Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 743

Cedric Adegnika editing
My article has been decline. Since I'm a new editor I don't have much experience. Is there anyone who would be willing to help me? Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedricad (talk • contribs) 01:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. None of the sources cited in your current draft really discusses Adegnika in detail. Either they mention him only 9in passing, or they primarily discuss his new restaurant, and not him. To build a valid Wikipedia article, there must be multiple independent published reliable sources, each of which discusses the subject in some detail, say 3-4 paragraphs or more. You would need to find and cite such sources.
 * Secondly, quite a bit of the draft is currently quoted or closely paraphrased from your sources. It must be written in new, original words, although based on facts from the sources. Any quotes must be marked, attributed to the originator, and cited to a reliable source.
 * Thirdly, your user name suggest that you might be Cedric Adegnika yourself. If you are, or if you have a financial or personal connection with him, you have a conflict of ihnterest and must openly declare your connection with Adegnika. Autobiographies are discouraged here, although not totally forbidden. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, here's the problems:
 * The article title is in all caps. That can be fixed.
 * You really should not write or edit articles about yourself or anything you have close ties to.
 * If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here's the steps you should follow:
 * 1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
 * 2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
 * 3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.
 * 4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
 * 5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 6) Post this draft and wait for approval.
 * 7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
 * Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. 01:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian.thomson (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Can someone help me out with this draft as the submission has been declined. I'm a new writer and am having a hard time with this one. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedricad (talk • contribs) 21:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

EditStop watching Draft:CEDRIC ADEGNIKA Submission declined on 14 March 2018 by Dan arndt (talk). This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject. You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. If you are the author of this draft, you may request deletion by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, adding "" at the top of the draft text and saving. If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk, ask the reviewer that declined your submission, or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors. Find sources: "CEDRIC ADEGNIKA" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference. Declined by Dan arndt 2 days ago.Last edited by Dan arndt 2 days ago. Reviewer: Inform author. Resubmit	Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be rejected again. AFC-Logo Decline.svg Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: A significant number of the references are just mentions in passing and significant sections of text closely paraphrases the Miami New Times articles. Note that WP:ANYBIO requires multiple independent verifiable sources - at this stage there is insufficient there to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Known as "The Legendary South Beach Gatekeeper".[1], Cedric Adegnika (born August 3, 1973) moved from France to the US in 1995. He worked at the most prestigious venues in the country such as Bar None (owned by Sylvester Stallone), The Living Room, Man Ray, Mynt, Set, LIV and Story [2]. Throughout his career he denied access to celebrities such as Dennis Rodman [3], Wilmer Valderrama, Jamie Foxx (with whom he later became friend)& Robert De Niro establishing a reputation for himself. With a resume that includes events during the Cannes Film Festival & Paris Fashion Week, and two years at the A-list restaurant-lounge Man Ray in Chelsea New York City (owned by Johnny Depp, Sean Penn, John Malkovich, and Harvey Weinstein) [4]. It was here, eighteen years after moving to Miami and living the South Beach lifestyle, that he realized his influence. In 2013 he left his velvet rope days far behind and opened THE FLAT, a cocktail lounge which quickly became a hotspot [5], and despite his success Adegnika sold it to move to Panama City Panama where he opened LESSEP'S bistro cafe [6]

References	Edit

^ https://www.thrillist.com/drink/miami/miami-beach/the-flat ^ https://www.modernluxury.com/miami/story/game-changer ^ https://pagesix.com/2010/04/30/carmen-electra-leaves-dennis-rodman-off-the-list/ ^ http://www.miaminewtimes.com/restaurants/the-flat-brings-late-night-cool-without-the-bs-to-sofi-6568392 ^ https://nypost.com/2013/01/15/miamis-new-heat/ ^ http://www.panama24horas.com.pa/gastronomia/cedric-adegnika-anuncia-la-apertura-de-lesseps-bistro-cafe-el-unico-autentico-bistro-frances-en-panama/


 * Hello a couple things:
 * Did you read the big pink box at top of your draft? The main issue is that the article is written in too emotional/hype of a tone and just needs the dry facts without any colorful language. Also, please look at other Wikipedia biographies to see how they start out introducing a subject (it's different from what you're trying).
 * Are you writing about yourself? If so make sure you read WP:Autobiography which explains why that might be a bad idea you end up regretting. It's a quick read, take a look and you might change your mind.
 * Let us know if you have a follow-up question. Don't post a new question, just reply here in this section. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

How do I add tab on a Project Page?
Hello,

Could someone advise as to how I can add a new tab to a Project Page? The page already has 5 tabs with different content on each. Many thanks!

Srsval (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Srsval. It depends how the tabs were made. I assume you refer to Women's Classical Committee. Editing the page shows  so it uses Women's Classical Committee/Tab header. You should be able to add a tab by following the existing pattern. Remember to add   to the top of the page the tab links to. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi PrimeHunter, thanks for this. Yes it is for that project page. Ok I will have a play around. Thanks again. Srsval (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Redirect
Redirections need to be discussed? These redirects  seem authoritarian, removing content created for years.Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Converting an article into a redirect is considered normal editing, and any editor may boldly do it without advance discussion if s/he considers that it improves the encyclopedia. Any other editor may revert the change. At that point the bold, revert, discuss cycle should be followed. Or you may start discussion on the talk page of the destination article and suggest undoing the revert. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Possible way to see who created a deleted article
Hello again Teahouse team. I was wondering, is there a way to view which editor created an article that has since been deleted? I know that admins are able to view deleted articles, but is their a way for a non-admin such as myself to do so? Thanks as always. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Short answer: no. Only admins can see the deleted revisions of a page, and that's the only way to find out who the original page creator was. You can, however, just ask an admin; whilst there may sometimes be a reason that the article creator's identity needs to be concealed, in most cases there's no good reason not to tell you. Yunshui 雲 水 13:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the prompt response Yunshui.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "What links here" can be your friend sometimes, if there is a deletion notice on the creator's talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, this has been brought up multiple times, and usually shrugged off, but I agree that it would be supremely helpful in many ways to have article creation be a publicly visible logged action, but no one has taken the bait yet and made it work.  G M G  talk  13:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Vermont Public Utility Commission
Thanks for the prompt input on the article I created for the Vermont Public Utility Commission; however, MatthewVanitas' message baffles me. If it's just a matter of removing the link to the PUC Web site, that's one thing; however, to imply in any way that a governmental agency that has existed since 1881 is not "notable and worth of inclusion in an encylopedia" (especially when the Vermont PUC is among many throughout the USA) makes little sense. Moreover, its a page virtually identical to content appearing under an existing Wikipedia page titled with its old/former name: Vermont Public Service Board). 13:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)VLHudson (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that the content already exists at Vermont Public Service Board, creating a new separate article would be inadvisable in my view, as it would be an unnecessary content fork. Rather, a page move, which I have implemented, is in order. No view as to whether or not the article would survive the articles for deletion process, but more references, preferably from reliable sources rather than primary ones, are required, as is an article rewrite. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Editing article translation links
Hi, I was browsing around randomly and found that fi:raipparangaistus is linked to caning instead of birching on the Finnish side (caning has its own article fi:kepitys). I tried going to the articles wikidata page to fix any possible oversights, but i couldn't find anything. I've seen this happen multiple times in the past, is there a some kind of redirect in place? How can i fix these, is this mentioned somewhere in the wikipedia manual? NinuKinuski (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nvm, there was a redirect tag on the Finnish article. NinuKinuski (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

K2-155d
I’ve been doing article improvements and been asking for suggestions to add in the article (which I’ve added each one). I’m planning one day to nominate it as a GA article. However, I know it’s start class for a reason. I believe the article should be more improved first. Is there any suggestions on what I can add in the article? If so, feel free to list them down, along with the citations for them. — LovelyGirl7  talk  11:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for your contributions. I don't see any obvious hole in the K2-155d article. i haven't searched for additional sources, so i don't know what else might be out there, but the current article seems to cover the cited sources fairly well. Unless there is more content available, I am not sure this can get up to GA. But I work more with new and C-class articles, so i am not the best person to judge that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Nirmala Mani Adhikary
I would like to write an article on Prof. Dr. Nimala Mani Adhikary. He is a communication scholar, developer of communication method based on eastern civilization (Sadharanikaran model of communication), has written more than 40 books and more than 60 research articles in philosophy, religion, communication, media and contemporary social issues. Is it notable topic for Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxat1 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That depends. To pass the notability guidelines, there would need to be sufficient references from reliable sources. A quick Google search indicates that you may struggle in this regard, but you should try a draft article, and then submit it for review via the articles for creation process. It is also worth noting that, if you know the proposed subject in any capacity, this is a conflict of interest, which must be disclosed. Hope this helps. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Academics and scholars can pose a particular problem for Wikipedia and its concept of Notability. You see, notability (in the special Wikipedia sense) is largely measured not by what a person has done, but what others have written and published about the person and the person's works. See our guideline on the notability of academics, particularly the "Criteria" section of that guideline. From your summery, it may well be that Professor Adhikary is notable and that a valid Wikipedia article could be written about him. But everything will depend on the number and quality of the reliable sources which can be found and cited discussing him and his work. I will add some general advice on creating such an article below. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on verifibility, and our specific guideline on the notability of people. Consider whether your  subject  clearly meets the standards listed there.
 * Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
 * Third,  This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing. 
 * Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
 * Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
 * Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
 * Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
 * Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

How do you add links into the Taxobox?
Hello,

I created the Metallyticus fallax page (not of information, I know), and then added the Taxobox, but unlike every other article that has it, my one does not have links under the Scientific Classifications and Binomial Names. Why is this, and how do I fix it?

Thank you for reading and I hope you can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I, nasus ille qui inde exhalat (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yours doesn't have links because the text you added in the taxobox doesn't have links. For details of how to make a wikilink, see WP:wikilink. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem you encountered is that we have two types of Infoboxes for species articles. The one you chose to use is a manual system and requires you to add wikilinks to the relevant taxonomic levels yourself; the other is automatic and (provided the parent taxon is already in the database) will populate the infobox automatically for you. Please see Template:Taxobox/doc for more information on both systems, and Automated taxobox system/intro.


 * You are a very new editor here, and creating articles on species requires both biological understanding and some skill in using Wikipedia. It's great to see you wanting to reactivate WikiProject Mantodea - but please be careful of rushing in too rapidly which can only result in creating poor quality articles. It's far better to edit existing articles and take it one small step at a time until you've get the hang of things. If you create articles, please add at least one reference to show where you got the information from. You also need to add at least one Category to the bottom of the page. An easy trick is to look at related taxa and use the ones you find there. Any questions - just ask. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey there . I'm in the camp that the Automated taxobox system is the future and is in the long run easier.  It is tricky at first, but If you need someone to set up the taxonomy templates drop me a line.  I just made Taxonomy/Metallyticus for you so now you can use Speciesbox for any species in Metallyticus without having to create any templates.  Nessie (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you David Biddulph (talk), Nick Moyes (talk), and Nessie (talk) for all your help! thatsneezingkid (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Can I get in trouble
Can I get in trouble, I wanted to send a message on discord but I didn't realize I pasted it on Wikipedia in NS, so I made a joke on wikipedia and deleted it in a minute. I want to apologize. I didn't mean to do it. BTW it's about politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.190.242 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Bit curious that you pasted a direct link, formatted for Wikipedia, by accident, but I guess we can overlook that transgression. As you reverted your own vandalism promptly, no, you should be fine. Just ensure that you don't do it again, as such incidents can lead to a ban from Wikipedia. You acted accordingly, so have this mulligan. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Help Editing Company Wikipedia
Hi all. I am new to wikipedia and trying to update the company page for Vermeer. I am very transparent about working for the company, but my motives are not to advertise or promote our brand, as I understand this is not the place. The page is just very outdated and has a lot of inaccuracies regarding dates. I simply want to remove these inaccuracies. I have two reference books written by a third party publisher but sponsored by the company that I am pulling dates from. These citations got denied. The company is privately owned, therefore it is near impossible to find information on it from an unrelated third party. All of the third party resources I can find are either inaccurate or unapproved. Yet it appears that the person who edited this before me was just citing the company website and other pages that no longer exist. I guess my question is, what is considered an appropriate source here: books written using company archives, third-party websites, or the company website? Your help is very appreciated. Thanks. --porch projector 22:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PorchProjector (talk • contribs)
 * . For starters, see Identifying reliable sources and Primary sources. Generally we want reliable sources that are independent of the article subject, not written by, published by, or sponsored by the company or anyone else with a conflict of interest. That said, for minor facts like the number of employees, who the CEO is, dates of certain verifiable events and so forth, a primary source such as the company website would be appropriate.
 * Also, if you are attempting any substantive changes beyond minor error corrections, it would be best to propose your changes on the article's talk page. You can use the template request edit to preface your request. This will cause your request to appear in a category listing monitored by some editors. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you've been doing that. I see two paths forward: (a) you can remove the sentences that cannot be reliably sourced, or (b) you can state your case to the reviewer on the talk page, explaining that independent sources don't exist, and explaining why the reviewer was incorrect in his reasoning. Generally, however, if no independent sources exist to support a claim, the claim does not need to be in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for the help! I will try that. porch projector 16:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PorchProjector (talk • contribs)
 * Hey, me again! So I took your advice and used the company website instead of the book for the dates we invented new equipment. An editor just came by and deleted everything that used the company website, a majority of it having been there before I even began suggesting edits. I figured that since the information is verifiable dates of when we released new products, it makes sense to use our website. Either way, no third party sources have published this information. Do you have any suggestions? Thank you again for your help! --&#39;&#39;porch projector&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that the company history section included far too many details. A broad historical overview is better, perhaps mentioning significant products that might be notable in their own right. Statements about personal events and motivations aren't appropriate. Finally, if you have a disagreement about content, you need to talk to the editor with whom you disagree. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

requesting redirect to its own article
Hi,

I recently proposed a draft page and have discovered that a redirect with the same name exists. Should I wait to see if my draft is accepted before requesting that the redirect link to its own article?

Johnnyeallee (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey Johnnyeallee. Whoever accepts the article should be able to take care of the redirect (or request someone do it if they do not have access). Until then there's probably nothing that anyone really needs to do about it.  G M G  talk  20:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have to mention you have permission to use an image in an article?
Hello,

I am creating a new article (Metallyticus fallax), and I have gotten permission to use an image on the article. Do I have to mention that I have permission (to avoid suspicion of copyright infringement), or is it unnecessary?

Thank you for reading and I hope you can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I, nasus ille qui inde exhalat (talk • contribs) 18:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes,, a permission is needed, but not any permission will do. In particular, "you can use this image on Wikipedia" is not adequate. The terms must allow anyone to use the image for any purpose, including commercially. Various free licenses exist that make it easy to give these permissions. We recommend the Creative Commons attribution -sharealike 4.0 license. See c:Commons:Licensing for more information.


 * In addition to permission, we need proof of permission; we can't take your word for it. The easiest way is if the picture is published outside of Wikipedia first with an accompanying free license. Then a link will suffice. If not, proof of permissions can be sent here: c:Commons:OTRS.


 * I'm linking you to guidance on Wikimedia Commons where Wikipedia's images are usually uploaded. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is proof of permission, but I am awaiting a reply of the full permissions; https://imgur.com/a/MUaBA thatsneezingkid (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , that is the kind of statement that Finnusertop has explained is not adequate. You need the copyright holder to allow use of the image on more than just Wikipedia, as it will be available for all sorts of uses once it is uploaded to Commons. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Question Regarding Wiki Philosophy Terminology
Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Is there a name for the view that policy decisions should give more power to the average user? This philosophy would suggest, for example, that semi-protection should be levied less often or even abolished because it restricts new and IP editors' actions. I am calling it Wikilibertarianism, but I don't know if the community has already given it a name. Would the opposite of this standpoint be Wikistatism? Centibyte (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I am not familiar with any Wikijargon about the concepts that you describe, but there is definitely a range of opinion from leniency to stringency about how best to deal with disruptive editing. Here's my opinion as an administrator who takes a moderate view between the extremes: Semi-protection is a highly effective tool in managing attacks against the encyclopedia, which is almost always used carefully. As for power to the average user, Wikipedia is the most egalitarian volunteer project I have ever been part of, and I have been volunteering for 50 years. Even fairly new editors are respected and influential if they edit productively in compliance with our policies and guidelines, and the occasional good faith error is soon forgotten. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"Family Tree" from Wikipedia pages on people?
Greetings!

I've been thinking about writing a program to build a family tree from wikipedia pages based on persons. It looks doable as there seems to be a consistent format for indicating determining parents, spouss(s), and children. I was thinking of creating it in GEDCom format so it could be imported into things like Ancestry.com, wikitree etc.

Any advice or cautions? Anyone try this before?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomethingWikiThisWayComes (talk • contribs) 03:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would imagine you can find this same information structured in a more data friendly way at Wikidata. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that lead, . That looks like a better approach than the screen-scraping I had in mind. Going to see if I can add value. Have a great day!

A question on potential spam
Hi I just noticed that on my talk page a link appeared for me to join some whatsapp group. Is this kind of behaviour endorsed by Wikipedia? I experience it as spam and do not want these kinds of messages on my profile page. Can anyone have a look and see if it violates some policy or if I just should bear with it? Thank you Aethalides (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey Aethalides. Definitely spam and definitely not appropriate. I reverted anything that hadn't already been undone and left them a warning.  G M G  talk  10:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you Aethalides (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

How to report the other users?
Hi Teahouse, i would like to report the user 208.184.165.146 who made a lot of information violation.This guy converted the other topics information to the irrelevant source in which it included the history distortion and provoking. All of my evidence can be checked in user's view history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bqn1996 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Bqn1996. Looks like a drive by vandal, and since the IP address is associated to the Arlington Independent School District, probably a bored student. We might have had a justification for a block if we had caught it while they were active, but they haven't edited in about 20 hours, so a block wouldn't do very much good. Other than that, I've reverted basically everything, and it doesn't look like there's very much else to do.  G M G  talk  11:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , if you do need to report another user, you could go to the page, Administrator intervention against vandalism, and add a request under the subheading "User reported".--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 12:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

List format question
I would appreciate it if someone would look at Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials and tell me why Battle of Liberty Place Monument has two dots and the others have one. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , it has to do with the images there. If you remove the images and then click "show preview," you'll notice that it only has 1 dot. I'm gonna play around a little more with the position of the images, and if I find a way to fix the problem while keeping the images, I'll save it.--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 14:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for some reason the bullet point that is directly to the left of the top of the image always shows two. I'm gonna play around some more and see what I can do.--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 14:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've done some more testing and it looks like your only options are to align the double image template left or put it before the first bullet point. Either way would work, depending on what your preference is.--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 14:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate Entry for Muddy Bay
There seem to be two separate pages about Muddy Bay in Labrador and Newfoundland.

Muddy Bay and Muddy Bay (Newfoundland and Labrador). The first is the older, but the second has slightly more information. Both are stubs. How would one normally deal with this? --Everlong Day (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, see WP:MERGE for how to fix it. If you don't feel up to doing it yourself you can simply add mergeto and mergefrom to the pages. Muddy Bay should be the target page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Need Helping Editing
I have been trying to update the "List Of Current MLB Broadcasters" for the 2018. I need help putting edits in the right places if something can help me.

Thank you.≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamDunphy (talk • contribs) 15:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Could you please explain in a bit more detail what you are trying to do and what sort of he;lp you need? That would makle it easier to respond to your request. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Convert category into navigation list
Hello there. Is there any tool or any method available on WP which can help me generating a list from a category, e.g. from Category:American YouTubers to List of American YouTubers for navigation per WP:CLN. Thanks. Störm  (talk)  15:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. AutoWikiBrowswer has a tool for making a list from a category. Perhaps that would help. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have emailed you the Wikified list . -- The SandDoctor Talk 18:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , Thank you to both for helping me. Btw I've AWB rights so if any of you can outline me the process or how to fetch that list would be very helpful. Thanks.  Störm   (talk)  19:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for unnecessary ping. I myself went through AWB and found out the way to generate such lists. Btw thanks. Störm   (talk)  19:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries! I was just going to leave a comment saying how to do it in AWB. For the record and anyone else who may have the same question: You take the category, paste its name into the category field of AWB, click "Make list", and then go List->Save list, input file name & save location, save. -- The SandDoctor Talk 19:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Changing the Wikipedia content as it appears on Google
'''I've just edited the date of birth of a noted politician, from 10th Feb to 28th Mar, based on a biography of the man and following confirmation of the date by the politician's secretary. However, when you search for the person on Google, the Wikipedia paragraph that appears displays the incorrect 10th Feb date of birth, yet the correct DOB (28th Mar) is displayed in the body of the article. How can the aforementioned paragraph be edited?''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.187.55.199 (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey anon. The short answer is that there isn't very much Wikipedia can do about it. Google pulls information from a variety of sources for their summary box, and Wikipedia is one, but other than passively being a source if and they choose to use it, Wikipedia can't actively change what is displayed there. In the Google search, at the bottom of the summary box there is a feedback button, and leaving a message for Google there is about all that can be done about it.  G M G  talk  19:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that the IP editor might be referring to the text beneath the search result, rather than the Knowledge Graph box to the right. The text in the search results usually updates reasonably regularly, but I'm not sure if the Knowledge Graph data updates with it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The text has now updated to reflect the modified article content. The Knowledge Graph box is still using the old date. I have reported it as an error. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

help editing a new page
I appreciate if somebody with better skills can contribute to the English and Dutch pages of Maastricht: Open Eerlijk Democratisch Thanks in advance.
 * If there's a corresponding article in the Dutch wiki you could start by linking the articles together. A good way to broaden an article is to find another article in this case one of a political party and following the same form fill out the new article according to WP:REF. Please sign your posts in the future. NinuKinuski (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that nl:Maastricht: Open Eerlijk Democratisch was deleted as "propaganda" last week. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly! the page has been modified to be as similar as possible to another political party. It has also made to get seats in the elections so there is no point of calling it either "propaganda" or "not notable". I just do not get the point of the person insisting in keeping it blocked. I am afraid of recreating it so that the guy blocks me completely. What I am asking is help to I as the sole contributor to the page do not fight with a person whom I find quite unreasonable... Agha gholi (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Different wikis have different policies for notability, verifiability.. (which is why i personally don't frequent certain wikis). Did you discuss about the deletion at the persons talk page? Was the phrasing in the page oddly put so it was considered propaganda or was it just not up to new article standards in the Dutch sphere? If you're really committed to the Dutch wiki, I would suggest drafting a page first and asking for a review of it before submitting it to the wikipedia mainspace. NinuKinuski (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Just added citations to article. Enough to remove Maintenance Templates? Seeking help to add Infobox.
Subject article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Korwin

Seeing the Maintenance Templates, I added citations (6).

Checking to see if the added citations work, and, if so, if they're enough to remove the Maintenance Template, or, otherwise, what's in store for working to get it good to go.

I'd also like to add a starter Infobox. I researched around, but I'm still striking out.

Please excuse me being relatively new and my limitations in getting articles going and keeping them good to go on my own.

Really appreciate all the help throughout the Wikipedia Community.

Please advise.

Thank you.

Tqiwiki (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello
 * You can remove the citations templates when the issue is solved, but I note that you have several "citation needed" tags on individual sentences in "Early life" and "Education". Since the subject is still living it is absolutely required that facts about them be explicitly cited, for the protection of their reputation. You need to either cite those facts about them, or remove those facts if you cannot prove them.
 * If you can't find an infobox that you feel explicitly matches the subject's career, there's always the defalt option of using the code shown at Template:Infobox person.
 * Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree with some of the above advice. Per WP:BLPSOURCES, you must remove unsourced material if it has been "challenged or is likely to be challenged" or if it is contentious. The "Life" and "Education" sections are pretty mundane and unexceptional. Certainly not contentious or defamatory. If you could find a  self-published CV type source, you could use it to support these sections. (We cannot use a self-published source to establish notability, but that's not an issue here.)  I would focus on sourcing more of the " awards and recognition" section. Cite a few more of those and you should be good to go. Regards, Tribe of Tiger  Let's Purrfect!  06:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Help editing - identifying unreliable sources
Hi. I'm just wondering if anyone can give me advice about an article. The article is "Jehovah's Witnesses Handling of Child Sex Abuse" The first paragraph makes the claim that an independent study found the rate of child abuse among JWs is similar to the general population. This is footnoted with the 2nd footnote, which cites a Norwegian book - so as it's a book and not in English it's not possible for me to check the claim to try to verify it. The claim is at odds with the Australian Royal Commission information in the rest of the article. Should I just delete the whole sentence? Or should I modify the sentence somehow? e.g. I could put brackets at the end of the sentence saying that the claim is unlikely due to the coverups that have been exposed in the last few years? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses%27_handling_of_child_sex_abuse — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeekerJC (talk • contribs) 23:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Strictly speaking, it is not impossible for you to verify the Norwegian book, it is just difficult and likely expensive(to fly to Norway and visit a library or purchase the book) as well as time consuming(learning Norwegian so you can read the book). See WP:SOURCEACCESS. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You may wish to discuss this on the article talk page, with those that follow that article. It is possible to present two disparate viewpoints in the same article. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . The reliability of a source has nothing to do with how difficult it is for you, personally, to obtain a copy of a book. But it is not impossible to get any published book. Major libraries arrange interlibrary loans. Amazon and hundreds of other online booksellers ship obscure books all over the planet. We assess the reliability of a book in any language by taking a look at the reputation of the publishing house and the author, and their academic credentials. Reviews of the book by people with expertise in the field are also very useful. There is nothing inherently unreliable about books published in Norway. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the response. I'm aware of what you've said. My issue is that I'm almost certain that the information is wrong, based on what I already know about the cover-up of child abuse among JWs (e.g. Nearly 2,000 cases of child abuse in Australia JW churches and not one of those cases was referred to the police). Given that I'm almost certain that the information is wrong, I want to try and verify it and find out more about the claim that is made - for example is it just referring to JWs in Norway? What was the sample size? How did they obtain the information? Because if they just looked at conviction rates then that would be skewed by the covering up that goes on, and if they did it by interviewing JWs that wouldn't work either because JWs are taught that they should lie if necessary to protect the JW organization. I also suspect that whoever put that information in could have been a JW and so the editor could be deliberately distorting the truth and making false claims in order to protect their organization. While this might sound like a conspiracy theory, it's not unfounded when you look at what we already know from investigations that have been conducted.

I don't want to just delete the sentence and the footnote, and if I did that it might get undone anyway. So I'm currently trying to find someone in Norway that can find the book and let me know what it says.
 * The book in question is published by Universitetsforlaget, which has all the signs of a highly reliable academic publishing house. Of course, you are welcome to try to read a copy yourself. Your comments indicate that you may be editing as part of some sort of campaign to discredit the Jehovah's Witnesses. Bad idea. Every religion has bad actors and any critical content must be balanced and neutral. All editors must adhere to the neutral point of view, a core content policy. Wikipedia is not a forum to right great wrongs. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  05:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Try asking at Norwegian WP, you may get replies there. I suggest Wikipedia:Torget. Also, consider what Cullen328 says. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The source itself is exactly the kind of source Wikipedia wants - peer reviewed research published by a reputable academic publisher. (The ref is not complete, it should include the name of the chapter though it matters a little less since the chapter author is one of the book's editors. I'll add that to the ref anyway because it should be included.) Whether the source is correctly represented is a different matter but there is no reason to assume it wouldn't be. Never hurts to check, though. In the meantime, do not add any disclaimers or your own analyses - that violates the policy on original research. We can't say "in source x a leading researcher in the field says y, but that is probably wrong". We also can't say "scholarly source x says this, but this is wrong because journalistic/primary source y says something different."--bonadea contributions talk 12:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , you might be able to ask for help in verifying the citation via WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request where editors can ask other editors who have access to a source to provide info or copies. This can be a very helpful resource. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , as you have already been advised at the article's Talk page, the statement based on the Norwegian study is not contradicted by the Australian Royal Commission. The Royal Commission indicated that there were 1006 cases of child sexual abuse within the JW denomination since 1950, but it makes no assessment of how that number of cases in that period compares to the rate of child sexual abuse in general society. Additionally, the fact that none of those cases were reported to police has no bearing whatsoever on whether the incidence of abuse in the group is rare. Instead of going on a conspiratorial witchhunt by trying to discredit a peer-reviewed academic journal, perhaps your time would be better spent locating other sources that actually mention the rate of child sexual abuse among JWs as it compares to general society. None of the available sources make any claim that the rate at which child sexual abuse occurs among JWs is not rare or that it happens with greater frequency than in general society (which would require metrics for comparison); instead the objections are consistently about how such cases are handled.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Question about editing a page (or creating a new page) for a U.S. government program that has been renamed/rebranded
I'm the Executive Editor of HIV.gov--which was previously known as AIDS.gov. We would like to know the proper procedure(s) for either editing the existing AIDS.gov page or starting a new page for HIV.gov and pointing readers of the old page to it.

We have thoroughly reviewed the rules for editors with close associations, and we find ourselves in a quandary about how to ensure that information about the original program remains available, while also providing information about our current incarnation.

Although HIV and AIDS are no longer on the health “radar” for many Americans, the current state of the domestic HIV epidemic (particularly in communities of color), the threat of a rising tide of new infections associated with opioid-related injection drug use, and the availability of groundbreaking new methods for both HIV treatment and prevention make it imperative that people who are living with, or at risk for, HIV and AIDS can find accurate and consistent information across all reliable platforms and sources.

Since Wikipedia is the "go-to" source for information on everything under the sun, we want to be sure that people who come to you before they come to us get that accurate information and know how to find us if they want to know more. Thank you in advance for any advice/suggestions you can offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paigeb11 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - thanks for taking this through the correct channels. You have accurately identified the conflict of interest that you suffer from. Any edits to the article would require supporting citations from reliable sources to remain, so any edits which you would like to make should include such references. You should also contact the relevant WikiProject, to double-check any edits you would like to make, and use the talk page, rather than editing directly, to suggest changes. The edits which you have suggested above, provided that you can source reliable references, would be relatively easy to make - I would suggest looking at medical journals, published research, books on the topic or media coverage. Hope this helps. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , I have moved the article to HIV.gov as the site itself is a good source for its own name. But is correct that you need to edit carefully because you do have a conflict of interest. Supplying additional independent published reliable sources would help the existing article, and sources are vital for any suggested addition to its content. Please post any suggested changes to Talk:HIV.gov. Please inclkude source information with such suggestions. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, a common pitfall of major updates such as this is the loss of historical information. Keep in mind that Wikipedia articles about organizations should primarily be about the history of the organization. The latest news/campaign/product lauch/etc is of relatively little interest here. So please do not for example remove previous brands/logos, rather place them in historical context. Aim at expanding the article rather than "replacing" it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The page has been moved to the new name - the old name will still "redirect" to there, which solves your initial problem. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC).

invoke does not work (parserfunction)
On my own wiki I added:


 * wfLoadExtension( 'ParserFunctions' ); to localsettings

And yet template:red still looks like this:



why? Infinitepeace (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi this seems to be about the MediaWiki software rather than Wikipedia. You should be able to find help at https://www.mediawiki.org/ -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * requires mw:Extension:Scribunto but it appears from Village pump (technical) that you no longer need help. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help on finding info on Fluoro phosphoric acid
I cannot find anything about Fluoro phosphoric acid (other than pubchem, but pubchem only tells us stuff like atomic weight and stuff). I would like any of you to help find me reliable info on Fluoro phosphoric acid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericeleven (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Ericeleven. We have an article, Fluorophosphoric acid, but it's pretty stubby. You may want to ask this at WP:RD/Science, as the Teahouse is for help with using Wikipedia, not for general-knowledge questions. Deor (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sad
I never do anything right and I am sad about it. I don't know if i belong on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyMinecart88 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * So far you don't seem to have attempted to improve any articles.  If you don't intend to do so then you would be correct in saying that you don't belong on Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello . Looking over your contributions, your short time on Wikipedia seems to have been spent:
 * Filling your user page with excessive amounts of "funny" GIFs and user boxes
 * Vandalising various pages in a way that I can't believe isn't intentional
 * Creating nonsense pages like Draft:***no name-see article for explanation***, apparently in attempt to create some sort of Easter Egg-hunt for "hidden pages"
 * Overall, it seems like you think that Wikipedia is some sort of game or creative sandbox. It's not. It's a serious attempt to build a reliable encyclopaedia. If you would like to help us do that, you are very welcome. Otherwise, your current behaviour is tiresome and disruptive to those of us who are earnestly trying to work on this project, and you will probably end up blocked before too long. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

how was your day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theylikenick (talk • contribs) 14:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC) I will not exist anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyMinecart88 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Consolidity
Dear Wikipedia Reviewer:

Thank you very much for quick review. Unfortunately, your review is incorrect. I am the sole author of this material published in the site (reference 2 ): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090123211001238

The other mentioned source: http://www.grf-1-29.com/consolidity-theory-provides-an-effective-tool.html has used this material under the Creative Common License which I signed for use for all interested researchers.

Hope that your decision be corrected for this reference and all other references from 16 to 58, as I am the owner of these copyrighted materials and have the right to use them as I wish.

Thanking you,

Dr. Hassen Dorrah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorrahht (talk • contribs) 16:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a free host for you to publish your blatant original research. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)