Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 896

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 890 Archive 894 Archive 895 Archive 896 Archive 897 Archive 898 Archive 900

Contents

How or who can edit the Pope Pius IX page, because there is an error on it?

Dear Sirs,

Tuesday, January 22, 2019: I am editing my original question posted in the last seven days. In addition to the fact that Ubi Primum has at least two authors, the main subject of Ubi Primum is the office of Bishop. It would make more sense in the context of Pope Pius IX being a Marian Pope to substitute his Papal Encyclical Ineffabilis Deus for Ubi Primum in the Wikipedia article about Pope Pius IX. Ineffabilis Deus' subject is the Immaculate Conception. That is how I would edit the Pope Pius IX article: substitute Ineffabilis Deus for Ubi Primum. That makes the most sense and does not disturb the article content at all.

Summary: In 1824, Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Leone XII, in 1847 Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pio IX and in 1849 Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pio IX. In the Pope Pius IX article on Wikipedia and in reference to Ubi Primum there is no reference to the pre-existing Papal Encyclical written by Pope Leo XII. That was confusing to me.

References: In reading the Wikipedia article about Pope Pius IX, I discovered an error. The error is that the Papal Encyclical Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pius IX while Ubi Primum is written by Leo XII and again later by Pius IX. I have just noticed that the vatican.va lists alternatively Pio IX and Leone XII as the author here: https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xii/it/documents/enciclica-ubi-primum-5-maggio-1824.html as Leo XII ... and here: https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/enciclica-ubi-primum-2-febbraio-1849.html as Pius IX... and here: https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/enciclica-ubi-primum-17-giugno-1847.html as Pius IX.

I applied to do an edit. Because of the Kwysinski dog rapper problem, I had to wait. Still I am not allowed to edit after about 24 hours. Anyway to avoid any confusion can someone add into the Pope Pius IX article that more than one Papal Encyclical has the title Ubi Primum and that Pope Leo XII is another author?

Summary: In 1824, Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Leone XII, in 1847 Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pio IX and in 1849 Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pio IX. In the Pope Pius IX article on Wikipedia and in reference to Ubi Primum there is no reference to the pre-existing Papal Encyclical written by Pope Leo XII. That was confusing to me.

Regards, Mr. Michael Griffin p.s. The edit could say: "Ubi Primum" (note: three versions of the Papal Encyclical Ubi Primum exist including Ubi Primum authored in 1824 by Pope Leo XII). The edit could also say something like "Ubi Primum dated 1847," or "Ubi Primum dated 1847 and/or 1849." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FD00:51C0:89F2:2121:9602:E0A5 (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  • You should actually be able to edit it now, the protection has expired. I would still recommend creating an account though. There isn't any disadvantages to it and it doesn't request anything. [Username Needed] 13:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Liquid I.V.

Can someone please give me detailed instructions on how to request that a page be written about Liquid I.V.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthaliv (talkcontribs) 18:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Your question answered on your Talk page, and it appears you successfully created a request.David notMD (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Liquid I.V. is another`water plus electrolytes product in same general family as Gatorade, Powerade, Pedialyte, etc. Less sugar. Contains a few vitamins. The company's own website has a section called "Science," but it provides no references to clinical trials or reviews published in science journals. A hasty search could not find any mention of science for the claims that when added to water it is more hydrating that wate alone. IMO, not article-worthy. I see that on your User page, you declare a COI with this proposed topic. If you later intend to directly create an article, you should describe the nature of the COI. David notMD (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Some doubts

Hello everyone. I have some doubts that some sources present in this article (recently moved) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Ness_MacBean_Ross may not be reliable. Please check them and if possible move them to "Draft" again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:1725:9C0F:2:1:185D:FDEC (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

How to deal with COI

Earlier today, I came across and reverted a change to Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir that pushed a certain POV and was also considerably below the quality of the rest of the article. I put it on my watch list, and have now seen the same user make a change, this time removing content, but to push the same point of view. In this case, I actually believe they may be right; the content, while it has been there for a while, is ill sourced and its rationale for being in the page disputable, but the editor does have a declared conflict of interest on this page and I am hoping some here may be able to comment on whether they agree that he was right in this second case, and what I, as a neutral outsider who se knowledge of Kashmir at best amounts to being able to point to it on a map, should be doing in regards to such POV changes while under a COI -- NoCOBOL (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Block needed

At Pennsylvania Bluestone and Flagstone, User:Stevenvieczorek and 2600:1700:3260:5420:5951:c161:eab7:ea57 and most recently 99.32.61.126 have been making the same promotional edits. User:Stevenvieczorek has been cautioned twice at own talk, and also earlier this week at Teahouse. This is clearly a person who is not here to work on an encyclopedia, and has now expanded to sockpuppetry. Next step is obvious, but above my skill set. Help, please. David notMD (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.png Investigating... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 Comment: @David notMD: Would this be better suited to an admin noticeboard or WP:SPI next time? RhinosF1 (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but it's fine... just report it to the proper noticeboard next time. It's not a big deal... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I've blocked the IPv6 editor for repeated disruptive editing and for edit warring on Pennsylvania Bluestone. The IPv4 user only edited once, so I'm not inclined to consider action unless disruption picks up or becomes repeated. I believe that Stevenvieczorek's edits have been problematic, but I note that this user has been trying to work with other editors on noticeboards and discussions (such as a discussion on this page) to try and learn and improve their editing. I'm not going to take action upon this account unless problematic edits continue; lets give this user a chance... Next time, you'll want to report repeated issues to either AIV or ANI. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for help. My primary concern was the edit warring. My hope is that Stevenvieczorek will come to understand that one's own expertise is not what moves Wikipedia forward. David notMD (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Rassie van der Dussen, Archie Schiler and Nortje

I created drafts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:4003:F63F:0:0:1FD4:C0A1 (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Anrich Nortje has no references. I can't see where you created any other drafts. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Names in blue in articles

I wish to add a name to a particular list of authors who used a specific library in Florence. These authors' names are all in blue. Does this refer to a linked article about them? When I add my name, it appears in black and not blue, although there is an article about his man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Rhydyfelin (talkcontribs) 17:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

It was in black because you had not provided a wikilink; I have done so in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Changing Profile/infobox photo

I am trying to swap out a picture in the Infobox for my boss's Wikipage. I can add a new photo but it does not replace the old one and I am having a hard timing finding the original picture to remove when opening up the source editor. Any ideas on how to replace the image?

Thanks,

Joeywyoming — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeywyoming (talkcontribs) 15:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Joeywyoming, First you may want to establish on your userpage that you have a WP:COI. This may restrict you from making direct changes to the page, but if you have the image you want, I can do it for you. Just be sure It is free use or that you have permission from your boss. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
WelpThatWorked, - Please and Thank you! Page: Kenneth McPeek - Changes: The photo at the bottom Left needs to replace the headshot in the infobox on the right side panel - I have permission to Make the Changes and rights to the photo.
Joeywyoming,  Done WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Joeywyoming. I'm not sure why WelpThatWorked mentioned "permission from your boss", as that is not relevant. Nothing about Wikipedia's article about a person requires their approval. --ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@ColinFine: I'm guessing it was not permission to make the edit, but permission from the photo's copyright holder to upload it. –FlyingAce✈hello 16:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
FlyingAce, Yep, I was just mentioning he may need it if said photo was taken privately or was non-free for some other reason. WelpThatWorked (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
WelpThatWorked, FlyingAce. "Permission" is wholly irrelevant for images. Either the copyright holder has released it under a suitable licence, or they haven't. If they have, anybody may use it without permission. In the latter case, nobody may use, permission or not. (Unless the Non-free content criteria hold, in which case permission is again irrelevant). But I had checked before my comment, and seen that Joeywyoming had uploaded the photo as "Own work" in any case. --ColinFine (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I am an employee of a subsidiary company related to the page mentioned in this thread. I simply made statistical changes related to his win stats for graded stakes races and notable horses. I did not write any of the information on the page other than updated racing statistics and a photo. However, I was notified that this is a conflict of interest and there is a notice on the page now. How do i remove this notice and or how do i claim a potential conflict of interest on the page so this page does not get removed or cause any trouble? Any help on this will be much appreciated. User:ColinFine User:WelpThatWorked User:FlyingAce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeywyoming (talkcontribs) 15:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Joeywyoming. If you read WP:PAID it tells you how to make the required declaration (if you are employed by a company related to the subject, Wikipedia considers you a paid editor, whether or not your job specifically includes editing that Wikipedia article or not). You should post the changes you would like made on the article's Talk page with a {{request edit}} template, and in time somebody will come and decide what action is appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

MetalDiablo666 Overkill (band) page

...I have several times corrected the origin city of the band...they are NOT from Old Bridge, NJ, that may be where their label (Megaforce) was based, but not them, I went to high school with Rat Skates and DD Verni in New Providence, NJ and also if you look up old 'zines, their mailing address is New Providence, NJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellhammer666 (talkcontribs) 15:38, Today (UTC+0)

Hello, Hellhammer666, and welcome to the Teahouse. The problem is that a reader next week in Duluth, or next month in Sydney, or in 2029 in Uzbekistan has no way of checking information in your head or "in old 'zines'". It was fine for you to to be bold and make a correction, but once another editor reverts it, making the same edit again without discussion is called edit warring, and is regarded as disruptive. You need to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, according to the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. In order to persuade other editors, you will need to find a reliable published source for the information you want to add: that is the only kind of information Wikipedia will accept (and yes, we know that sometimes it is not accurate, but that is the best we can do: see Verifiability). Unfortunately, a fanzine will probably not be counted a reliable source, I'm afraid. --ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine, thank you for taking the time to explain this to me, I'm not trying to be "edit warring", rather it is my ignorance with wikipedia that is the cause, I will gather up the reliable published source and communicate that to the editor/author, how do I send a message directly to them? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellhammer666 (talkcontribs) 21:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning forthcoming works

When is it appropriate to edit an article to include mention of a forthcoming publication? A year ago I added mention of a book contract (with $1 Million+ advance) to a biographic article. The book is a novel about the subject; I did not write the book nor have any connection to the author. It was a two-line edit with citation, but it was removed because the book hadn't been published yet, and as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL.

The book now has a publication date of February 5, a page on the publisher's site, major author blurbs, a book tour, and is available for preorder on Amazon and multiple other places. Do I have to wait till February 5, or can I add this info now? And if so, how should it be worded? Thank you!Susanc1906 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)susanc1906

I recommend that you wait for a week or so after the book has been published, before trying to create an article about it. By then there should be published reviews of it. You will need to cite independent published sources to establish that the book is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article – blurbs etc. aren't independent, and will do nothing to help. Maproom (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I think Susanc1906 is asking about adding the information to an existing article, Maproom, not creating a new article. Susan, items mentioned in articles about other subjects do not have to meet the criteria for notability, but they should still be referenced to reliable sources. Whether the sources need to be independent of the subject of the article depends on what kind of information it is: SELFPUB gives some guidance. I would say that in most cases information about a forthcoming work comes under the rubric of "self-serving", so should not be included unless it has been the subject of independent coverage (truly independent, not just regurgitated press releases). So, in short, my advice is the same as Maproom's, even though it is a different case. --ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I am simply adding a book citation to an existing article because it is a novel about the biographical subject. It is published by Little, Brown, not self-published, and there is an ISBN. Wikipedia has a citation format I can use. The book has been reviewed and can be pre-ordered, but the release date is February 5. Can I add the citation NOW? Susanc1906 (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)susanc1906

I would advise against it, Susanc1906. The problem is that the only published source you are adducing is one from the subject's publisher, which is therefore not independent. I am wondering why you think it is so urgent to add this unreleased book to the article: there is very rarely a good reason for urgency in editing Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

DuPont Teflon

After researching DuPont on this site, I can see lots of praise for the company, all of their meritorious awards and contributions. I only wanted to ask, because Wikipedia now seems like a biased media outlet, why is there NO mention of the DuPont Teflon epidemic? This company poisoned millions with its lack of waste control and complete carelessness, killed and infected people and animals at an extraordinary rate. But, still no mention of this...why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.135.189 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Wikipedia is edited by thousands of individual volunteer editors, who each have their own interests and sometimes their own biases: there is no overseeing editorial board. Most of our six million articles could be improved. If you see "praise" for a subject, in Wikipedia's voice, that is a failure of our policy of neutrality; but it is appropriate to cite or quote reliable independent sources which praise something, provided due weight is given to other views that are also represented in reliable independent sources. I don't see the article DuPont as non-neutral; and within the "Controversies" section, there is a sub-section DuPont#Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA; C8) which I suspect is what you are talking about.
If you think there is something missing from an article, something which can be found in reliable, independent sources, then you are welcome to suggest that it be added. The place to make this suggestion is on the Talk page attached to the article, in this case Talk:DuPont. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
This matter is also discussed at Polytetrafluoroethylene, the chemical name for Teflon. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

How to request a page move discussion

Thanks.Jonty rhodes (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Jonty rhodes, what page do you wish to move? Certain page moves could be controversial, and require discussion, while others are non-controversial (like fixing spelling errors) and can be done yourself. CoolSkittle (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks moved it.Jonty rhodes (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
This was the very essence of the kind of controversial move that should not have been done in this way, and an admin has moved the page back. (The page is Christian terrorism.) Instructions for doing this the correct way are at WP:RM. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Are any remaining phrases in my draft a copyright violation?

Hi,

My major crime article on a child abuse network was changed to a draft due to copyright concerns. I have reworded all exact text matches with its sources except the phrases in this table, which are mainly quotes, names of crimes and lengths of prison sentences.

Can someone please tell me, are the phrases in this table all in the article for a good reason, or are some of them are still a copyright infringement?

Is my draft ready to be restored as an article?

Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I nominated Talk:Berkhamsted_child_rape_network/Temp for speedy deletion as a talk page without any corresponding article page. How this is advanced should be worked out in draft space. Many BLP issues I think. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Please deal with my question regarding Draft:Berkhamsted_child_rape_network/Temp, which has not been answered. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Are any remaining phrases in my draft a copyright violation?

Hi,

My major crime article on a child abuse network was changed to a draft due to copyright concerns. I have reworded all exact text matches with its sources except the phrases in this table, which are mainly quotes, names of crimes and lengths of prison sentences.

Can someone please tell me, are the phrases in this table all in the article for a good reason, or are some of them are still a copyright infringement? If you think some are an infringement, please state (or somehow indicate) which ones.

Is my draft ready to be restored as an article?

Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This question was moved here by David Biddulph, creating the false impression that my question was "already answered". It wasn't!
The question has thus far been sidestepped three times, all because a different editor placed the article in a talk page instead of a draft page. It's in a draft page now, and David Biddulph is wrongly getting my question ignored by other editors using an excuse that was fully dealt with an hour ago.
My original question still needs to be answered. Will someone please help?
Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Issues such as copyright violations can take some time to work through, from days to weeks. Please be patient , we are all volunteers here and backlogs of work can be extensive.  Velella  Velella Talk   02:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
For clarification, although there are two identically worded questions with the same section heading, what the OP failed to make clear is that the words "a draft" in the 2 versions of the question are wikilinked to 2 different target pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
David Biddulph, please see WP:AGF. It was obvious from Ariconte's response that the original draft was in the wrong place, deleted, red and unreachable. It was absolutely clear that I needed to fix this and resubmit the question somehow with a blue working link. The phrase "a draft" in the 2 versions of the question was visibly different. One was red, the other was blue. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

HOW DO CAN I CREATE AN ARTICLE AND HOW DO I SUBMIT

Here i new I want to create an bio infograph article i need help Please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by কাউসার হামিদ (talkcontribs) 15:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, so your draft Draft:সভ্যতার কারিগর does not belong here. If you do want to create an article in English, please read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Would you like to translate the poem on your user page into English so that all on the English Wikipedia can read it? Dbfirs 16:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse কাউসার হামিদ. I see you have been writing more than you user page in Bengali. Did you know there is a Bengali Wikipedia where they welcome writing in Bengali? —teb728 t c 06:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

How can I create my Public Profile as an Artist?

Hi there, How can I create my public profile on Wikipedia as an artist.

I tried to create my user page and then submit it, but it got rejected. I don't know how to go ahead about it? Could you please help me.

Thanks. Richie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsonritchie (talkcontribs) 06:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ritchie; I'm afraid that your User page is only intended for saying something about you as a Wikipedia editor. It is explicitly not intended for the purpose of providing you space for a "public profile" and publicising your work as an artist. Any attempts at doing so usually result in deletion (and if you persist, in the person being banned).
Please read immediately Wikipedia:Five pillars which explains Wikipedia's fundamental principles, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which details various things it should not be used for.
After you become sufficiently well known as an artist (or something else) such that that several reputable publications that Wikipedia considers Reliable sources write at some length about you, then someone else could create a Wikipedia Article (not a "profile") about you (but not "for" you, and not in any way under your control) using that published information only. It would not be a good idea for you (or anyone directly connected to you) to attempt to do so: see Wikipedia:Autobiography.
Apologies if this seems a little overbearing, but it would be sad to see you, as so many others have done, waste a good deal of time trying to achieve something that Wikipedia will not permit. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.251.247 (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to contact a page editor to add a common knowledge fact to a bio article?

I read a page on Naomi Osaka and the text explained her tendency to not look people straight in the eyes as a result of her being shy. That is obvious but incomplete. I wanted to add the following:

and a natural result of growing up in Japan where people tend to avoid looking directly into other's eyes as it is considered to be impolite or aggressive behavior.

I am too busy to spend time learning all the skills/tricks to do stuff on WIKI (even sending this as a question, i see "publish changes" which seems ridiculous) but see many things i'd like to quickly improve. If each page had a place to click to send a note to someone in charge of it, it would be nice. otherwise you risk favoring info provided by a certain type of fastidious young folk & professional scholars at the expense of those of us who have spent a life reading and creating content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flying Tofu (talkcontribs) 00:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Flying Tofu. I am 66 years old and am a construction worker (still working including today) so I am not among the "certain type of fastidious young folk & professional scholars" that you mention above. As for the content you want to add, you can only do that if you are summarizing what published reliable sources says about this tennis player and her shyness. When I re-read Naomi Osaka, I was reminded that she is half Haitian and half Japanese, and has lived in the United States since she was three, and was raised in a Haitian-American household. And that she can understand spoken Japanese but is not comfortable speaking the language in public. Given these facts, we simply cannot generalize about the impact of traditional Japanese culture on her shyness. More broadly, we cannot generalize about anything. Please read about why original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
One additional point, Flying Tofu: there isn't "someone in charge of" any article, ever. All articles belong to the whole community - in practice, those editors who take an interest in the article. Anybody may make an edit, if they think it is an improvement consistent with Wikipedia's principles and practices; anybody else may revert that edit, if they think it isn't. And anybody may discuss the matter on the article's Talk page.
In general, if you think there is an improvement that can be made, but do not feel confident in editing it, the best thing to do is to open a discussion on the article's talk page, explaining your suggestion and (if possible) the published sources that you are relying on.
Thank you for your interest in helping us improve Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Where to make a feature request

I would like to know, as I haven't been able to find it, where to make a feature request regarding the Wiki software, so appropriate programmers will see it. It's quite technical and has to do with the interface between categories and templates. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi deisenbe. The technical section of the village pump would be the appropriate forum. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I take it back. Per the top of that page, "The technical section of the village pump is used to discuss technical issues about Wikipedia. Bug reports and feature requests should be made in Phabricator..."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
We may be able to give better help if you say what the request it. Maybe it can already be done or already has a Phabricator request. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page Creation

Recently I Complated my 10 edditing in wikipedia, So i created one page Which is Market Reports World But the page was rejected.But "Your submission at Articles for creation has Been Rejected" I am Confused did i Created Article or did i Created Page Please Help me out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantanu datta (talkcontribs) 12:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Shantanu datta:, and welcome to the Teahouse. First things first, it seems like you may have a conflict of interest with this topic. Please make sure to read WP:COI (I have also left you a bit more information about this topic on your user talkpage), and disclose such a possible connection. Secondly, writing a successful article is one of the most difficult tasks here - you'll find a comprehensive step by step guide at WP:Your first article. Please note that Wikipedia is not a venue for promoting websites, companies, or any other topic. Any promotional or unsourced content will get rejected. I hope these general tips are helpful, but please feel free to ask here again if you have additional specific questions about the linked information. GermanJoe (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
So far, all of your article edits have been reverted (reversed), Some were the addition of text without an appropriate reference, but others were insertions of mentions of Market Reports World with or without a link to a website. This is considered spamming, and will get you blocked if you persist. David notMD (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

wiktionary and wikipedia

I'm looking at the Wikipedia article for depth of field. It starts with a relatively technical definition of a fairly technical topic. Comparatively, wiktionary has the less technical "In photography, the distance in front of and behind the subject that appears to be in focus."[1].

I'm wondering if there are any guidelines or essays on the topic of:

  • How close we would expect the definitions to be in the wiktionary and wikipedia entries to be for the same topic?
  • How to choose an appropreit level of technical detail for an article, and in particular a lead?

Joe (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't got the answer to your direct questions, Joereddington, but WP:GOODDEF may help. But what I will point out is that Wikipedia articles are not about words or phrases, but about things (sometimes abstract things). Sometimes a definition may be a useful part of that, but the words are not what the article is about. --ColinFine (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Two questions about Bycombia

I am editing the article Bycombia and have two questions. I have information that lists the subfamily and tribe and want to know if this information should be added to the taxonomic box. Also, there is very little written about this moth and I think the article pretty much plumbs the depths of what's out there. Can O remove the stub template? Many thanks, Aurornisxui (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Aurornisxui. Assuming that the information you have is reliably published, (and is not just your own work), then yes, you may certainly add it to the taxobox. See Template:taxobox for the precise names of the parameters.
If there is no other information likely to be found, then you probably can remove the template. See WP:DESTUB. --ColinFine (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
ColinFine, thank you, yes the source is reliable. Thanks for the two limks
(edit conflict) Hello, Aurornisxui, welcome to the Teahouse. Despite being a retired museum biologist, I have to admit to sometimes (often!) struggling to understand Wikipedia's taxoboxes, and I'm certainly no lepidopterist. That said, providing you have Reliable sources that clearly state taxonomic levels, I see no reason why you shouldn't add that information. It's OK to add lower-level information, but often pointless to add higher level subdivisions. So go for it. Please carefully read Template:Taxobox/doc for the fields available to you. 'Tribe' is added by inserting "|tribus =" and "|tribus_authority = " which I have just copied over from the doc page to your infobox, and have done the same for subfamilia (i.e. subfamily), too. So you can now just add the relevant details to these fields. Left as they are, they display nothing to the reader when they're empty, so don't worry if you decide to leave it out because your sources aren't actually that 'reliable'.
I don't fully agree with you about 'plumbing the depths'. I often find that editors fail to extract obvious habitat information from their sources, and I think you should go a little further and exploit that source by explicitly state that specimens of this taxon were collected at light in Verdugo woodlands in early March 1925 (dates are specified in the reference) at Glendale, based upon this source. I am amused by the minor typo in the source that states; "the species may require a separate genius" Maybe you are that person? Finally, I definitely feel you can now alter the article assessment from 'stub' to 'start' class yourself. You do that by visiting the article's talk page and changing the parameters there. For help to understand this very informal process, which all editors are free to contribute to, please visit Wikipedia:Content assessment. Does this make sense? Good luck, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes Thanks! I was formatting the reference and didn't even think about checking to see if all of the other information was used. I also found another article and a few more crumbs of information. Doubt I did the "genius" thing, I was adding wikilinks and fixing references. Aurornisxui (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Credit for edit

Jasonblythe (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Hi, I was just trying to remove something I did not want there and I went about it the wrong way. I apologise. I wanted to contact Wikipedia but have failed to do so because I found out there’s no specific email or contact. It redirected me here.

So, I have made an account after accidentally editing an article without an account, which I thought would link my previous edit to my username but it didn’t. I am interested in writing articles on Wikipedia and editing the ones that misinform people. I just wanted for those edits to be under my name and not my IP. Is there any way that can be edited?

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonblythe (talkcontribs) 02:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Answered at your Talk. David notMD (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jasonblythe. Yes, we have a specific method for doing this (that was not provided with the answer at your talk page). In addition to declaring on your user page as David notMD described, you can go back to the article, Sub-Saharan Africa, make a Dummy edit, i.e, an edit that makes "a slight change in a page's wikitext that has no effect on the rendered page but allows you to save a useful edit summary", and declare in that edit summary that the edits made as of a certain revision were you editing while logged out. For example, add an extra space after a period in a sentence in the article, then leave an edit summary like:
Note: the edits by 86.6.208.169 as of 00:38, January 25, 2019, as seen below, was me editing while logged out.
‎Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Article in many languages but not in my language.

I sumbled upon the page Wikipedia:Articles in many other languages but not on English Wikipedia. Something like that is exactly what I need, but I need to know what articles don't yet exist in portuguese. How can someone come up with a list like that? Thanks, that'd be helpful. Bageense (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't read Portuguese, but is this ([2]) it? - X201 (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Try this [3] as well - X201 (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@X201: Both are going to be very useful. Thank you very much, and thanks to Andre Engels for providingf that first list :) Bageense (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Special:Random

Can anyone link me or tell me the script to make Special:Random on top of my toolbar?

--TheWinRat (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thewinrat, I am not great at userscripts so I don't know If I can script it for you, but alt+x loads a random article, if speed is what you want. WelpThatWorked (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Thewinrat: Which toolbar do you mean and should it simply link to Special:Random? The desktop site already has a link on "Random article" at the top left under the Wikipedia logo. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@PrimeHuner: Oh. I did not notice that the whole entire wikipedia span i was on... --TheWinRat (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

How to change the short page description that goes in a browser tab?

Is it possible to change the short page description that goes in a browser tab? If so, how? I have found several in my travels that are incorrect and I would like to fix them. J Mark Morris (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The process is described at WP:Short description. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Resubmitting wiki page

Hi,

I've recently resubmitted a wiki page I wrote. I remember when resubmitting a couple of months ago I put some kind of code in the very beginning so that my wiki page will be seen more speedily. Can you help me with that code?

And what kind of points can I write to the reviewer so they'll be convinced to accept the wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Helie (talkcontribs) 14:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Jack Helie. If you're talking about Draft:Zangi (Software), the response fromK.e.coffman was not to decline it, but the new action of Reject: in K.e.coffman's view, it is not possible to make the article acceptable to Wikipedia because the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and neither you nor anybody else should spend any further effort on it. If you think they made a wrong decision, or have other concerns about the review, please ask at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk.
In the general case, No, there is no way of getting a submission reviewed speedily: you submit it for review and wait; and there is nothing you could say to the reviewer which would alter their review: either the draft passes or it doesn't. --ColinFine (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

How to correct common incorrect map

How to correct common incorrect map for example Wikipedia is showing incorrect map of India, POK and COK is illigally acquared by Pakastan and China. It is disputed land due to conflict

Unlike any private owned there is no international border registory system — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashaktbharat (talkcontribs) 16:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Where there are disputed borders, Wikipedia does not take either side of the dispute. Please see Talk:India/FAQ. --ColinFine (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Hi everyone. Could you pls review the article for Benjamin Schnau after I made last requested changes

Hi everyone. Could you pls review the article for Benjamin Schnau after I made last requested changes. Thank you --Franklin187 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, is there anyone available who could pls check the article? I changed all requested things. That would be great. Thanks in advance. --Franklin187 (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Franklin. Your Draft (Draft:Benjamin Schnau) has not yet been published becuase there's a Conflict of interest this draft has also been previously declined 3 times because the article is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. I hope to have you informed enough, and I'd be happy to answer any further questions you may have. Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Central Description"

When one types in an entry into the Wikipedia search on the main page, a short description appears below. I have gathered that this is called the "Central Description" but unfortunately I have found no way to edit this. Is there a way? The central description for the page I have recently been assigned to update by my organization is no longer accurate. Thank you for your help SchoolTeacher42 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@SchoolTeacher42: Is the article High School for the Performing and Visual Arts? If so, are you employed by this organization or do you represent their interests in any way? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Drm310: Yes, that is the article, and yes I teach at the school. I forgot how everything was public on on Wikipedia so there is no need to make vague statements :P The Central description states we are an acting school in Montrose when we offer Vocal, Instrumental, Visual Art, Theatre, Dance and Creative Writing. Also, we are now located in Downtown Houston (We just moved in January). If I am not able to edit directly, that is ok, but I hope the bot is able to generate a more effective description SchoolTeacher42 (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi @SchoolTeacher42:, you need to declare your WP:Paid status as a condition of editing Wikipedia. Because of your WP:Conflict of interest, it would be wise to suggest anything other than very basic factual edits on the talk page of the school. Dbfirs 19:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Your disclosure on your User page needs to be explicit. Going forward, propose changes to the article on the Talk page. Non-involved editors will decide whether to implement. David notMD (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@David notMD: OK I will go edit that now. Thank you for your help. Going forward I will only make requests through the talk page. I am looking at other public high school pages and trying to replicate their structure to strike the appropriate balance of information without sounding like an advertisement. SchoolTeacher42 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Aside from the discussion about WP:PAID and WP:COI, a technical answer about how to actually do this (which, @SchoolTeacher42:, you should probably not do yourself): the description comes from Wikidata, a sister project to Wikipedia. In the list of links on the left of the article, there's a link "Wikidata item", which leads to d:Q773447. Click the correct edit button there to change the description. rchard2scout (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you@Rchard2scout: I will not do it myself, but will place the request on the talk page.SchoolTeacher42 (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation#What_adaptation_is_not

It is my humble opinion that a minor error exists in information provided for "adaptation" @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation#What_adaptation_is_not

I have chosen not to take it upon myself to edit but to call attention and let the host or host source make the change. The following paragraph is directly from the source page and the portion in question is highlighted and in "quotation".

In biology, adaptation has three related meanings. Firstly, it is the dynamic evolutionary process that fits organisms to their environment, enhancing their evolutionary fitness. Secondly, it is a state reached by the population during that process. Thirdly, it is a phenotypic or adaptive trait, with a functional role in each individual organism, that is maintained and "has been evolved by natural selection"

I have articulated the following to lend clarification for the portion in question:

According to the theory of evolution, organisms are not evolved by natural selection because it is not the acting force that causes the change. Natural selection is a cleansing process in which “injurious” (inferior) organisms are made extinct through attrition while random mutation is the cause for genetically superior organisms to “evolve”.

Based on the aforementioned premise, "has been evolved by natural selection" should read closer to: as a result of natural selection the evolutionary processes proceed.

Thank you

I replaced it by "has evolved through natural selection". Thank you for your suggestion. Ruslik_Zero 20:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

2 questions

1st question: Is there a limited time to csd, xfd, or tag a page between the time of a page being created? 2nd question: Can you use the custom {db} to be able to tag a draft of having no context? --TheWinRat (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Thewinrat
  1. WP:A1 and WP:A3 say that articles should not be tagged with {{db-nocontext}} or {{db-nocontent}} respectively in the first few minutes after a new article is created. This is usually interpreted as meaning at least ten minutes. I know of no other time constraints (except good sense). Is that what you were looking for?
  2. Pages may be speedily deleted only if they meet one of specific criteria at WP:CSD. If you use {{db}} you have to spell out how the page meets one of those criteria. It is much easier to use one of the specific db- tags (like {{db-nocontext}} for no context). If you are asking about speedily deleting a draft which is not a article, there is no csd criterion for that; so it may not be speedily deleted.
teb728 t c 21:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Re question 1, speedy deletion criteria A10 and R3 each refer to "recently created", but don't specify exactly what is meant by recent in this context. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Want to create a wikipedia article for an award winning soccer player, featured in multiple articles.

I'm currently trying to create a Wikipedia page about Emilio Meraz-Rodriguez, a 21 year old All-American soccer player. He has been featured in three articles and multiple blogs. His story is inspiring and his accomplishments on the field are impressive.

I will be following Wikipedia's style guidelines (no use of superlatives etc.).

These are some of the articles that the page will cite, there are more:

https://keprtv.com/sports/content/more-than-a-game-the-meraz-rodriguez-brothers https://www.tri-cityherald.com/sports/high-school/prep-soccer/article32228892.html https://www.tri-cityherald.com/sports/high-school/prep-soccer/article210066339.html https://gogeoducks.com/news/2018/11/6/mens-soccer-meraz-rodriguez-leads-evergreen-all-star-parade.aspx http://inwsoccer.blogspot.com/2015/05/eastern-washington-hs-boys-weekly_29.html

This is a list of his accomplishments: ✭ All-Time Assists Leader (29), Pasco HS ‘13 -‘15 ✭ All-American Hnr. Mention., Top Drawer, ‘15 ✭ All-State 1st Team (WA), Top Drawer ‘15 ✭ 2x All-Area MVP, Pasco HS ‘14-’15 ✭ 3x All-MCC 1st Team, Pasco HS ‘13 -‘15 ✭ Led Pasco HS to State Cup, ‘15 ✭ NWAC All-Star, WWC ‘15 ✭ 3rd in NWAC in Assists, WWC ‘15 ✭ NWAC All-Region Team, WWC ‘16 ✭ NAIA All-American Hnr. Mention, ESC ‘18 ✭ CCC All-Conference 1st Team, ESC ’18 ✭ CCC Newcomer of the Year, ESC ‘18 ✭ 1st in CCC in Assists Per Game, ESC ‘18 ✭ 3rd in CCC in Points Per Game, ESC ‘18 ✭ 11th in NAIA in Assists Per Game, ESC ‘18 ✭ INNW Player of the Week, ESC Sep ‘18 ✭ Nat. Club Finals, 2 Goals, Three Rivers SC, ‘10

My question:

Would these sources and his accomplishments meet or exceed the threshold of notability? I would hope they would, but would like to get some feedback as to whether or not I should continue working on his page (and continue learning Wikipedia's code).

Thank you all for your contributions to Wikipedia, one of the world's most valuable information resources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjdvs88 (talkcontribs) 21:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Gjdvs88. It's a little hard to read through your wall of text. But look at the criteria at WP:NFOOTBALL. —teb728 t c 21:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and if you were thinking of using words like "inspiring" and "impressive" in an article, read WP:NPOV. —teb728 t c 21:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Gjdvs88. Accomplishments are, in most cases, not relevant for determining notability. The question is, is there enough independent published material to base an article on. I looked at the first two links, and neither of them is independent of Merz-Rodriguez (they are both based on interviews), so they cannot contribute to notability in Wikipedia's sense. I didn't look at the others. --ColinFine (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

User making arbitrary changes to get to 500 edits

Hi there, I found some bizarre edits by user أمين, adding arbitrary links to pages, many of them overlinking with at least one wrong link and some datelinks. Looking at their talk page leads me to suspect they're trying to get up to 500 edits to qualify for 500/30 rules.

I'd probably describe this as spamming, but I'm not sure if or where it would be reported. Mcstove (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this looks like disruptive editing, Mcstove. I suggest taking it to WP:AIN. --ColinFine (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply ColinFine - I'm unsure if this is jumping the gun somewhat. There have been no warning on this user's talk page, and I don't feel bold enough to put a warning. I'm not doubting your experience on the matter, but perhaps if someone else were to weight in here, I'd feel a bit happier about taking it to WP:AIN and posting an AIN-notice on the user's page. Mcstove (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mcstove:. Actually, the user has already had a warning from TonyBallioni about their editing. See User talk:أمين Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Blocked for two weeks. ANI is the best place to report EC gaming. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Revert to my addition of a valid link to article on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceaușescu

Hi

I added a link to a "liveleak.com" video source on the article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceaușescu as I believed this source was not included already. But it was reverted as being unnecessary...

I did a Ctrl-F first to search the page for a liveleak link and found none, so I the added the link in good faith. Don't understand why it was reverted? Could someone pls explain? Thanks. John G6cid (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, John. You need to discuss this with Mélencron, who reverted your edit. I confess I cannot see what a link to video adds, when the sentence is already referenced to a news source. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)