Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 853

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 850

Archive 851

Archive 852

→

Newbie!

Hello Teahouse! What suggestions would you give a newbie seeking to become a budding writer with an emphasis on the blockchain space? Thank you in advance and I am happy to be here. CryptoWriter (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello newbie! One thing you should know is that that space has been problematic on WP, lots of promotion etc going on. Because of that, something called "General sanctions" is in effect, basically it means that WP admins can be swift and hard when it comes to WP:EDITWAR and other problematic behaviour. In short, it's something of a minefield, so tread carefully, more info at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory - BIG problem!

I am a big supporter of Wikipedia. I refer my grandkids to it, and us it as a reference for any topic I am researching. Having said that, there are several problems with the article on "White genocide conspiracy theory" Clearly the editor who wrote the article is not a fan of Fox News or conservatives in general. As university journalism student in the 1970's, I had it drilled in me again and again, NEVER editorialize. Editorializing is interjecting a personal view in an article readable to anyone as factual. The editor of this article believes that several Fox news commentators (not anyone from CNN, MSNBC, etc.) are themselves white supremacist or inadvertent white supremacist at the minimum. He chooses as example obscure examples such as "...has frequently tweeted about the concept." Or "...supports and promotes the conspiracy theory." as just two examples. This is an extremely important topic. It is historic and has been a destructive element to American society for years. It is terrible that anyone would use this topic as a way of striking out at people they do not agree with, by trying to "out" public figures they want destroyed. I read the article expecting historic descriptions of how this conspiracy theory is used to defend terrorist attacks on a personal level. I can personally pick out comments from any public figure: Hillary Clinton: "White Supremacist Hillary Clinton's Sanctimonious Attack" (actual article) CNN reports that white people are racist by default Wikipedia does a good job of writing clean articles that tell the facts. Their editors do a good job of keeping personal politics out of their articles. This editor stepped over the line. Its one thing to believe Tucker Carslon or Anne Coulter have white supremacist ideas, its another thing to write it as a fact. Its worse to say someone supports white supremacy simply by not fighting it hard enough. I completely disagree with Anne Coulter or Tucker Carlson being include in this article. I don't know enough about the others to say. White supremacist are up front and loud about their insane ideology. Tucker Carlson and Anne Coulter have been very vocal about their hatred of white supremacy. I pray wikipedia is not being hijacked by any group with a particular ideology. wikipedia should be held to the highest standard of articles that can stand the test of time. This article seems more like something that might appear in a magazine article that they later make a retraction on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:9700:2766:84da:ab66:5d33:3d86 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have any concerns about an article, you should discuss them on the article talk page, so that interested editors can see them. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I'd like to answer you at greater length than 331dot, though their advice is certainly sound.

You are right that Wikipedia's policies call for no editorialising in articles: articles are supposed to be neutral summaries of what the major published sources on the subject say, reflecting all views (weighted according to the quantity and reliability of the respective sources). You'll appreciate that White genocide conspiracy theory is an example of a topic which is highly controversial: one person's "truth" is another person's "propaganda". In fact, it is one of the articles currently subject to a moderating regime called Discretionary sanctions.

Like all Wikipedia articles, it is a work in progress, edited by many people. If you look at its history, you will see how many editors have contributed to it (and how often they have argued and reverted each other's changes).

You are most welcome to get involved in this, if you wish: I suggest you start by carefully reading all the discussions on the article's talk pages (probably including the three archives linked near the top). It is likely you will find that the issues you are concerned about have already been debated, but you may have something new to add.

Wikipedia works by consensus. Normally, if you come along saying "this article is badly written/biased/editorialising" I would advise you to be be bold and improve it (see WP:BOLD); but in an article of this type, I advise you to tread carefully: read the past discussions, and join in (or start a new discussion) if you can see a way to reach a consensus on moving forward.

Good luck! --ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Email Notice

What happened to the Email Notices? Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 20:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thegooduser. There are many types of email notices. What do you have in mind? If you mean on-wiki notifications that another user has mailed you via Wikipedias mail interface then it works for me. It requires that "Email from other user" is enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Resolved at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Email Notice where Thegooduser revealed which type of email notice it was about. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

vague phrasing - how to spot it?

On the following page - Warrantless searches in the United States - there is a notice from 2007 complaining of vague phrasing. Since it has been ten years, I've decided to fix these problems. Can someone please review and notify me of the vague phrasing so I can fix it. Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't find the vague phrase - so deleted the tag. See Category:Articles_with_weasel_words for more work :-) . Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I also bookmarked the link! Seahawk01 (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ariconte and Seahawk01: I fixed the category link in Ariconte's post above. The trick to make a link (rather than categorize the page, or include an image, or...) is to start the link with a colon. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tigraan: nice trick :-) Seahawk01 (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

introducing

how are u all?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahmedreza (talk • contribs) 17:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kahmedreza and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm glad you found your way here. We try to be a friendly place to answer questions about how to edit Wikipedia. I'm afraid that means that there is not much idle socializing here, so this is all the more answer I'm able to give to your question right now. Feel free to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, though. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Turfotos

!I own all negatives for 8 race tracks from 1935 through 1993. The corporation was called chromosomes by James Raftery. Some of you race photos are stolen and should not be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4c00:f70:d447:be26:e7d6:de3c (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2018‎ (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know about this, but your advisory notice does not include enough detail for any specific action to be taken. If you find photos that violate copyright or are otherwise not properly licensed, I'm afraid you'll need to report them individually over at Wikimedia Commons - you can get to the relevant page on Commons by clicking on the photo and then on the "More details" button. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Which user last edited 2011 Royal Rumble?

Please tell me the IP of the anonymous user who edited 2011 Royal Rumble because it is pure Vandalism.Satin17 (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Satin17. I guess you refer to Royal Rumble (2011). Click the "View history" tab at top to see the page history [1]. See more at Help:Page history. The last IP actually reverted some vandalism. David Biddulph has now reverted more. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

first artical

how to write bio of wordpress user ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedastaan (talk • contribs) 07:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

See WP:YFA ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 13:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Help

I want to create a dab page but the name is used in a redirect. What to do now? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Harshrathod50 and welcome to the Teahouse. Can you specify which page you are referring to? ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 13:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It is this one. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You may remove the redirect to Multiplayer game and create a new dab page. Please make sure it is in accordance with WP:DAB ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 13:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Does that mean I can remove the present code on that redirect and proceed further? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 13:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, sir Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

To get to the redirect code, click on the link at the top of the article where it says "(Redirected from Multiplayer)". --David Biddulph (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus and David Biddulph: Done, please take a look and late me know what you people think. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 14:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@Rankiri: Can you please account for your revert here? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 14:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted back to the redirect - what you created was a list of partial title matches. Please see WP:PTM, dabs are not a search index. However, after further review, I reverted back to your dab page. They aren't simply partial titles, so nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the re-revert. I asked here because I wasn't able to comprehend your argument in the edit summary. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 14:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Article Capitalization

Hello, I am working with a new editor who accidentally didn't capitalize the last name of her article for a biographical entry. I've never encountered this issue, how can I go in and change it? thanks!--Ella Dawn 16:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Elladeer - on the "more" button at the top of the page, select "move", and simply capitalize it property. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

thanks! I knew it would be an easy fix.--Ella Dawn 16:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleting pages

I have requested for the deletion of two pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ratnesh_Roop/sandbox and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ratnesh_Roop/sandbox/Kya_Tum as i would like to retain and edit only page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kya_Tum. Since three pages were created on the same topic Mr ColinFine moderator advice us to do this. Request you to kindly update us on the same. This will help us to edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kya_Tum. Need your quick revert.

Thanks Ratnesh Roop

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratnesh Roop (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Ratnesh Roop. You've done nearly right to get them deleted - unfortunately you seem to have copied the template from the source of my post here, so you included the "tl". {{tl|db-user}} is a way of referring to or quoting a template - which was what I was doing here. To use the template you just put {{db-user}} - with the double curly brackets, but without the 'tl|'. I have corrected these (the software is now complaining that the last person who edited the page - me - was not the user whose userspace the page is in: that is OK, and I believe that the deleting admin will look at the history and see my edit summary, and that will be OK. I'm not sure if the deleting admin will be willing to delete the first one, since another user (Onlymailers) has also contributed to the page. We'll have to see.

I am not an administrator or moderator by the way (we don't have moderators): I'm just an ordinary editor with a lot of experience. --ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone else editing might have been a problem if it had been a G7 deletion, but these are U1. - --David Biddulph (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Both are deleted. ~ GB fan 17:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

A way to warn someone for the future

Sorry, if this isn’t the best place to post this, but Rusted AutoParts’ disregard of etiquette & guidelines on La La Land & its talk page has continued to irk me. Is there a way for someone else to dissuade him from this sort of behavior for the future on his user page? It’d be clearly more meaningful if someone other than I do it. Barely made one (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like there was an existing consensus from 2017 in the same discussion where you announced your intended changes. Please note, it is not merely good enough to announce what you intend to do, if people are objecting then it is important that you get agreement from people as well. Given that your initial changes have been objected to, it is your responsibility to establish, via consensus, that your changes are needed. Implicit consensus is only valid in cases where there is not explicit objections. Reasonable, explicit differences are valid, and should be respected until there is a consensus. I would continue to discuss and make your case on the talk page before enacting the change you wish. You can get additional input in the discussion from Dispute resolution methods if need be. --Jayron 32 16:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless consensus is stated to be only valid if it’s longer than 6 days, there’s no reason the previous editor (Matthew) would’ve gotten ‘existing consensus’. His proposal goes against the last editors’ agreements (if you wanted to read closer) and is very much implicit like mine. Regardless, none of this warrants any of the incivility & zero etiquette that Rusted AutoParts can apparently get away with, especially (if you read closer) that he provided no relevant argument to the objection of those reverted changes. Well, if this is the expected response to a warranted warning, then it’s no surprise that users like him can thrive and there are concerns of people being driven away from the site. Barely made one (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Company rebrand

I work for Simplify Health (here in UK) - which is a new name for Beacon UK (rebranded in Sept 2018). How should I update Wiki - Beacon UK page?

I've created an account: C.Smicle at Simplify Health

Can I just edit the Beacon UK page explaining the change in name and publish?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beacon_UK

Thanks Catherine SmicleC.Smicle at Simplify Health (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for telling us about your status. You need to make the declaration required for paid editing, then in accordance with the recommendation on conflict of interest you can go to the article's talk page and make recomendations for changes, supported by references to published reliable sources. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I flagged the article for notability and started a discussion on the article's talk page. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Birthplace of Asmahan

Hello everyone,
For the Asmahan page, I reverted 95.208.58.106 who wanted to add the Mediterranean Sea as birthplace. I told him that one must be born in a territory or be from at least one of them. WD also poses a constraint. A birth on a sea seems to be born like a fish. Talk: Asmahan seems to have been already busy on this subject. The references in Asmahan are already problematic. I feel alone about this problem, I come to talk about it here.

Is my patrol approach valid / reasonable? (Perhaps I wasn't extremely kind?) Does anyone have a valid / indisputable reference for the birthplace? Are there some who want to improve this page?

The IP is notified of my approach here. Best regards. --Eihel (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Eihel: I recommend that you should write where exactly she was born (Mediterranean Sea near Beirut Vilayet, because the latter cover the whole coastline .. She was born on water, then died in water). Some people might be born inside a plane, would you write the country in which they are flying above ?! .. others might drown in an ocean, so would you mention the nearest country instead ?! Same applies when someone was born on the middle of the ocean ! Cheers. 95.208.58.80 (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio

Franklin's Lost Expedition has a 45.7 Percent Copyvio via earwigs copyvio... Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Thegooduser and welcome back to the Teahouse.

The copyvio detector can find correlations but is not designed to determine which direction the copying has occurred. We expect editors to use some judgement about which direction and that requires some examination of the other sources to determine whether the copying is something that requires us to take action.

In this case, the lead paragraph of the Franklin article was copied by a site used by walking cane enthusiasts to give some context to a description of a particular cane (a narwhal tusk). The website carries a footnote attributing the summary to Wikipedia. The next three overlaps are attributed quotes in the article. None of these is a problem.

Please stop using the copyvio tool blindly. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Backwards copy may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

jmcgnh Sorry about that. I did not know that the earwigs copyvio did not check for attribution on the other websites. Sorry for bothering you and the other editors who had to look into this. I will remember this for the future. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 23:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Questions about removing (a lot of) content from a page that is too large

Hello, this is a question about the Wikipedia page on Economic inequality. Initially, I thought to split this page, but I put it up for discussion and people thought it is such a mishmash of topics already covered elsewhere that splitting is not a good idea. Please see Talk:Economic_inequality. I did an experiment where I just removed all but a paragraph from each topic under "Causes" and then added a link to the main topic page. This removed about 30 kB of text, but the page is still around 167 kB and needs about 2/3 more content removed.

Really, I think to fix this page, a very narrow focus needs to be taken. Definition of economic inequality, global and United States trends, maybe some history. And then, links to all the different types of economic inequality people want to talk about...racial, gender, etc. and all the different causes...neoliberalism, information technology, etc. So basically, take the abstraction up one level, then link out to the various discussion on other Wikipedia pages.

Now, my two questions are A) should I cut 127 or so kB from the page and B) if I do, will someone revert. It would not be a problem for me to reduce this page a great deal, but I have other things I would like to edit on Wikipedia and don't want to be too involved in a lost cause. Maybe it is just the nature of hot-button issues that people just come by and keep adding their personal take on things and it is better to work on other pages.

Either way, thanks for any insights! Seahawk01 (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Seahawk01 and welcome to the Teahouse (again).

The major restructuring of a page like this is something I would leave to very experienced editors. In my limited experience, it is not something easily done by a committee meeting on the talk page.

On the other hand, if your impression is that "people just come by and keep adding their personal take on things", an approach of cutting or shrinking those additions would likely be more successful.

But, as you saw in your talk page discussion, not everyone is alarmed by a large article, so gaining consensus on trimming it down can be fraught. Is there something else you'd rather be doing? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The article has been very long for a very long time, and yet people must find it useful, as it gets ~900 views a day. My guess is people start at the article, then go to the Wikilinks that interest them. Rather than a split or more massive cuts, perhaps do a bit more trimming (especially removing unreferenced content that looks like original research) and then don't touch it for a month and see what happens. On a separate note, surprised that the article has not been assigned a rating or importance. David notMD (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Jmcgnh: and @David notMD:. Totally agree there are other things I'd rather be doing on Wikipedia. I just put myself out on a limb by volunteering to split the page and not expecting the consensus would be not to split. I'm going to take the advice of not doing too much and waiting to see how other people respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahawk01 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Creating a new template

Hello again. On Terry stop I created a sidebar called Template:Police Investigatory Stops. I'm still working on it, but I am hoping I can use it to link together other pages such as Consent search, Traffic stop, etc. Since I'm still pretty new, I would just like to run it by more experienced people to see if I'm moving in the right direction and what else I have to do to establish a template and get it put on other pages. Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Seahawk01 and welcome (again, I think) to the Teahouse.

I made a small correction to your sidebar on Terry stop but it seems like a reasonable goal. Sidebars like this are an aid to navigation and there's nothing too special about creating a new one. That article already has a heavy load of navbars at the bottom, though, so I would be aiming to have only the exactly corresponding articles in your sidebar and not include subjects already well covered by those navbars. In particular, I'd leave out your current case law section, since the more detailed case links will be found on the pages of the "stop" that's most associated with the case – and those front pages for the stop are what I'd argue are necessary introductions.

The other place to ask for advice on the side bar are the two WikiProjects whose banners are on the talk page. Each WikiProject has a talk page and your proposals will likely receive more focused attention than here at the Teahouse. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jmcgnh:. I removed the bottom template (US4thAmendment). I had put it there last week as something to work off of. But, I think Terry stop deals more with police procedure than case law. Would you still recommend removing the two case laws?

Thanks for the direction to WikiProjects. I'm pretty new, so the teahouse is the first place I think to ask. But I'll go there next time. Seahawk01 (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Seahawk01: A template for use in multiple articles should be saved in the template namespace. You can save the code in a page like Template:Police investigatory stops and then write {{Police investigatory stops}} to display it in articles. Wikipedia uses sentence case for page names so words are only capitalized if they would be so in a normal sentence. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: great, this is what I wanted to do. I saved it as Template:Police Investigative Stops. Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Ouch, but I messed up the capitalization! Can I change it? Sorry about that. Seahawk01 (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Seahawk01: Changing the capitalization is just another form of move. I'm not sure whether it should be "investigative" or "investigatory". The entry at WikiDiff is not exactly enlightening. Which do you think is the most commonly used word in this context? Most of the top Google hits appear to say they should be considered synonyms.

Yes, I still think the cases don't need to be in the sidebar. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

LSI Medical Billing & Financial Consultants LLC

LSI Medical Billing & Financial Consultants LLC. (LSI MedBilling)) is a U.S.-based Revenue Cycle Management (Dental billing and Medical billing) corporation which since 2014 has been focused on educate healthcare professional on how the healthcare insurance industry work. Dr. Liliana Suarez in Ashburn, VA founded this private in 2014.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocodrilosky (talk • contribs) 17:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Cocodrilosky, do you have a question? If you are trying to write an article, this is the wrong place to do it. ~ GB fan 17:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

A submission on this topic was declined at Articles for Creation on Oct 6. Are you asking how to resubmit? David notMD (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The editor added this unreferenced content to mainspace as an article. I deleted it as promotional. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Problems with updating image

I'm trying to update the logo image for The Student Life, but I'm having some trouble. First, I tried uploading an svg (see top image to right

), but that became black when it rendered as a png. Then, I tried uploading a new png to replace the existing version (see bottom image to right

), but it's now rendering as a squished version of the old logo in the article. Clicking on it reveals the proper image, though. Can anyone familiar with images help? Thanks!

- Sdkb (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be fine on my browser. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to have updated the cache or whatever needed fixing since I wrote this. Thanks for checking! - Sdkb (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

edit the box office collection of The villain

Hi guys,The villain(kannada)was the 2nd most anticipated movie in 2018.It was released in 1200 screens all over the world.It has grossed over 110 crores in 10 days.I would appreciate if anyone edit its pages.

thanking you,

yours sincerely

mufell

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mufell (talk • contribs) 07:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Submitting from Sandbox Officially

Hello everyone my question is "How may I access the file still within my sandbox to edit it and be certain of a submission? I am having difficulty with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judyy11 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Judyy11 and welcome to the Teahouse. Your sandbox page is reached via a link at the very top of any page whilst you're logged in. See User:Judyy11/sandbox. Whilst there is a big blue 'Submit your draft for review' button on that page, I'm afraid what you have written - whilst quite detailed - stands no chance of being accepted as an article in this encyclopaedia. It reads like an interesting school homework essay, but we already have a detailed, well-sourced article about Queen Victoria, so a second one would not be appropriate. You might like to read Wikipedia:Your First Article for guidance on how new articles should be written, structured, referenced and then submitted. If this is an assignment from school or college, that's fine, though please avoid disappointment by expecting it to be accepted into the main part of the encyclopaedia. Your sandbox is the best place for it right now. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Judyy11: That draft is very unlikely to make it to article space, but here are some things to take into account next time you want to write an article. You could also do them to this draft as practice:

Keep the images at a reasonable size: Right now, one of the images is bigger than my screen and the other ones are still bigger than what I'd expect in an article. Use |thumb to keep them reasonably small. That also adds a border and allows you to give them a caption. For example, instead of[[File:Victoria1837Engraving.jpg|Victoria1837Engraving]] Victoria year 1837, consider writing [[File:Victoria1837Engraving.jpg|Victoria1837Engraving|thumb|Victoria year 1837]]. Some devices might not show the border but they will still show the caption.
Add links to other articles: names like Edward, Duke of Kent should be linked the first time they appear in an article and the first time they appear in an image caption.
Use headings.
Use "straight quotes" instead of “curly quotes”. Apostrophes follow the same rule. I know most modern web browsers will find one thing when you search for the other one, but the rule is still to use straight quotes and apostrophes.
Format references with <ref name="short description">long description</ref>, maybe using templates like {{cite web}} or {{cite book}} in the long description.

You might want to read the Manual of Style. It deals with that type of stuff. There's also other guidelines but I find the Manual of Style to be the one I link to most often. – Pretended leer {talk} 11:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

TEAHOUSE EDITORS: From Judyy11's lengthy talk page, it appears that her work may be a school assignment. Begs the question whether the instructor went through Wikipedia channels. Perhaps she should be asked if the instructor has a User name and Talk page, to inquire whether other students have been unleashed upon Wikipedia unguided. David notMD (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Judyy11: are you sure your teacher intends you to work in Wikipedia? The instructions you have put on your talk page refer repeatedly to "The Biographical Wiki", not to Wikipedia. There are thousands of different wikis on the internet, of which Wikipedia is just one: I wonder if your teacher has set up a private one for you and your classmates to use? --ColinFine (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

approve

Hi

Looking to see how we can get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Signorini_(artist) approved and live

Thanks Dani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsdanihakim (talk • contribs) 2018-10-30T11:57:08 (UTC)

Hi Dani. It doesn't look like Wikipedia has ever had a page with that title or any similar title that I can see. This is the only page that your account has edited. shoy (reactions) 13:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Dani. As Shoy says, there doesn't seem to be such an article, even in draft form. I'm guessing that you mean "how can we create an article on that subject?" If that is the case please be aware that creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia. Also your use of "we" suggests that you may be connected with the artist: if that is true, it makes it even harder, because you have a conflict of interest. I suggest you start by studying the essay your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Help me

A user is adding youtube source as Citation, I am keeping removing but he/she keeps adding; Who is wrong ?He/she or me ? Article name- Ke Apon Ke Por — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamim000000 (talk • contribs) 2018-10-30T12:49:30 (UTC)

Hamim000000, you and Ericranium both need to stop edit warring and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I am really sorry for edit war. I will no longer edit that article. But I'm requesting you to go through the page history and check edits and see the article entirely. The article is looking like a fan wrote that. But wikipedia a community work. Again I will no longer edit the article.

~~Mentioning Ericranium. Hamim000000 (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)~~

we resolved the matter, Me and Ericranium

Hamim000000 (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Pittsburgh water crisis new article peer review

Hello,

I have been working on a draft for an article about the ongoing Pittsburgh water crisis in my sandbox. Would someone be willing to take a look before I try to move it into main space?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:18nicki/sandbox

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 18nicki (talk • contribs) 13:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@18nicki: Welcome to Wikipedia. You have a good start on this article. I have not reviewed it in detail, but a few things jump out that need to be cleaned up before it is ready to move. The section headings all have [edit] as plain text (not link) following the section name. There is a stray sentence at the top "From Wikipedia....". If you have taken material from another Wikipedia article, you need to follow WP:COPYWITHIN. There are also some sentences that need citations, such as "the most persistent contaminant has been lead...". RudolfRed (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Creating a page

Hello,

I am in the process of writing an article in my sandbox, and am using a source that is generally considered the standard for the process that my article is about. How do I go about writing the article and explaining each of the important parts of the process without plagiarizing? This is the link to my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kadebose/sandbox This is the link to the source: http://www.purebreddairycattle.com/file_open.php?id=2

Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadebose (talk • contribs) 14:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Your sandbox is about "Dairy cattle evaluation", but its body is based entirely on one system for judging dairy cattle. There must be other systems which have been used (indeed the lead, which ought to summarise the body, mentions "a wide range of evaluators"), but the body makes no mention of them. You say the one you describe "is generally considered the standard", but you provide no evidence for this, and you don't even say what organisation uses or recommends it. Maproom (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Advice Before Moving Article to Mainspace

I've been working on a requested article for the evil maid attack, and I was wondering if I could get some advice on how to improve the article before I move it to mainspace. Here is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gregpete/Evil_maid_attack Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregpete (talk • contribs)

A quick look shows you need to learn how to links to other articles. It's one of the most important feature of the project and what keeps it girnomous content interconnected. So you have to link important terms. See WP:LINKDD for the short dos and don'ts and more comprehensive guide at WP:LINKING. I am no expert on the content, so will leave that for another helper. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Gregpete. Generally, I would link

names (TrueCrypt)
accronyms (CIA)
words related to the topic of the article/draft (log keystrokes), but avoid words someone unfamiliar with the topic would still understand (victim)
words that many people couldn't be expected to understand (proximity alarms)
common words that have an unusual meaning in the context of the article (I'm not aware of any such words in this draft)

but don't link to the same page twice. except once in the text and once in an image caption, but I don't think there's an obvious need for links in the caption of the one image the draft currently contains. And you probably shouldn't link to lots of articles that don't exist unless that non-existing article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria.

Finally, consider bolding the title at the start of the lead section. – Pretended leer {talk} 17:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems you figured out the bolding here though (or someone else did). You might want to redirect User:Gregpete/Evil maid attack to Evil maid attack to avoid some people making changes to one version and others making changes to the other one. – Pretended leer {talk} 17:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

double heading on new entry in google search results

hi there I am a new-ish editor and am working on an entry for dancer Ola Skanks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ola_Skanks

I noticed that when google generates its search results, Ola's name appears twice in bold in the wiki box. Looking at the code i cannot see why. can anyone advise me or fix it?

i took a screen cap but can't figure out how to attach it, but just google Ola Skanks and you'll see what i mean in the box on top of the search results.

many thanks and sorry for the newb question — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleensmith (talk • contribs)

Hi Kathleensmith; What you see in Google search is generated and controlled by Google. Wikipedia has no control on that, so there's nothing you can do here to change that. But at the bottom of the box (in Google search) you'll see a 'feedback' link, you can complain about what is wrong using that link. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

thanks so much. will investigate highhorse (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kathleensmith: Another thing to keep in mind is that, a previous version of the article did something weird. I'm not sure if that is what caused this, but Google might have an old copy of the article, in which case changes might take a while to take effect. But another possible reason is the birth_name field in the infobox. If google displays that in a confusing way, then maybe you should tell them. – Pretended leer {talk} 21:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pretended leer: thanks. will look into this also

Dates for spouse (deceased)

Hi, could you please tell me if the dates next to the spouse of notable person are their life dates i.e. 1919-2011 or length married i.e. 1948-2011?

A page I like to take care of has just been changed (back) to the latter, but it seems wrong to me.

see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gitta_Sereny&diff=next&oldid=846954396 Thanks Mandy Honeyman (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The parameter guidelines for the writer infobox say that the date after the spouse's name is the years married to the writer. Template:Infobox writer#Parameters TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. The guidelines are, arguably, incomplete. Former is not the same as widowed.Mandy Honeyman (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd just extrapolate and say that if they are still married, it's marriage year (XXXX-present). If they aren't, for whatever reason, it's just the dates they were married (XXXX-XXXX). TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mandy Honeyman: If it might otherwise be ambiguous, you can put {{abbr|m.|married}} before the date (or date range). A similar convention is used with b. for born, d. for died, and c. (circa) for approximate dates. Stating "present" can be a problematic as it can become outdated. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Automated WikiProject tagging

Hi, A group of us are starting a new WikiProject and have been tagging articles with our WikiProject banner for assessment / importance and to help point to articles than need improvement. Tagging is a bit time consuming and we were wondering if there is a way to set up a bot that can tag articles for us (with or without assessment) that fall under the scope of our WikiProject (e.g. articles in a certain category). Thanks, Jayzlimno (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jayzlimno. Welcome to the Teahouse and congratulations on setting up your new wiki project on Limnology and Oceanography. The tool you need for achieving this task is 'auto wiki browser' see WP:AWB. It is an extremely powerful and versatile tool for making multiple edits. It would allow you to create a list of pages from a named category and then to automate edits to those pages. I very much doubt you could add an assessment to each article because this is subjective matter, best done by editors manually, but adding a talk page template should be very straightforward (though I've not done this myself with a AWB). I've taken the liberty of giving each of the participants listed in your project a welcome message from Wikipedia, full of a host of useful links. Might I suggest you urge participants to create a 'user page', and to add a few lines about themselves there? Please encourage them all to seek help from us here at the Teahouse, should they get stuck on anything. Understanding the "dos and don'ts" is never easy for new editors, and transitioning from academic writing (where primary sources are king) to encyclopaedia writing (where reliable secondary sources are far more important) can take some getting used to. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Nick Moyes! Yeah I think we were imagining doing manual assessment still, but just initially tagging w/o assessment via a bot for a many articles. We will check out the AWB bot. I will let participants know that they should create a user page with brief bio. Thanks for all the tips! We'll be sure to come back here if we get stuck on anything else. Jayzlimno (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

How to get a news headline semi protected

I added the headline on the world’s largest statue in India, and made it brief. An anonymous user keeps on adding unnecessary stuff like brief info on the Bharat Ratna, and I already undid it once and gave my opinion on why his edits should be undone (in the edit summary) but he continues to do that. How do I get an experienced editor to lock that headline (after making it concise)?

URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

dude I have been editing that portal page for eight years and I have never seen you even make ONE edit there - how is it you think you know the proper methods or requirements for form or inclusion there? The first thing you did was start an edit war and then trying to get the page protected is an end around to actual nonconfrontational cooperation.--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:504A:F75F:C9AB:5DDC (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@RedBulbBlueBlood9911: Please sign all talk page comments with four tildes (these things -> ~) so we know who it is. While I can see your view, the IP has a valid point, as yes, context can be useful. There's nothing wrong with explaining where the statue is. You may also wish to read WP:OWN, for I feel that is relevant here. You may wish as well to be cautious in your reverts- 3RR is not to be taken lightly, and you will likely be blocked. You haven't yet broken that, but you may want to keep that in the back of your mind. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

As well: you yourself said it, the IP added brief information. It's not disruptive to add relevant information as long as it doesn't read like Moby Dick. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

help someone undid all my work and now I can not undo what he did

I am editing my father's wikipedia Carmelo Zito and I provided more information and added media of interest. I was the one who wrote the page and in the middle of me changing it, someone came and until all my work claiming it was unsourced. I am the daughter and I have the woman who wrote on my father from which the article was created. Can someone please undo his undo so I can finish and after I am finished then he can challenge me one on one over the matter.Ty78ejui (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Ty78ejui, Welcome to Wikipedia. Any changes you make must be backed by citations. You can read WP:REFB on how to do this. You should not directly edit the article about your father, since it is a conflict of interest. Instead, please suggest changes on the article's talk page to get consensus on it. Also, adding back material that was removed is not done without discussion. See WP:BRD. Sorry you're having a rough start, but you might be better off making improvements in other articles instead. RudolfRed (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixing broken ping: @Ty78ejui: RudolfRed (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not having a rough start. I have written many articles before this article. I was not finished with my article. I wrote the article in the first place, I used a different name. Each time I have to make a new user name, because an issue would prevent me from logging into the past user name. I am repeating myself because you are not listening. I am not starting and it is not rough, the only issue someone removed all my changes before I had finished them. Ty78ejui (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD still applies. Discuss it on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits added a lot of unsourced detail, each and every fact you add to an article requires referencing. As you have a conflict of interest it is prudent to suggest any changes together with your sources, on the article’s talk page for others to consider. Theroadislong (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

That was only because I was not finished with them yet. I was saving as I went along and planned to add more sources. I had upload media and I was citing it, but I was not yet finished before everything was reverted. I would like to have a moderator consider my appeal. Ty78ejui (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ty78ejui. Having your work removed because it does not quite meet with Wikipedia's guidelines can be terribly frustrating, I do appreciate, especially when you are in the middle of reworking something. But do not fear. Nothing has been lost, and every edit you and other editors have made are all available to see when you click the View History tab. There are a number of things you can do to avoid this ever happening again (irrespective of which page you are editing).

Firstly, only add one factual statement at a time and ensure you include a citation to a reliable, publicly available source at the same time as you publish those changes. Then move on to the next factual statement. If you have no source that others can verify, just don't add it, because we really don't want personal knowledge and experiences added to this encyclopaedia - they should be saved for use in private websites and the like.
An alternative approach is to temporarily copy the section you want to work on into your sandbox, and hone your edits to it there, before inserting it back into the article.
The third - and simplest -way is to place an {{In use}} template at the top of the page, make all your edits, and then remove it an hour or so later once you're finished. You would then have the right to be irritated if someone removed innocuous content that wasn't sourced whilst that template was in place.

Now, I should say in answer to your request that we don't have 'moderators' here - we all aim to edit collaboratively, and to discuss any concerns we might have in a polite, constructive manner. In order to help you, I have taken a look myself at the difference between the last version you edited, and the current one which has now fallen under the scrutiny of a number of experience editors here. (see this diff). To be frank, I agree with each of their actions. So, I hope one of the above suggestions will be helpful to you when you edit articles with which you are not directly connected, and that you will take the advice already given, and place an edit request and suggested content/sources on the page for your father, Carmelo Zito, rather than make those changes yourself. It sounds like you may also get assistance from JimD, which should be really helpful, too. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have already spoken to JimD about this and he said he will look at the article when he has time. I was still in the progress and did not know about an "in use" template. It may have looked it I was finished, but the problem was I stuck with the issue of the links to the socialist party card not working. I felt since I was adding the actually card, and I have taken new and better photos of the card today, then it would not need to have "citation needed." But, maybe I was wrong, and I should not have removed that. It was not in the final forum, as was in the process of explaining for ancestry and Find A Grave why there is no grave for my father, although our family does have an official grave site. I also was looking for a link for the official grave site, and I could only find Find a Grave, which was not the best source. This is just brought to my attention due to me having just joined ancestry and talking with other family members. I was given the name of Carmelo's first wife, which I added. It was not going to be any kind of major edit. It was just to make things a little more precise. If Wikipedia does not want the best information, then I won't put it there. I guess people who don't have extra money to spend on memberships to paid premium websites never will get the full and complete data. I will just add his more complete Bio to the paid sections of Ancestry and the common man will not be to view the information. Which is something my father would have not wanted, as a Sociologist. Ancestry Costs $45 dollars a month for full access. Ty78ejui (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ty78ejui: Don't worry if you want to use reliable sources that are behind paywalls - whilst not desirable, it is perfectly ok, especially as nowadays many scientific articles and even many newspaper sources demand payment for access. That said, those websites like Ancestry.com and its contents that can be edited by absolutely anyone are themselves not regarded as 'Reliable', so it's best to include only information that can be substantiated from secondary sources (or primary sources if photos or graves and formal documents are available). User-written content should be avoided at all times, no matter how truthful - or indeed helpful - it may seem to be. It's simply that nobody else in the world has any way of proving whether it's correct or not - and that has been our issue all along, here, I think. For further information, see the brief entry at Wikipedia:ANCESTRY.COM, or using the site in an 'External link' see WP:ANCESTRY.COM-EL. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you User:Nick Moyes I do agree with that. If I can find some sources using Newspapers, I will add them. I am glad to know that those sources are still considered valid even if behind a paywall. But, I have to disagree about there is no way to know to know if it is true. I mean one could literally visit the Zito Family Tomb and find my father is not there. There are ways to find things out, but they often take more time and effort then it is worth to find them out. My father's medical records, and I do have a death certificate, say what he died of, and I can also upload that. But, it would seem that kind of detective work is not really what Wikipedia is supposed to be about either. It's about a simply version of the facts, that no one objects to. If I say my father died of X, and someone else can come and say, no he was my father also, and he died of Y, then there is conflict. If no one steps to say that the data is wrong, the data just stays online. There has to some kind of expectation of good faith. How would I benefit from adding false data? I can write a very long and more detailed bio on Ancestry. Like I said, I was not making it into a long bio, I was just making some minor clarifications, to this illness and death. Ty78ejui (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ty78ejui: Please don't think for one moment that I am accusing you of not acting in good faith. But the reality is that many people do like to add trivia and misinformation to articles - sometimes minor changes; sometimes major lies. So to ensure that the encyclopaedia is kept free from made-up content, we have to apply that policy across every article. We also can't expect a student in India or Canada to travel across the world to check out some statement or other, so we require reliable sources to be those generally available to everyone with relatively little effort via publicly available media. I personally find this frustrating when one cannot cite museum archival material because these, too, and not easily verifiable without going to that particular museum. But we can cite publications based upon those archives, providing they're reliable published. I fully understand where you're coming from, and I'm pleased you also see why Wikipedia has to apply the policies that it does, too. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Nick Moyes I did not say, that you said, I am acting without good faith. I just was commenting that good faith is part of Wikipedia. I in fact, know a lot about Wikipedia, and I did not think it would be an issue to make minor changes, that are not backed up up by an online article, since I am the daughter. I would like to have that undo undone, so I don't have to start all over again. While it is true, I could copy that I did from the history, and re post it. I have photos of the card with the time date stamp that I took yesterday inside the safe deposit box. I was almost not able to log in this user name and password. I had cleared saved passwords, and I would of had to make a new username again, but by chance I found the user name and password saved. But, in the past, even when I had the username and password saved, after a while the wikipedia would just stop accepting the using name and password forcing me to to create a new user name. I never wanted to give my email because of the hostility, I have encountered on Wikipedia. In fact someone posted my home address to the editing information line, so I could not delete it. I had to go on facebook and find a random wikipedia person to remove that address. After which that decided to never give my email. So, it seems like I can not add an email after the fact. I can't add an email to this user name, and now the user name will likely become unusable, so if this user name were to suddenly disappear and never come back, it only means I had to make a new one. I have bad feelings about Wikipedia and I never contribute any money to Wikipedia. Being on Wikipedia means arguing with random people over a topic they don't know anything about when others are allowed to post complete lies and no one cares or bothers to check on that. It makes Wikipedia too time consuming. If we all spend more time working on building good information, then arguing over abstract concepts it would be a better institution, that people would not mock all the time. Did you know there is even another clone website called Everpedia, that takes all the information and runs it with ads? This is due to the large number of people who go around deleting random stuff, at least that is what the stated purpose of Everpedia was, at the time when I found about it. Ty78ejui (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)