Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 January 11

= January 11 =

Two similar articles
Hi there. I wanted to create an article about Jay Dean, who was recently elected to the Texas House of Representatives. I looked for an existing article and only found a redlink article of the previously deleted article Jay Dean (Texas politician). So I wrote the article, and added it to the redlink. After I wrote it I discovered Jay Dean (politician), also created today. Not sure what to do. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . There are not too many edits to merge any history (you've made only one edit to your article). If you're not too particular, then redirect your article to the other article and merge the contents there. Or redirect that article to this one and do the same merge operation. If you are reverted by any editor, discuss on the talk page of the relevant article and follow consensus. Hope this helps. Lourdes  05:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Do I need references if I am creating a page about myself?
I would like to create a page titled, Mike Beerley. I am Mike Beerley, a musician/singer-songwriter from Philadelphia. Do I need actual references about myself? I'm an unknown who would like to be known. All my references are in my head. Though I do have various music related pages already under my name. Could someone please help me out with this? Mike Beerley (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Actually, writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is very strongly discouraged, as stated in site policies. If you are a "notable" person as defined by Wikipedia, other people can write an article about you. For very useful information about this topic, take a look at WP:AUTO and good luck in your career. DonFB (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * is absolutely right,, but hasn't answered your specific question. The answer is that every single piece of information in any Wikipedia article should come from a reliably published reference, and most of them from sources entirely independent of the subject of the article. Information that is from somebody's personal knowledge, or that is only in unpublished writings, is not admissible, because there is no way for a reader to check it. See WP:verifiability for more information.
 * If it is information from the subject's own knowledge, that may be even more problematical, because Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything said or thought by the subject of an article, or by their friends, relatives, employees, agents, or associates. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with a subject have chosen to publish about the subject; and if that is little or nothing, then there is literally nothing that can go into an article on them, and Wikipedia will not accept an article about them however it is written: in that case we say that they are not notable (in Wikipedia's special sense). --ColinFine (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi,, and welcome to the TeaHouse.  is absolutely correct that it's strongly discouraged to write about yourself.  This is perhaps directly opposite to most social media sites you have come across: that's because Wikipedia is not social media.  It is an encyclopedia written by volunteers.  As an encyclopedia, everything here should be written from an independent view, which is pretty much impossible when people write about themselves.  Instead, the aim to summarize what is said in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  And that brings us around to your original question: every article must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources - see the article at Verifiability.  Personal accounts are not verifiable, and they are not independent, so they don't count.
 * If you can make a good case of why you meet the criteria to be classed as a "notable person" (in Wikipedia's special meaning of that term) then the best approach is to make a proposal at Articles for creation . That proposal can contain the text you suggest, though it may not be what ends up being used. --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Could I have some help navigating? Comment
Heya! Please excuse me if I'm doing something wrong - I'm a fairly new editor. So, I'm ItsPugle. I've actually come from wikiHow where I am an editor and New User Welcomer and I wanted to have a look and try out wikiHow's base software partner. The issue is that I'm lost with using everything. For example, on wikiHow, I usually patrol recent changes but on here I can't? This UI/layout just seems so confusing compared to wikiHow. Is anyone willing to give me some help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsPugle (talk • contribs) 09:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, welcome aboard.  You can see see recently changed articles at Special:RecentChanges.  You can also add items to your Special:Watchlist if you want to track changes to those particular articles.  Is that what you are looking for?  I'm not familiar with WikiHow so I can't comment on the differences ... if you ask for something specific we could probably be of more help. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On wikiHow, we have a feature called 'Recent Changes Patrol' where any logged in user can patrol (approve or reject) recent changes (They are made live before they are patrolled though). I was wondering if Wikipedia had a version of that? ItsPugle (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All edits are not patrolled, because there are so many of them. Article creation is patrolled by veteran editors, and that is already severely backlogged (basically, because everyone tries to get their spam on the high-visibility website that Wikipedia is).
 * Gronk Oz gave you the link Special:RecentChanges. If you click any of the "diff" links that pop out here, you can see what the edit changed and you can "revert" (=undo) it.
 * Edits to some articles go to the special queue Special:PendingChanges but you should not fiddle with that until you have a bit more familiarity with the project. Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference to Africans as Black African.
Reference to Africans as Black African.

Why do you refer to Africans as Black Africans? Which of us did you consult with or ask to refer to us with this stupid non-descript term?

Black is not an ethnicity. It is a colour. We are a people. We are Africans. So stop referring to us as Black Africans.

We are not your pets or dogs or cats such that you can refer to us as you choose.

Simply because whites in Africa are confused about who they are and does not mean we Africans are. Stop compensating for your white peoples lack of identity in Africa by derogating ours.

Phatang Nkhereanye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.36.113.58 (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We have five million articles. Do you have a specific occurrence of "Black African" in mind? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If "we" could point out the precise article where an error is committed, and provide a reliable source on the use of the offending terms, we would gladly correct Wikipedia. Tigraan Click here to contact me 10:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

quick end-of-page-link not working / malfucntional report
please dont send me an emil, just pass on to whomever is best to deal with it / leave a brief message for users who normally maintian the page themselves, that the link at the bottom of [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachnid ] , the external link [ http://www.reptileexpert.org/arachnids/ ] ... tries momentarily to goto some page, (not sure why its on a reptiles site but nevermind...) ... but THEN GETS REDIRECTED SEVERAL TIMES !!

and suprise surpsie, something doesn't quite work right, and you end up at some autoamtic repair-your-windows site. totally useless.

no idea AT WHICH site, youre redirected TO, the windows repair, but which, can be identified by testing redirections one by one, with a redirection checker.

Vurrath — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vurrath (talk • contribs) 15:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Trying various ways to access the link does indeed take you to various odd sites (e.g. ) not related to the subject. I've tagged the link as dead but it might be ultimately be best to remove it altogether. Eagleash (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've now removed it. Google search for the website name only revealed more 'spam' sites. Eagleash (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Glen Burnie Mall
The Glen Burnie Mall HHGREGG will not be closing. The store will remain open during all of the changes being made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.198.240 (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is about Centre at Glen Burnie. Maproom (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It also looks as if it refers only to one shop, so could be considered 'advertising'. Eagleash (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)