Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 960

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 955 ← Archive 958 Archive 959 Archive 960 Archive 961 Archive 962 → Archive 965

Creating an article at Wiki

Hello: I tried to create an article at Wiki and it was rejected. I was told my subject did not have enough accreditation's. I would assume a singer/songwriter and published author would qualify. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinaMoore (talk • contribs) 20:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Dina and welcome to the Teahouse. Since anyone can be a singer, songwriter or published author these days, we have specific notability guidelines which you can find at Wikipedia:Notability (people). I hope this helps.--Shantavira|feed me 08:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

New Article Nenolute Technology

Recently, I have written an article about the technology of drug delivery system. This technology will help the entire cardiologist in the word. I want to know why the submission was declined by User:Dreamy_Jazz. I have mentioned the External links to verify the details. Skgacharya (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. As explained at the top of your draft and on your talk page, the article was not adequately supported by reliable sources. Please click that link for more information.--Shantavira|feed me 09:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Skgacharya, I declined Draft:Nanolute Technology as you did not address Ravensfire's concerns which lead your article being moved to the draft space - that is, you did not add more references. I have added "Citation needed" next to the text that needs citations. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Dreamy_Jazz: you need to start by deciding what subject you're writing an article about. The first sentence of your draft does not make this clear. Maybe it's a company (whose name is variously given as "Nanolute Technology", "NANOLUTE Technology", and "nanoluté"), or maybe it's a technology used by that company. Then you need to establish that your chosen subject is notable, by using references to reliable independent published sources that discuss your chosen subject. At least you've avoided using the word "solutions", always a giveaway that the writer is a PR person. Maproom (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Skgacharya Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Maproom I checked there is nothing with "solution" Only the dissolution were used in the advantage of the drug background details.
Dreamy Jazz I want to talk with you or any experience Wikipedian/person but still not understood the right way to talk or chat.
Skgacharya (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
First, Skgacharya is author, not Dreamy. To Skgacharya - you can go to other editors' Talk pages to have a discussion. Not private, but less public than a discussion here. A clinical trial without a control group is not acceptable evidence. David notMD (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

can i edit stuff

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Daboss$$$1234567896483 (talk • contribs)

@Daboss$$$1234567896483: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you are welcome to make edits, and we welcome your participation. If you want to learn how to do this and a little more about how Wikipedia works, there is a new user tutorial you can use. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
That said, edits like the ones you have made thus far are considered disruptive. I would ask you to not continue to make such edits. If you are interested in editing as you claim, please learn more about it first. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

orifice calculator

Hi, I have added a link to the orifice plate calculator that I developed a long time ago. It is an online calculator free for everybody. Subscribed users have additional features like export, one click unit change, etc. I think that my calculator for orifice plate is the best one free calculator for that purpose on the web. As the link is canceled and deleted I have only one question - is it really based on the full and deep analysis on its functionality or is just quick decision based on some general terms. If I can explain more on its purpose and if I need to prove that calculation is correct than I would like to continue with this. If not, if we are talking about some general terms, it is pointless to waste more time on the matter. The link to the calculator is: https://www.pipeflowcalculations.com/orifice/calculator.xhtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoran7733 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe it is based on the content guideline Wikipedia:External links. You should read that page and if you can explain how it meets one of the inclusion criterion then that is where the discussion should start. ~ GB fan 16:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
(ec) @Zoran7733: In addition to what GB fan said above, linking to one's own pages may be considered a self-promotion, and describing one's own inventions is original research - and both categories are not welcome to Wikipedia. Please see WP:PROMO, WP:OR and WP:WWIN for more detailed info. --CiaPan (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


Editiing Continously

What can i if someone is editing a reliable and accurate source....plz help....after continous editing I also got a edit-war message.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shworks999 (talk • contribs) 2019-05-27T17:35:02 (UTC)

Hello, Shworks999. Please read the messages on your user talk page, especially the bit that says "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right". Wikipedia works by consensus. If two editors disagree about what should go in an article, it doesn't help for either of them to say "I am right" and revert the other's changes. In that context you must open a discussion with the other editor and anybody else who wants to contribute. If you cannot reach consensus among the participants of the discussion, then dispute resolution tells you what the next steps are. --ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Create A Page

How do you Create a Page? It keeps taking me to drafts. I Need help!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDitorTVCambodia222 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The safest way to create a page is using draft space (as you are already doing) where you can work on your article with less risk of it being deleted. See WP:Your first article for advice. Dbfirs 17:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
EDitorTVCambodia222 New users cannot create articles directly at first; they must use draft space or Articles for Creation. I recommend the latter, as successfully creating an article(not just "page") is very difficult. You also may want to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
One other point of concern is that your user name suggests a possible WP:Conflict of interest or WP:Paid status which needs to be declared. Company accounts are not allowed. Is this user name a specific individual? Dbfirs 17:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Article rejected

So my article has recently been rejected. Apparently I didn't have enough sources. I read the guidelines and followed to the tea! Anyone please help me out. What kind of sources do I need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yungfester (talk • contribs) 17:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Yungfester. This has to do with User:Yungfester/sandbox. Please familiarize yourself with the notability guideline for musical performers. It does not seem like Yungfester is notable at this time. Given your username, it also appears that you are writing a promotional article about yourself, which is strongly discouraged. Please read our guideline on autobiographies. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Help:Maintenance template removal

How can I find out why this is on a page I help edit?

Page is "Bohemians 1905" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemians_1905

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colthegooner (talk • contribs) 20:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Colthegooner I am not sure what you mean. Articles are often edited by other editors. If someone is deleting your edits, discuss this on the article talk page. Templates are commonly added to and from articles. You may want to leave a message on another editor's talk page and discuss the article. Are talking about the message at the top of the article that explains that the article needs more references? Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 19:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Cite next to heading?

I have never seen an article with a cite next to a heading (or subheading). But I don't understand why. So the question is: Is it OK to place a cite next to a heading if all content of the following section is from one reference? Or, talking about the situatuion in the screenshot below, should I add one cite after every of the two paragraphs instead (that seems strange). Here's the screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/8iGc9qz (I mean the Match Officials section). Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LV1000 (talk • contribs) 2019-05-27T13:14:42 (UTC)

Hi, LV1000 and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added a signature to your question - please sign posts on talk and discussion pages with four tildes (~~~~). The answer is no: WP:CITEFOOT says: "Citations should not be placed within, or on the same line as, section headings." I think the answer to your further question is to add the citation at the end of the first sentence, or at the end of the paragraph, whichever seems clearer. If a second paragraph is clearly about the same material, you probably don't need a further citation, but if it is a separate matter that comes from the same source, it's probably better to insert another citation. --ColinFine (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
LV1000, I totally agree with ColinFine but I'll add additional justification — at the time you added two paragraphs, there may be a single reference that covers all of the material in those paragraphs, so I understand why you might think that adding a single reference for the section heading is preferable. However, Wikipedia articles are constantly changing and tomorrow or a month from now perhaps someone adds a new paragraph. That material is probably not supported by your reference so it needs its own reference. Having a citation on the section heading, and a separate one on one of the three paragraphs leads to confusion. Much better to repeat the citation at the end of each of your two paragraphs in the article will be better prepared for future improvements. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
LV1000 Another reason why cites are not allowed in headings is that headings that contain anything other than plain text violate the Accessibility rules because screen readers cannot properly parse such "broken" headings. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Help please with deleted article.

Greetings,

I've been working on an article for Draft:Yvonne Lammerich and submitted it for AfC approval yesterday. User:RHaworth deleted it(G12 infringement, which sounds quite bad!) So why the smack down? If this user has an issue with the article why not help correct - or point out concerns - rather than deleting the article. Some things I've experienced on Wikipedia really gives me pause. I have created several other articles and this has not happened before. It came as quite a surprise and seems quite aggressive and very hostile. The article was still a draft and it was not as if I had directly posted it to the main space so seems very extreme to delete it.... Can someone help me to undelete the article and address the concerns? LorriBrown (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. "G12" is Wikipedia language for a speedy deletion due to copyright infringement. As copyright infringement could put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy, it cannot be allowed to remain(even as a draft) and will not be restored. I understand that it may seem like a smackdown, but it was necessary to protect Wikipedia. Please read WP:COPYVIO for guidance. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
331dot Can you explain specifically what content and exactly where in the article that I've made these alleged violations?LorriBrown (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Cullen328 Could you please assist me understanding why User:RHaworth and User:331dot concurs that deleting the draft:Yvonne Lammerich was necessary? If there are issues why can't there be a discussion or why can't Wikipedians take action to delete the problem content and/or correct the issues rather than just smacking down other users and deleting the entire article. To me deleting an article that someone has clearly worked on for weeks is hostile. The explanations I often find cryptic and confusing to understand as a new and fairly inexperienced user. The reasons often are generic and explanations often seem to just loop back. I really would like to create a good article for Yvonne Lammerich - I found her name in the Women for Red project. I have created other articles that appear to be okay and have been approved by AfC. It would be helpful to know exactly what I did and how I can correct and re create this article. Thank you very much for your consideration!LorriBrown (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
But, @LorriBrown:, if there is a copyright violation present, the only way to correct the issues is to make sure that the copyright violations are permanently deleted from Wikipedia. The deleting administrator indicated exactly what the sources for the copyright violations were, in the deletion notice. What about this process is cryptic or confusing? Presumably you read the information provided by 331dot - it's a lot of information to be sure, but it should be fairly comprehensive. --bonadea contributions talk 16:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@LorriBrown: Based on the deletion notice, it appears that you copied content from a website to your draft, which seems to be a notice or announcement of an event. As I stated, copyright violations cannot be allowed to remain, as it could put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy (in other words, Wikipedia could be sued). I realize you likely did not intend that, but nevertheless the content must be removed. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Bonadea: and 331dot This is not really very helpful in my understanding of 'what' this rule is being applied too (the content in the article). I am looking for help with what content the WP:COPYVIO is being applied to not the rule itself. I understand why this would be a problem just not exactly the 'where' the problem is in the article. The explanation of User:RHaworth which is: "12:44, 27 May 2019 RHaworth talk contribs deleted page Draft:Yvonne Lammerich (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://ccca.concordia.ca/writers/author_info.html?languagePref=en&link_id=351, https://www.uleth.ca/notice/events/art-now-yvonne-lammerich-ian-carr-harris-speak-february-12th-2018-noon-recital-hall)" - I am afraid is cryptic to me and by citing and reciting the rules... I'm sorry just isn't that helpful. How can I correct the error and recreate a good article for this artist Yvonne Lammerich?LorriBrown (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
LorriBrown, both an AFC reviewer and an administrator agreed that material was copied and pasted into your draft from two copyrighted websites. If you click on the red link for the draft, the two websites are identified in the deletion notice. Wikipedia is very strict about copyright violations and the policy is clear: they must be deleted as soon as they are discovered, without exception. For legal reasons, copyright violations cannot be restored to Wikipedia. However, if you send me an email, I will email you the deleted content, if you pledge to remove all copyrighted material before returning it to Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The only way to explain exactly what was wrong with your draft would be to repeat the copyright violations on Wikipedia and no administrator will do that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have been watching LorriBrown create this article over the past few weeks. I have had a few interactions with her, and if there was copyvio, it was certainly unintentional. I've never seen someone edit an article so painstakingly and with such care. If there's a way to pass the deleted article to her without any copyvio issues, so she can correct the error, that would be a good outcome. She is an excellent new Wikipedian who is making a good contribution the project. She made a mistake here, so let's help her. Can someone restore the draft with any copyvio removed? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I see Cullen has made the offer to email the material, so that solves that!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Cullen328 Okay, that makes perfect sense as you have explained it, indeed. Yes I would like a copy e-mailed and maybe will need a little bit of help to understand where the problem content is if still not obvious to me. I tried to follow the links left on the deleted page but without the article is was difficult to understand where I went astray. Yes, I absolutely will remove the material that is creating the problem. Thank you very much for you help!!LorriBrown (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: I really appreciate your kind words in my behalf. That is very encouraging. Thank you! :- )LorriBrown (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure thing. If you are not sure where the copyvio is in the article, send it to me privately ("email this user" on my user page) and I will turn it into a copyvio-free draft for you.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

LorriBrown, I have emailed the deleted content to you, with the understanding that you will carefully remove any copyrighted material. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  • "Cryptic to me" - for goodness sake! Which of the words "copyright infringement" do you not understand? I have created a non-copyvio state. The entire bibliography section should be omitted - we call it listcruft. Instead link to this page and others where the info can be found. Bring back a shorter list of exhibitions in a way that does not trigger the copyvio detector selecting those which have revived the most glowing reviews! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I removed a couple copyvio instances in the newly created draft. It passes Earwig's detector now. If someone can revdel the edits I marked as "rem copyvio" in the history that is appreciated.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP, I completed the Revdel S Philbrick(Talk) 20:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

If a page appears to have been created to criticize rather than provide balanced information about an organization

If a page appears to have been created to criticize rather than provide balanced information about an organization and efforts made to balance the page are all reverted, is there any recourse to stop the reverting of the edits that are provided to present a more balanced picture beside the information in the original page. And further if a number of the references cited for the page are clearly written to criticize, in a very aggressive manner, the organization about which the page is written, is there a way to prevent the deletion of references that present another point of view?

This is the page I am asking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Health_Defense Unicorn46 (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Unicorn46: See WP:GOODBIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. Reading the headline to the page you referenced, I see "This page is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." So, while interesting, it does not answer the questions that I posed. Unicorn46 (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Unicorn46. The organization in question, Children's Health Defense, is an anti-vaccination group and Wikipedia is committed to strict accuracy when it comes to medical content, including using only the highest quality medical sources in articles about medical topics. Because the overwhelming consensus of those high quality sources is that vaccines are effective and generally safe, all of our articles about vaccination must reflect that fact. We do not place pseudoscience on the same level as actual science. That is false neutrality. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

what are some easy articles to edit?

when you login into wikipedia, it tellls you about an easy article. but i didnt clik that button. what are some easy articles to edit? Swig swoot (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Swig swoot and thank you for your visit here in the Teahouse. What kind of editing do you want to do: create an article, correct mistakes or something else? This will help us know your interests and we can then show you what types of articles you may want to edit. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 19:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
small mistakes or spelling errors Swig swoot (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Update to List of largest shopping malls

I am doing a research project on the development of large shopping malls and realized that the figures for the Mall of America are out of date or incorrect. The MOA website lists their gross leasable area as being 2.869 million square feet[1] while the Wikipedia article notes the number at 2.779 million square feet.

As an inexperienced Wikipedia editor myself, would someone be able to make the change to this page and update the ranking?

References

  1. ^ "2018 MOA Specialty Leasing Brochure 518" (PDF). Retrieved 27 May 2019.
Posting link to article for the convenience of other interested editors. Mall of America. The current source [[1]] used for square footage is a primary source that was updated and doesn't appear to show the square footage anymore. The link above is also a primary source - it would be great to get third party validation of the square footage. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

my edits where removed

Hello, this morning I made my first contribution, I edited this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads_in_February I added valuable, neutral info about the film screenings, with links, and I completed the cast and crew sections. But none of this seems to have been kept. My user : Humble contributeur The page I edited : Roads in February (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads_in_February) Is there a reason why my edits don't appear? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humble contributeur (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

At View history, Lugnuts reverted your content, adding "lgv" as explanation. Means "last good version." Issue was lack of references for the content you added. Suggest you leave a message at Lugnuts' Talk page, asking it that was the only problem. Your content can be recovered from View history, but do not add back until you resolve the referencing issue. David notMD (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Heraldry - Coats of Arms

What program do people use to create coats of arms for Wikipedia? Thanks, Don — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgtblackpepper (talk • contribs) 23:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sgtblackpepper. Since nobody has responded to your query yet, I'll take a shot. I'd image that some of the COAs you see used in Wikipedia articles are files found on other external websites. How these files are licensed depends on a variety of things, but they're not really user-created for specifically Wikipedia. Someone found a COA file somewhere online and figured how to upload and use them in a way that complies with Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Copyright#Guidelines for images and other media files. There are also files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons which are either public domain or user-created to some degree (perhaps based upon on an existing COA). You can probably find out some more about this at c:Commons:Coats of arms or maybe by asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology since the editors belonging to that WikiProject probably know quite a bit about the subject. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Kontakt

My friend Odor from Hungary Ex Legionnaire Now in Norwegian Prison — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashina 1020 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mashina 1020. The Teahouse is a place where people can come to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question about editing? From looking at the edits you've made so far, it appears you're posting comments on various article talk pages, but it's not clear what you're posting because you're using a language other than English. It would be easier for someone to help you if you can post in English, but if you find that too difficult perhaps you can find someone to help you in your preferred language at Wikipedia:Local Embassy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: See also: meta:User talk:Mashina 1020#About your recent modifications. --CiaPan (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Editor keeps deleting my edits and has three alternative acounts

They've already deleted my edit three times today. As I understand it, they should have their account freezed for that, but they have these alternate accounts. It seems really shady and I don't know what to do. The worst part is that they're doing it in defense of a really controversial statement within the industry. I don't really know what to think of it or what to do. I tried to open a conversation on their talk page, but they ignored it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GymnasioArgos (talk • contribs) 01:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

There was not one editor using three separate accounts that reverted you, GymnasioArgos. It was three separate editors. Whatever in the world would make you think otherwise? You need to discuss your changes on the article talk page, and work with the other editors on what if any of your proposed changes can gain a consensus to be included in the article. You'll likely be blocked if you continue on the path you are on. John from Idegon (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hi GymnasioArgos. A couple of things in no particular order.
  1. Accusing another editor of misusing multiple accounts is a serious accusation which shouldn't be made lightly; in fact, it can be considered a personal attack when it's not supported by evidence. Having your edits reverted by "different" accounts doesn't automatically mean that the same editor is using multiple accounts to try and make life difficult for you. It could also mean that multiple editors feel that your edits weren't in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines and were in agreement that they should be reverted and discussed further. From looking at the page history of Dog training, I think this is more of a case of the latter than the former.
  2. Wikipedia want us to be WP:BOLD when we edit; at the same time, Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project which means we are expected to discuss things with others when there is a disagreement over article content and try and establish a consensus. You were bold in making changes to an article, but these changes were subsequently reverted by another editor; this means that the obligation is now upon you to discuss the changes you want to make on the article talk page and see if a consensus can be reached. Trying to use edit warring to impose your particular version on the article is only going to end up getting you or someone else blocked. The editors who have reverted your edits explained why in their edit summaries, so try and address their concerns on the article's talk page before trying to re-add the content you feel should be in the article per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
  3. Posting on a user's talk page is a good thing to do, but try an understand that editors sometimes get WP:BUSY and may not respond as quickly as you like. Moreover, it's generally better to discuss disagreements over article content on the article's talk page because it makes it much easier for others who may be interested in the subject matter to participate. It also makes it much easier for any record of prior discussion to be found in case the same or a similar issue comes up in the future. In some cases, some of the changes you want to make might've actually been discussed before and a consensus was actually established not to make them. So, the article talk page can really be helpful in cases like this.
You've only been editing for a week (at least with this account) and Wikipedia has quite a lot of policies and guidelines which is how we as editors evaluate article content, ie. what to leave in and what to leave out. Nobody expects you to know all of these policies and guidelines by heart and some editors who've been at it for years still make mistakes or get things wrong. Wikipedia, however, doesn't want us to make our mistakes worse by making other mistakes on top of them; so, please use the article talk page to engage in discussion with these other editors and see if some common ground can be established which improves the article in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
GymnasioArgos, there is only one proper place to make an accusation of sock puppetry, and that is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, where you are expected to provide convincing evidence. It is disruptive to make such accusations elsewhere, especially without any evidence at all. I notice that nobody has edited Talk:Dog training since 2017. That is the proper place to discuss your proposed changes to that article. Make your case there, and do not try to add your content back to that article without obtaining consensus. I urge you to be cautious in these circumstances. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
The accounts all have the same name, but then are numbered in sequential order starting with 1.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GymnasioArgos (talk • contribs) 02:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
You have confused edit numbers with editors. The editors reverting your additions are Bradv, MrOllie and MarchJuly. Take it up at the article's Talk. David notMD (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi again GymnasioArgos. The edit you made here is not the way to try and resolve a content dispute. You tried to discuss things at User talk:Bradv#Message from GymnasioArgos Edits on Dog Training page, not at the article's talk page; Bradv has responded to your post and suggested you discuss things at Talk:Dog training instead. Just because an editor doesn't respond to one your posts right away, it doesn't mean you're being ignored; it could just mean that they are WP:BUSY and haven't had the time to respond yet. What you need to do now is follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try to resolve things on the article's talk page. Continuing to revert to try and impose your desired version on the article is only going to lead to your account being blocked for edit warring regardless of how right you may think you are. Moreover, your post here indicates that you probably should read Wikipedia:Expert editors; the knowledge you have about the subject of dog training can be a great assest in figuring out ways to improve the article, but it doesn't give you any special editing privaleges or control over the content. Anyone interested in the subject can edit that article as long as they do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines; they don't need to be an expert in dog training, own a dog or even like dogs to be able to edit the article. You started out being bold and were reverted; that's no big deal. You then dug yourself into a small hole, by reverting back and assuming others were using multiple accounts inappropriately because they disagreed with you. Again, not an ideal thing to do, but still something fairly easy to get out of. That hole, however, is starting to get deeper and deeper the more you continue to try and force your preferred version onto others involved in editing the article. You've already been politely warned above by Cullen328 (an Wikipedia administrator) to take a step back and discuss; if you continue on as you've been doing, you’re going to find that a Wikipedia adminstrator is going to step in and and take action that you might not like to prevent any further disruption of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
RE: "The editors reverting your additions are Bradv, MrOllie and MarchJuly" I happened upon a list of editor available for third party resolutions that I cannot find again. It listed a Bradv, Bradv2, and Bradv3. I don't know much about how accounts are generated, but it looks like there are three accounts associated with this editor. I'm sorry, but that looks bad.
RE:"Just because an editor doesn't respond to one your posts right away, it doesn't mean you're being ignored; it could just mean that they are WP:BUSY and haven't had the time to respond yet." Well, in the time it took them to get to their talk page, they deleted two of my edits. At best it's an unfortunate workflow.
RE: "That hole, however, is starting to get deeper and deeper the more you continue to try and force your preferred version onto others involved in editing the article." If Wikipedia is about the truth instead of greasing elbows, I really don't see why you need me to be nice about it. My first edit was completely deleted, not edited, and accused of bad faith. That's a pretty big hole itself, but the reality is that the edit that Bradv is reverting ignores a good portion of the dog training industry. Applied Behavior Analysis is a discipline focused on children with intellectual and cognitive disabilities, not dogs.
It takes two people to edit war and I certainly didn't initiate it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GymnasioArgos (talk • contribs) 03:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
GymnasioArgos, I assure you there is only one of me. And as I noted on the article talk page, I agree the article needs some improvement, and I thank you for starting the discussion. – bradv🍁 03:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@GymnasioArgos: Please try to remember to sign your talk page posts. If you're not sure how to do that, look at WP:SIGN and WP:TILDE for more information. Signing your posts helps others see who's posting and when they are posting.
As for edit warring, you were WP:BOLD, and made some changes to the article; another editor then WP:REVERTed your changes because they felt they were not an improvement. The other editor left an edit summary explaining why they were making the changes which means so the reversion wasn't a case of random vandalism. At that point, you're expected to start a discussion on the article's talk page and try to establish a consensus for your changes; however, you didn't do this and instead reverted back to your preferred version. Then, when other different editors reverted your edits and left edit summaries advising you to discuss things on the article's talk page, you continued to revert back to your preferred version. Whatever edit warring occured began with your first revert; so, yes you did technically start it. The other reverts were made in an attempt to stabilize the article per WP:STATUSQUO to allow some sort of proper discussion to take place.
This thread is slowly moving beyond the scope of the Teahouse. If, however, you'd like me to take you through everything that happened step by step using diffs, then I can do so on your user talk page. Right now, however, it might be best to focus on the discussion you started on the article's talk page. Bradv has responded there and has even started a new thread; so, perhaps the two of you can work together on improving the article. If you two are unable to resolve your differences, then take it to the next stage of the dispute resolution process and seek other input. Perhaps some of the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs might be able to help sort things out. Wikipedia is not about truth per se, but rather about verifiability. It's also not about original research, but rather about reflecting content found in reliable sources. When there are disagreements about these types of things, it's not about winning but rather about trying to find a way to work together with others and figure out how to resolve any differences of opinion. This is one of the main ways how articles are slowly and steadily improved over time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@GymnasioArgos: If you refer to Special:ListUsers/Bradv then Bradv1 and Bradv3 is a blocked impersonator who has not edited any article. Bradv2 was created in 2007 and has no edits at all. By the way, Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses does permit alternative accounts if some rules are followed. I have the alternative accounts User:PrimeHunter2 and User:PrimeHunter3. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Article

Would you be interested in writing a Wikipedia page for Yungfester or no? — Preceding comment signed as by Masumrezarock100 (talk · contribs) actually added by Yungfester (talk · contribs) 18:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

If you would like to write an article, please create a draft of it at Draft:Yungfester --DannyS712 (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Help with article

Hello, I have started an article about director Draft:Benedikt Erlingsson. Can you give me tips on how to proceed with publishing the article. I want to add more short bios of Scandinavian and Nordic filmmakers and their works. Is that something that would be of value for English Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ActicCinemaGuy (talk • contribs) 13:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems that this Benedikt Erlingsson is notable, having been covered by a number of reliable sources. So I encourage you to continue your draft. I suggest that you also add a background or early life section. This source, for instance, provides some info about his parents. Darwin Naz (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I did article and there is not result

i made article about motivation and sleepi ng less and there is no effecct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelbezos (talk • contribs) 02:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the teahouse. Can you explain the issue a bit more? Its unclear what we can help you with --DannyS712 (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Michaelbezos. Are you talking about your sandbox User:Michaelbezos/sandbox...? It has been removed, and if you click the red link you can see a pink box there, which says '...(Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria U5, G11)'.
And if you click those green links you'll see they are two criteria of speedy deletion: U5. Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host and G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. --CiaPan (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Advice on flagging a page for neutrality and point of view concerns

Hello, I've tried editing a biography of a living person. Basically, I've flagged the page for notability, credibility and concerns that the editor is someone close to the subject. In fact, the whole page was constructed by one person and he seems to be very defensive about my edits i.e. constant accusations of vandalism, improper motives etc. All I wanted to do was raise a legitimate concern (a tag) that the person editing the page/ created the page is close to the subject. How can I do this 'properly' without his constant harassing and removal of my tag?

Yd85 (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Big help if you identify the article.David notMD (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Numbers

Why do the numbers you get from making edits mean? I’m assuming it’s saying you did a good or bad job but how do you get more or less and what do they do? Just please explain the whole thing I don’t get it. Twooeight (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It's just how many bytes of content you added (green) or removed (red). David notMD (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Added or removed characters. I will add that it has nothing to do with whether you made a "good" or "bad" job - adding unsourced speculation will appear in green (but it is not a good thing), and removing it will appear in red (but it is a good thing). TigraanClick here to contact me 14:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Main article on Fascism

Greetings! I appreciate the fine and detailed article on fascism, with one glaring exception--"Dostoevsky" is included as a thinker/artist whose work inspires fascist tendencies (fn 86), which is a patently anomalous view, apparently based on one page in a chapter in a book, written by an author (Zeel Sternhell) whose championing of the Enlightenment tends to extreme bias (here's a review of one of his books:https://newrepublic.com/article/72487/black-and-white). Dostoevsky does not belong in this list of precursors to fascism (he is a serious critic of fascism avant la lettre), and I'm not sure how to rectify this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.154.97 (talk • contribs) 2019-05-28T17:03:18 (UTC)

Hello IP user. the best place to discuss what should go in a particular article is that article's talk page. I cannot find "Dostoevsky" in the index of the talk page, so it looks as if this hasn't been discussed before; but Talk:Fascism seems to be quite active. --ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Signatures

how do i make custom signatires. Swig swoot (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Swig swoot. You will find the detailed guidance you need at Wikipedia:Signatures. Please remember that not everyone has perfect eyesight, so do try to avoid using very pale colours, or dark text against very dark backgrounds. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I have accidentally destroyed the layout of the External Links

Hello

I have been editing some Portuguese football clubs in English and I have unfortunatelly and accidentaly destroyed the layout of the:

{{Navbox | name = Primeira Liga teamlist | title = Primeira Liga | state = autocollapse |listclass = hlist

| group1 = 2018–19 clubs | list1 =

Any thoughts on how it can fixed? I volunteer to fix but I don`t now how, or will wikipedia staff fix these type of layouts? Examples of what I have made can be found on the Lusitano Ginásio Clube and SC Campomaiorense in English.

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lusitanist1911 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You had 2 malformatted entries in your additions to the template. Corrected in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Looking at it again, clubs from the Évora Football Association, as a district association, do not belong on Template:Primeira Liga teamlist. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sound

How to upload sound(mp3) in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiruchengode (talk • contribs) 16:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Tiruchengode, I believe Ogg Vorbis is the preferred format for lossy-compressed audio on Wikipedia. (See c:Commons:Audio for help.)
Whether you can add the sound file depends on what it is. If it's not a free cultural work, it will have to meet the non-free content criteria. (See this as an example of a file meeting those criteria.) If it does, you can upload it here.
If it is a free cultural work, or if you created the audio and you want to release it under a free license, you can upload it here.
Hope this helps. Eman235/talk 18:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Lost Draft?

So I'm a new user, not experienced ofcourse, but I need to create a page for the Blackstone and Burke center at which I'm interning this summer. I went through (I believe) the correct process of creating a draft, and have been waiting for someone to approve it or disapprove it. Anyway, I can't find the draft, and the draft does not appear in my edit history. Is there any way to find the page, check progress, or edit? It was about 5 hours of work that I'd like to get back. Thanks for any help. The page I tried to create a draft for is called "Blackstone and Burke Center for Law and Liberty"— Preceding unsigned comment added by KingryJason (talk • contribs)

@KingryJason: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft was deleted as a copyright infringement(if you click on Draft:The Blackstone and Burke Center for Law and Liberty it will give the reason); as such, it cannot be restored. Text cannot simply be copied from a website to here due to licensing issues. Also note that if you are interning for this organization, you must comply with the paid editing policy(even if an unpaid intern); this is a Terms of Use requirement. You should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Spoilers on Wiki pages about upcoming films

Why am I being warned about "vandalizing" the Once Upon A Time in Hollywood page? The other person posting is posting the PLOT of a film that isn't out until August! I want to see it fresh, and no one should have to stumble upon it in error. I'm being constructive, and not insulting anyone, or making the page unsightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bourahioro (talk • contribs) 17:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bourahioro: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You were edit warring to preserve your edit, this is not acceptable, please read WP:3RR. Regarding your edit, the plot of a film is generally added to the article about it as soon as it is known, either through someone seeing the film or a description being published in a reliable source. Evidently someone who saw a preview of the film put the plot in the article. Films have different release dates in different countries as well. If you don't want to have the plot of a film spoiled, it is best that you stay away from the article about it until you see the film. It's just the way it is. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Bourahioro: See Wikipedia:Spoiler for the guideline to not delete spoilers. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was shown at Cannes 21 May and already has 59 reviews from critics at Rotten Tomatoes.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Private communication

Can editors talk privately? I guess I mean not talk on the talk pages. Maybe when I see you got a message on your email might be private. Any input? Eschoryii (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Eschoryii: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you send someone an email, the contents are private, and only you and the person you sent it to can see the text. DannyS712 (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

/* References */ Ben Mitchell (singer/songwriter) page.

hi i can submit in sendbox yesterday but now i can see all data will deleted now i can submit new page again i can data will deleted what i will please \help me

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenMitchellsinger (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't see what it was that you submitted, but you might like to read WP:Autobiography and WP:Notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not like social media where anyone can advertise themselves. Dbfirs 20:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Showing sources for tables

My question is How to show sources correctly for tables?. I have seen many ways how that's done but which one is the correct? Is it writing "Source: [cite]" under the table in italic or what? Thanks! --LV1000 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand that if the table has a caption, you should just add it in the end of the caption but what if the table doesn't have a caption? --LV1000 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@LV1000: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no official "correct" way, most ways you can think of are valid. If you provide a link to the page you are thinking of, I can help you add the sources. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: OK. But in this page 2013 UEFA European Under-17 Championship, for example, regarding te section Group stage, where and in what format should I place the reference if all the sections's info is from one site - what's your opinion?

Who is in charge of revising the lead paragraph to "Dooring" entry?

re: Dooring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dooring

The descriptive opening paragraph to "Dooring" entry ought, I believe, be amended also to include doorings of other road users such as scooter, e-bike, moped, motorcycle, skate-board, & inline skate users, etc - ie other Vulnerable Road Users. It also should note that other motor vehicles including automobiles, trucks, buses and even light rail vehicles get doored, and indeed can break off the offending vehicle's door. Last, exiting motorists themselves can and have been injured or killed by their negligent egress from their vehicle into the door zone and path of on oncoming vehicle / road user.

I do not see an "edit" link preceding the dooring entry's introductory paragraph and assume it is up to the senior editors of the section to do so.

If this is so, how can I contact the appropriate editor or group of editors?

Or could you kindly forward this recommendation to them? [I can readily provide documentation for such non-bicyclist dooring collisions upon request]

Michael C Thank you! 22:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Mcha6677 (talk)mcha6677

@Mcha6677: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. No one is "in charge" of the lead paragraph, there just isn't an edit button by default. You can edit the entire page and just change that paragraph, or there is an option in your settings (at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, the first option under "Appearance") to "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". Alternatively, here is a link to edit the lede section of the page in question. Hope this helps, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Mcha6677! Adding to DannyS712's comment, if a page does have an protection (there's usually a lock icon towards the top right of the page) you can usually request an edit on that page's talk page. OkayKenG (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Difference

What is the difference between sockpuppeterring and using another account without abusing? RedditDuchyii (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@RedditDuchyii: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The legitimate uses of another account, which don't constitute abuse, can be found at: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of alternative accounts --DannyS712 (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Who is in charge of revising the lead paragraph to "Dooring" entry & How may I pass along suggested changes??

re: Dooring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dooring

The descriptive opening paragraph to "Dooring" entry ought, I believe, be amended to include doorings of other vulnerable road users (VRUs) such as scooter, e-bike, moped, motorcycle, skate-board, & inline skate users, etc.

It also should note that other motor vehicles including automobiles, trucks, buses and even light rail vehicles get doored, and can damage or even break off the offending vehicle's door.

Last, exiting motorists and passengers themselves can and have been injured or killed by their negligent egress into the Door Zone from their vehicle into the door zone and path of on oncoming vehicle / road user.

Being a newbie, I assume it is up to the senior editors of this Dooring section to make such changes as I do not see an "edit" link preceding the dooring entry's introductory paragraph.

If this is so, how may I communicate these suggestions to the appropriate editor or group of editors who oversee that entry?

Or could you kindly forward this recommendation to them on my behalf?

[PS: I can readily provide documentation for such non-bicyclist dooring collisions upon request]


Michael C Thank you! 23:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Mcha6677 (talk)mcha6677

Mcha6677, your question was already answered here. Eman235/talk 23:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Do images used in Wikipedia require credit and/or compensation? Consider Wikipedia page "Carex crawfordii".

The drawing in taxonbox for Wikipedia "Carex crawfordii" is a 1970 Dover reprint (p380) of the 1913 ed of Britton & Brown's "An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States and Canada". Does Wikidome need consider questions about whetherornot an image is or is not in the public domain? Elraywms Elraywms (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe File:Carex crawfordii illustration (1).jpg is, in fact, public domain, even if it was scanned from a later reprint. (Which, given the linked source, doesn't seem likely.) Eman235/talk 00:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Strangers (TV series)

There's 3 TV series called Strangers on Wikipedia in:

But there's 2 redirects both called Strangers (TV series) on Wikipedia too in:

Which both appear in search.

Is it possible to merge the 2 Strangers (TV series) pages into one, then either redirect them to one of the 3 TV shows, or the disambiguation section Strangers_(disambiguation)#Television?

Danstarr69 (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Danstarr69:  Done by Bkonrad, who changed both redirect targets to Strangers (disambiguation)#Television. Note that the redirect pages differ in the capitalization of series, so that both are useful (no "merge" needed). Deor (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Deor I noticed they were redirected yesterday. Redirecting pages is one of the few, relatively complicated things I actually know how to do by myself on here. What I didn't know how to do is merge things so they disappear, which is what I wanted to do as I can't understand why both of them appear in the top 10 search results when you type "Strangers (TV series), while pages like Strangers (1978 TV series) and Strangers (2018 TV series) don't, as they only appear if you type in the year. Both the 1978 and 2018 TV shows should appear in the top 10 search results, when searching for "Strangers (TV series)" in my opinion, as you might not remember the years they came out. It makes no sense why they don't appear, yet the 2017 series does.

It's like with The Royal which doesn't appear in the Top 10 search results when you search for "The Royal," yet The Royals (TV series) does.

Danstarr69 (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Danstarr69, are you referring to a Google search? Where things appear in one of those passes all understanding, though the number of times a page is visited certainly seems to have something to do with it. When I search for Strangers (TV series) on Google, the 2018 and 2017 series are the top two hits. When I search for the same string on Wikipeia, Strangers (disambiguation) is the top hit, and the three series articles are among the top ten. Deor (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Deor Nope. I'm talking about the search in the search box on Wikipedia. It seems to have changed slightly in the last few hours as only 3 results show up in the search box when I search for Strangers TV series, but still...

The Top 10 results when I search for Strangers are:

  1. Stranger
  2. Strangers on a Train (film)
  3. Stranger in a Strange Land
  4. Strangers to Ourselves
  5. Strangers into Citizens
  6. Strangers (2017 TV series)
  7. Strangers with Candy
  8. Strangers Almanac
  9. Strangers in the Night
  10. Strangers (Halsey song)

And the Top 10 results when I search for Strangers TV are:

  1. Strangers (TV series)
  2. Strangers to Ourselves
  3. Strangers' Thoughts
  4. Strangers on a Train (film)
  5. Stranger in a Strange Land
  6. Strangers to the Marsh
  7. Stranger to Stranger
  8. Strangers (Van She song)
  9. Stranger in a Strange Land (Lost)
  10. Strangers on a Treadmill

That's why I can't understand it. The search box clearly doesn't order the articles in terms of popularity, however it should at least put the type of thing you're searching for in the Top 10 results. Things like Stranger in a Strange Land isn't even pluralised, and things like Strangers (Van She song) has nothing to do with TV, so why do they appear in the Top 10 results when you search for the above two search terms?

Danstarr69 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Danstarr69. Just a suggetion, but this might be something better asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) since it may possibly have something to do with Wikipedia:Metadata or some other technical aspect that they usually sort out at VPT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_960&oldid=899759071"