFAIK. Newimpartial (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Sweet Jesus, you reverted based on a razor thin change saying they were misleading in their edit summary and that simply isn't the case. I'll let others chime in but you both are in the wrong. Sorry if that doesn't sit right with you but the outside looking in you are trying to wikilawayer the changes and it isn't productive. That sounds more confrontational then I meant it to be, it isn't personal and things like removing the Shetty source didn't make much sense so I get your frustration too. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the rather large number of diffs I provided, from the John M Ford page and talk page and from SteamboatPhilly's Talk page, I don't think you will see any Wikilawyering. Correcting SteamboatPhilly's incorrect assumptions about BRD and SPS does not constitute "Wikilawyering". And their frustration today came when I reverted to the stable version while providing additional citations to reliable sources, only one of which was self-published and that one is acceptable per SPS. SteamboatPhilly responded by repeatedly mass-reverting sourced content while making misleading statements on Talk, which is just not cool.

And Hell, no, I am not taking anything personally ;) Newimpartial (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This isn't WP:ANI, nor should we drag this out much further here. But both users appear to have made some poor decisions - and I agree that the revert for 'poor edit summary' was over-pedantic in the extreme and reverting it was quite inappropriate, and reason unjustified. SBP's version was better-worded and more concise in my opinion. But SBP, it really is quite normal for one editor to work through a few recent edits by another user if they encounter poor edits being made, especially if their actions have led to a block for edit warring. That needs to be done fairly, of course. WP:BRD requires discussion with the other editor, not repeated removal/reinsertion/removal, though I confess that I also thought www.websnark.com was 'just some blog' which normally we'd reject, until I read the link NI had given which showed it to be regarded as WP:RS in the world of webcomics and the like. So perhaps this could be seen as a genuine misunderstanding over sources. I'd like to think both editors will come together and collaborate, with neither jumping on the other or making hasty accusations or repeated reverts they might regret. I appreciate that you both want to improve the encyclopaedia. If there is doubt over sources, the matter can always be raised at WP:RSN if your talk page discussions don't find a consensus. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alternatives to sourcing third-world journalist pieces for wiki articles?

I was hoping to write up on a few famous people and businesses in Papua New Guinea. However, most reliable content is on investors pages regulated by local stock exchanges. I could do newspapers but it is hard to determine good journalism from bad journalism. This means most content will either have to be from blogs or through other means.

Are there any lax wiki-rules on my country that are still developing credibility in their news organisations? Can I write something generic that I've researched are legitimate and say (citation needed) or scan to provide documents or photos to back up these claims? (comment by Pnginitiator, May 1, 2019. )

I'm glad you recognize the problem with many newspapers, but cite them nonetheless; the degree to which they are promotional will be taken into account. Similarly with the investor pages--just make sure their origin is clear. Even such sourcing is better than just saying "source needed". Instead, use the template {{better source}} after each questionable source-- it produces the message: "better source needed" ; then explain on the talk page. It is generally not helpful to try to place original documents on WP--see WP:PRIMARY. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Will try my best. Kina Bank is about to be the second biggest bank in Papua New Guinea and will be hard to write about. I would appreciate if people could help me write about this PNG phenomena. They've recently acquired all ANZ branches across PNG. This development is really shaking up local and business communities, so I will do what I can. Any assistance would be appreciated with news sourcing.

Third-world newspapers can be reliable sources since they are cognizant of the context of local issues. One way to determine bad from good journalism is whether the article is balanced, taking into account different sources and even including opposing accounts of an event. Darwin Naz (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Pnginitiator, thank you for bringing this up. As a reviewer in articles for creation I often wonder if we are too hard on third-world sources. I would echo the comments made by DGG and Darwin Naz. If it is a major newspaper in the country or a newspaper of record in the country, then it should be generally fine. Also check out these three sources, which should be helpful: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources Bkissin (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem I think we have with third world sources, even major newspapers, is the same as with many US sources, the tendency to accept promotionalism. Promotionalism is writing a story or an article to express what the subject of the account would wish to say . In this context, an example is an interview where the person can more or less use to give an advertorial, and the questioner merely asks questions designed to let him do that in an organized way. There sometimes are good reasons to do that in a newspaper, but there never are reasons to do it in WP. It can be argued that these can be reliable sources of information, and they are, but they are not sources of reliable information. If they are included in a responsible way in a newspaper , they are included the same way a politician's speech would be included verbatim, as a primary document. The reader may well want to know what the speaker has to say for themself, but no non-partisan reader would take it as being in any sense accurate. In the US, it is rare that a national newspaper does this except in their feature sections, but in can occur in some subjects--even the NYT sometimes does it in writing about interesting products, or about entertainers. Interesting these accounts may be, but they are not journalism in the usual sense. Most articles I have seen in the national newspapers of some countries about anything in the field of entertainment or companies are of this sort. They may indeed meet reader interest, but they can not be taken as having been even confirmed for basic accuracy by the paper. Sometimes a political story will be written this way, so the paper can say that it isn't being biased, it is just reporting what is said. (It can nonetheless be biased in selecting whom to permit to have such a story, and the amount of space to give them. ) The reader will nonetheless know that it can not be taken as a reliable account of the actual facts. In the US, the same is true of most local and regional newspapers. Consider, for example, a local TV interview of a physician in the community; this interview will be taken by the subject as a chance to give a sales talk for his practice--it will at best be an advertorial. (Naturally, there are analogous problems with muck-raking, the attempt to write as negative a story as possible, or to give an interview and include only the least favorable quotations. That's also bias. )

As was correctly said above, we have to go by the actual contents of the story, not make assumptions about it from the name of the news source. In judgng promotionalism , I do not just look where the references come from; I read them. WP is not written by machines, because machines cannot at least at present do this sort of judgment. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Need general information on John Zwerenz, an American writer of mostly poetry for my collegiate studies.

Need general information on John Zwerenz, an American writer of mostly poetry for my collegiate studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.215.42 (talk • contribs)

Hello 98.116.215.42, welcome to the Teahouse! I think that the reference desk would probably be more helpful in answering your question, since you're looking for information about a particular person and not help with editing Wikipedia. Clovermoss (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed

Do edits on your talk page and on the Teahouse contribute to being in user groups such as Autoconfirmed users? Eclipsefc (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Eclipsefc: As far as I know, yes—the "10 edits / 4 days" rule is mostly there to catch obvious spammers / vandals, and after all, one can troll just as easily on a discussion page. Eman 235/talk 03:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The answer is "yes", Eclipsefc. However, if an account makes meaningless edits to "game the system" to gain advanced permissions, the account may be blocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Please Help

I made an edit that another user thought was vandalism. It wasn't, and I tried to say so on their talk page but I accidentally blanked it and it wouldn't let me revert the page. Help!Qualiesin (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Qualiesin: it looks like you got the problem sorted out yourself before we got to you - well done. User talk:PluniaZ seems to be back to the way it was, plus your comment about the original change. So unless you say otherwise, I will take it that you don't need any help. (If that wrong, please let us know here...) --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Citations from your own website

If I were to have my own website providing original research, would I be able to use it to provide a reference/citation on Wikipedia? ⠀—‌‌ Glosome‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ 💬 05:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Glosome: it would not qualify as a reliable source.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Changing title/Adding Links

I have created a Wiki on the 2019 Local Elections that took place last week, I just need help getting Draft out of the name and adding a link or 2 in so people can click it from last years results like happens every Election year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:St_Helens_Local_Elections_2019#Windle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terence Price95 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Working on it XTMontana — Preceding unsigned comment added by XTMontana (talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Terence Price95: Correction: You're talking about an article, not a wiki. All of Wikipedia is a single wiki. "Wiki" is like "encyclopedia": it means a whole set, maybe a huge set, of articles about many different things. Ah, I have it: the Wiktionary definition!:

A collaborative website which can be directly edited merely by using a web browser, often by anyone with access to it.

--Thnidu (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Reference on image taken from internet

Hi, i want to ask about the proper way of referencing an Image taken from the internet?

Welcome to the Teahouse, Juhary143. The vast majority of images that you find on the internet are protected by copyright and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Any such use of ordinary copyrighted images must comply with our very strict policy on use of non-free images. You can use any of the 50 million image files on Wikimedia Commons or you can take photos of non-copyrighted things yourself and upload them under an acceptable Creative Commons license. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles from google search

Hi, last week I published a new article called Brand Safety, the page is on Wikipedia and anyone can see it there. but, if you search in google 'brand safety' or even 'brand safety Wikipedia' you won't get any results. is there something I need to do for it to work? Netanelshlomi (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This is because the page has not been reviewed by a new page reviewer. New articles are not indexed until after they are reviewed to make sure they conform to basic Wikipedia policies on content. Once it's reviewed, you'll be able to find it on Google search. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation page: Jose Delgado

Hi, I'm relatively new here. The page Jose Delgado used to redirect to José Manuel Rodríguez Delgado. I have removed the redirect because that page should be converted to disambiguation page because José María Delgado exists and I am also creating a draft with the same name. See the draft --> User:Verbosmithie/Jose_Delgado_(Cebu). Now, I don't know what to do next. I tried to read WP:Disambiguation, and I'm afraid if do this on my own, it might be reckless. I need help. Verbosmithie (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Verbosmithie - welcome to the Teahouse. I appreciate your concerns, and thanks for your question. I was initially going to suggest that you'd been a little premature, and should not have blanked the redirect until after your new article is accepted. Normally, when there are only two pages to disambiguate (as I thought there were), we'd deploy an {{about}} hatnote to help users. Once there are three or more articles, a DAB page comes into its own. But I see PrimeHunter has just very helpfully created a good DAB page, listing other names for which we have articles. So once your new page is put into mainspace, you can add that one there, too. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Some things are easier in the source editor than VisualEditor. I made a disambiguation page following Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages.[16] {{Disambiguation}} automatically adds __DISAMBIG__. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

thanks PrimeHunter Nick Moyes lol i removed the redirect because i usually search the title first and then create the new draft by clicking on the red link. The prior redirect prevented me that. Is there another way? I mean, can I create through sandbox and just add userspace draft template? And if I move that sandbox to mainspace, will it add all the edit history of the sandbox or only those edits after the template was added? Verbosmithie (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Verbosmithie: There are now 15 pages at Jose Delgado. You should create a new article at a suitable disambiguated title like Jose Delgado (politician) and then add a link to the disambiguation page. You can also submit it as a draft from userspace. If it's accepted then the reviewer will choose a title. If you move a sandbox then all revisions in the page history at the time are moved to the new name. If you are the only contributor of the content then you are allowed to copy-paste it instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

PrimeHunter Got it, thanks a lot. I was freaking out a while ago I might've broken wikipedia. Verbosmithie (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Upload help

Greetings,i cant seem to upload my picture on wikipedia its failing to upload— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Mclemont (talk • contribs)

@Jordan Mclemont: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your account does not yet have 10 edits, so you cannot yet upload images. Your account must be four days old and have at least 10 edits in order to upload images and create articles(this is called being "autoconfirmed"). 331dot (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of your User page is to provide information about you relevant to your intentions as a Wikipedia editor. See Wikipedia:User pages. Either delete what you have or it will be deleted by others. You can work of drafts of articles in your Sandbox, but trying to create an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. Please read Your first article and our guideline on autobiographical editing. David notMD (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Dax

Is the article for the rapper Dax taken off? i cannot find it --XTMontana (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It got moved back to Draft:Dax (rapper).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I know everything about him, think I could help? --2001:1970:54A2:A200:6D85:1122:9C54:E753 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I haved finished my article. Now what?

I have added a lot of information for the newkidd to get it started. It looks really good and i think it's ready. What do i do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaxy Jongup (talk • contribs)

Galaxy Jongup, I have put a draft-submission template on the page for you. Push the "submit your article for review" button to submit it for review. Eman 235/talk 03:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Galaxy Jongup. I have not done a review; but I note that only one or possibly two of the five references in your draft is independent of the subject (That's Kpop map, and maybe the one in Korean, which I don't read, and haven't tried to translate). The three links to soompi are clearly derived from the group or its members, and so cannot contribute to notability. Please understand that Wikipedia is basically not interested in what a subject says about themselves: it is only interested in what people who have no connection to the subject have chosen to publish about the subject. If the Korean reference is indeed independent, then the draft might scrape through as establishing notability; but ideally you need more than two independent sources. If the group only debuted last month, it is very likely to be TOOSOON for them to be notable. --ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I edited 2 pages and now they're deleted...

Hi,

I work for the Canadian Government and I decided to edit 2 pages that talk specifically about some tools we all have access to. The pages seemed really outdated so I took it upon myself to just edit them. Wikipedia as a result just deleted both of the pages...I can't find any reason why on my notifications... I thought I sourced it correctly (used different sources), I even asked for some updated stats from their IT team to make it more refreshed. Can't they just revert the changes to the old pages if I did something wrong? This seems a bit harsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.Henri (talk • contribs)

Hi, Jason.Henri, what are the pages? The only page that I can see you've edited is GCconnex and it's not deleted. You created Draft:Jason Henri and it seems to be deleted for being too promotional, please note you cannot promote anything on Wikipedia.– Ammarpad (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Ammarpad the pages are "GCcollab" and "GCpedia". I also editted "GCconnex" but I think it might be deleted soon. I also created the page "GCTools" as the main umbrella for all of these tools, and it got rejected but I'm in the process of fixing it up for approval.

Two pages I edited got deleted...

Two pages I edited GCcollab and GCpedia have been deleted... All I did was refreshed the content, deleted old/wrong content and added better newer sources. I get now that some of the changes maybe didn't completely align with the guidelines, but can't you just revert to its original so that I get a second chance? I'm not affiliated with the group in Government that runs these tools but I don't want it to get back that I was the reason their pages were deleted... need help.

Jason— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.Henri (talk • contribs)

@RHaworth: speedy deleted both of them; GCcollab was deleted as G11(Unambiguous advertising or promotion) and GCpedia as A7(Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). As to if the articles can be restored to their original version pre your edits, that will need an admin to look at them and assess if they would fail in that state as well. - X201 (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Jason.Henri If you truly feel that there was something in those articles to salvage, you can request Deletion Review. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Yes I was able to track down the deletion and have asked RHaworth for them to be reverted pre-my changes. Will need to go back to the drawing board for future edits. Jason.Henri (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Titles should be bracketed with [[]] not "" . Even though you failed to provide links, I have restored both pages. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Jason.Henri. It wasn't your edits that caused the articles to be deleted, except in the sense that they brought the articles to people's notice. If you look at GCollab before you edited it, it had no references at all, and therefore did not establish that the subject was notable, and was vulnerable to deletion: it's just that nobody concerned about notability had noticed it. The current version has a couple of references, but neither is independent of the subject, so they still do nothing to establish that it is notable|. --ColinFine (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia

Ratiboy02 (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Hello my name is Ratiboy02 and I love editing it's the bestRatiboy02 (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Ratiboy2 Welcome to Wikipedia! Please ask me about anything you need, I am here to help! Also make sure to visit my user page :) --XTMontana (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Ratiboy02, welcome. If you have any questions related to your editing experience here, don't hesitate to ask on this page. Warm regards, Zingarese talk · contribs 16:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

New article

Hey I’ve made a draft for a new article and I was wondering if you can tell me how long it might take to be published if approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.77.63 (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello ip user, It could take up to 2 months. Could you include the link please? --XTMontana (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

They seem to be dynamic. IP, have you submitted your draft for review by placing {{subst:submit}} on top of the draft? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Requesting an Editor to Review Changes

Hello - I am an editor working on improvements to an article on which I have a WP:COI. Per COI guidelines, I posted suggested changes on the article's talk page for review rather than directly edit the article. I was hoping to receive some insight into two things.

How would other editors know that something is posted on a talk page? Will they have to have watchlisted or otherwise follow the page? The page is associated with a few WikiProjects, does that mean that members of those projects receive updates when a new edit is made or suggested? Just curious how new suggestions are flagged for others to review.
What is the appropriate way to request another editor review the changes? I would love to get an outside set of eyes on my suggestions to help improve the quality of my contributions to the site. It would also be great to get some help with implementing the changes in the article, should they pass muster.

Thanks for your help! CertifiedTurtle (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Digital Currency Group for interested editors. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you User:Timtempleton for the response. I am not quite sure what you are suggesting, however. The suggested changes are already posted on Talk:Digital Currency Group. Is there anything else that can be done other than waiting for somebody to respond? Also, still curious about how other editors may be notified of suggestions to a particular page. Appreciate any insight you can provide! CertifiedTurtle (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Just FYI CertifiedTurtle, placing the {{request edit}} template at the beginning of your talk page post will list your request in a queue to attract the attention of other editors. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Drm310 thank you for this info, that's very helpful. I noticed you put in a template at the top of the page regarding connected contributors. I appreciate you placing that in and will be sure to include it in any future suggested edits or pages where a COI exists. CertifiedTurtle (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Poorly formatted table in Composition of the human body article

I came across the composition of the human body article, which has a table in the lead with a huge amount of empty space. I'm not sure how to fix it, so it would be great if someone more knowledgeable about table formatting could help or fix it. Thanks

P.S. The table appears broken in Google Chrome, but not in Firefox. Does anyone know why this might be? Thanks

— Ruyter (talk • edits) 19:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at it in Firefox, the display was OK-ish, though the "element" column was very wide. I thought I would fix it with that edit (getting rid of the problematic cell), but did not, because it includes width specifications in pt (which might or might not be the source of trouble in Chrome). I am fairly sure that should not be done but Help:Tables says nothing against it, and I am afraid of changing the specs lest I break everything. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 19:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ruyter and Tigraan: I've had a go at improving the table size (changing column width from 200 pt to 75pt) and also its position within the article. Would you care to check its layout in your preferred browsers to see that it's OK? Note that I've also improved the lead as I was amazed there was no mention of chemical elements at all, when that's actually the thrust of the article; so I've fixed that, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks fine using Chrome on a PC. Perhaps somebody else would like to try a mobile device, or different platform...--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have said I was working on Chrome myself, and that it did also look OK on Safari (iPhone 5). Nick Moyes (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks good on desktop Firefox too. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)