Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 919

Wikipedia Articles -
Which kind of topics are considered suitable? I am interested in presenting a current, alternate model of carcinogenesis for general public consumption and am not sure if it's best presented as a singular scientific topic, an article about a proponent of the model, or an article about a company that embraces this model in the manufacture of its products. This alternate carcinogenesis model has been documented in scientific circles, but I have also helped to develop it in my own research. Sources include scientific journals and magazine articles. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Moondust (talk • contribs) 16:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome and thanks for asking this question . The best summary is Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.  That is, a topic is considered suitable for an article if people who don't have any vested interest in that topic have written extensively about that topic outside of Wikipedia in reliable sources.  I hope this helps.  If you click the link, you can get more details.  Good day!  -- Jayron 32 16:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit of a contradiction, though, if you are not allowed to write on scientific topics in your own area of research specialization? This means that you may get writers less familiar with those particular topics writing about them. At least in science, this is not a desirable thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Moondust (talk • contribs) 17:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello again, . Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. Wikipedia does not publish original research of any kind, but instead summarizes and cites what has already been published in reliable sources. Subject matter experts are welcome to contribute, as long as they follow our policies and guidelines. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, that is somewhat reassuring because I have already come across some inaccuracies in your scientific articles before like the one about Melanin. I believe it stated that melanin distribution in human populations occurs according to geographical location, and, although there may be a degree of truth in this, it is certainly not a hard and fast rule and it is incorrect to state so. People with low melanin levels who are susceptible to sunburn can be found in all parts of Asia. I'm sure you can understand how detrimental this misinformation could be for somebody studying cancer biology and formulating sunscreens. My personal interest was to contribute an article in a field of cancer biology that already exists, but to which I have added some original research so that such dangerous mistakes do not occur in the sunscreen industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Moondust (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we'd like you to write in your area of expertise and training; being trained in a specific area of study means you know where to find the best source material to do your research, and thus write good encyclopedia articles. That's a Good Thing!  What Cullen and I are talking about is:


 * Wikipedia should never be the source-of-first-record for any bit of information on anything. That's what is meant by "no original research".  We, of course, want you to find good reliable sources of information, like peer-reviewed science journals, well-respected mainstream sources, and the like, and to use the existing, published writing in those sources as the basis for your additions to Wikipedia.  That's how it is supposed to work.  What you shouldn't do is write about things at Wikipedia which have never been published elsewhere first.
 * By "vested interest", what I mean above is that you would have something to gain by promoting something. This means you would have a conflict of interest that would hinder you writing text that is compliant with Wikipedia policies.  Being knowledgeable in something doesn't generate a conflict of interest.  However, what does generate a conflict of interest in when you write about yourself, your own direct work (i.e. your employer or the specific work you have done for your employer), organizations you belong to, family members, close associates, etc.  It's best not to write about those things, because your close connections to them can interfere with your ability to write quality text at Wikipedia which is compliant with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, among others.
 * I wanted to make all of that clear. I hope that makes sense.  -- Jayron 32 17:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think reading over WP:MEDRS would be most relevant for you here. There's also sections on conflicts of interest in relation to medicine. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * For interest, I have just read our article Melanin, and cannot see anywhere that it states (or has recently stated) that "melanin distribution in human populations occurs according to geographical location" as asserts. The nearest it comes, in the context of human adaptations and evolutionary origins (of melanin levels) is, "the selective pressure for eumelanin production decreased in climates where radiation from the sun was less intense. This eventually produced the current range of human skin color."
 * I wonder if Dr. Moondust was actually thinking of one of our several other articles with 'melanin' in their titles? We will happily re-check cited sources and clarify misleading text if we know where it is. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.27.125 (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you may be quite right - I believe there are a few articles on the subject of Melanin and it could well have been one of the others. Unfortunately, it was some time ago that I came across this article and I do not recall. It is also possible that it has been updated. Thanks for checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Moondust (talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Many of us are experts in areas of science, but we try hard not to cite our own work, nor create articles about ourselves, nor about companies we started. David notMD (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has linked Expert editors yet, so I will. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I play the music ?
Look up Wikipedia “sixth chord”. Please, how do I get the music to play on this iPad I’m using? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.241.150 (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Playing music should be relatively simple with a tablet, especially an iPad. Just tap the play button. What version iOS are you using? If it's really old, I suspect it may cause problems. — BladeRikWr  02:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What browser are you using? Speaking from experience, those files have never worked for me in either the Wikipedia app or in Chrome when I am on my iPhone or iPad. They only work for me in Safari. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  02:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, IP editor. I have copied the part of the article's coding (plus another example) below so we can (or should) see the music player beneath them. On my desktop with Chrome as its browser they both display here perfectly. I see not only the muisical notation of the chord or notes, but beneath it a playbar for the audio, and I can definitely play and hear the music. However, like you, I cannot see the playbar on my iPhone either (which uses the default Safari browser that came with it). However, on my iPhone using Puffin browser I can see the playbar, watch it run as it appears to play it, but I cannot hear any sound.
 * This markup is way outside of my experience, but it doesn't play an existing audio file; instead, it generates the notes from scratch for you. This is partly described in Help:Score. I see on its Talk Page that there was concern at a failure of the player across all wikis last year (see here). But this issue you describe seems more browser or operating system specific. I have just raised your concerns there (see here) but if there's no success there, it could then be raised at Village Pump-Technical - a place to highlight technical concerns and seek advice that is beyond our experience here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)




 * here's another example:


 * I've had a very quick look at this problem on the following devices:
 * Linux PC (Centos7, Firefox)
 * Mobile phone (Android 4.4.2, Chrome 71.0.3578.99) WP mobile website
 * Ditto, WP workstation website
 * All work fine. Please don't be offended, but had you turned the volume up?  (I got caught on that one).  FYI, you don't need the 'lang="lilypond"' part of the ", which forces a fixed image width.''" That is why I used   in the infobox. I guess either one is fine to use then. —  BladeRikWr  16:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse Community - HELP Please!
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

I've tried to make a concerted effort to create a good article. Unfortunately, the reviewer does not agree... Fair enough. Not to excuse away my bad writing skills but I am an inexperienced editor in Wikipedia and not very familiar with how to translate reference content to a NPOV. Obviously a big problem. My intention is not to create a puff piece or an advertisement or even worse SPAM. I've made some effort to "tone it down" and don't mind putting in more time and effort but also don't want to spin my wheels. If anyone is so inclined, could you kindly take a look at the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kent_Tate and any suggestions, input, or help to improve the article are most certainly welcomed! LorriBrown (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I scanned the article and can see why you had trouble. Can you post on my talk page the URL of one profile of Kent Tate that appeared in a mainstream print publication? TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  02:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Shortened the draft by 45%. Still needs work. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * David notMD Thank you very much David! The article is really much, much better now. Thank you for the improvements and for taking the time to do that! LorriBrown (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * it is surprising, but creating a new article from scratch is one of the most challenging tasks on Wikipedia. Many articles go through multiple round of reviews, so please don't get discouraged.  Keep at it, and get help - you'll get there.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the encouragement! LorriBrown (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Titles
For biographical articles, is it okay to change the most common title in favor of the way someone officially named themselves? The article I have in mind also seems to be too ambiguous since it is a very common name. 92.13.135.132 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey anon. See guidance at WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia generally adopts the most commonly used identifier as a title (e.g., Bill Clinton vs. William Jefferson Clinton), even if the less well known identifier is legally or officially correct.  G M G  talk  19:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As GMG notes, Wikipedia usually uses the most common name for a person. If other persons have the same name, a disambiguation is added to the article title(such as Doug Jones (politician) and Doug Jones (actor)). You might be able to make a case for a different title depending on the circumstances, but someone's official name probably would not be enough by itself. If you told us which article you were referencing, we could give you more specific advice. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump's page - AGE incorrect
He's 73 not 72 as listed and will be 74 in June!

Please do the maths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.225.145 (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If he was born in June of 1946, then he is only 72 today. Why do you think he is 73?  RudolfRed (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

just made a new article
hello,

i just made a new article, Joshua Sinclair-Evans, and there seems to be a problem with the external links, as the IMDB link i added doesn’t seem to work properly. i’m not sure how to fix it, and i was wondering if someone could help out? i’m also unsure about the categories that i’ve added, whether i’ve done too many?

thank you! – Joesimnett (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Joesimnett. It looks pretty dang good to me. I removed a few categories. Generally, you don't want a person in two categories, where one of those categories is in the other one. So for example, you wouldn't have someone in Category:People from Paris and also in Category:French people, because the Paris category is "underneath" the France category.  G M G  talk  22:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you GreenMeansGo! do you know how to fix the error with the external links? that’s the one part of an article i can never get right, haha! – Joesimnett (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the IMDB link in the external link section? It seems to be working fine for me.  G M G  talk  22:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Want to remove an article from the review list
Hi, and thanks for the help. I am a facilitator for the second Art + Feminism editathon in Honduras and, even when in this event we are creating articles in Spanish, I wanted to write articles in English for the first time. Always about Honduran women to fit in the editathon activity. I started my article in my sandbox, but I realized that there was a call to ask for a review and I ask for the review. The thing is that now it says that it takes up to 8 weeks to review the article and my editathon event is in march the Saturday 16. I want to know if there is a way to down my article from the list and just create it to fit in my event or if can create the article while it's on review (I assume this duplicates the article). This is my sandbox article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Princesskaly/sandbox --Princesskaly (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. (I'm not sure if I should call you 'your highness'?) I have removed the WP:AFC notice from the top of your draft, whioch should stop if from being reviewed. Rather than resubmit it for review (and then face another uncertain period of time), I think it would perfectly acceptable for you to continue working on it, or perhaps just on the day of the editathon, and then to ask for one of the other organisers to move it into 'mainspace' (i.e. the main part of the encyclopaedia) if by that time they think it is an acceptable form to be moved. If you read this notability guideline, it may help you understand how we need to see how the world in general has taken not of this person, not just those working inside the cigar industry. I fear at the moment that it may not yet quite show that notability, though I admit to not having read the references - I've just looked at their urls and links to the cigar trade. Coverage in national newspapers, books or civic websites about a person or a company are really needed. And when I did a quick read through the article, I wondered if it might be that the company itself could more easily be shown to be notable, than the founder herself? Maybe you might wish to consider that approach, putting in just a section about her within it? The risk of moving a draft straight into mainspace is that it doesn't receive the feedback from the review process, but goes straight to 'new page patrol' which virtually all new articles go through, even after passing through WP:AFC. If at that point it isn't deemed notable, you do face the risk of it being put up for a deletion discussion. I hope this hasty response might be of at least some use, and good luck with your editathon - I've really enjoyed the ones I've been involved with. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

--Nick Moyes (talk) Hello and thanks for your response and quick action I might consider your suggestion of making the article about the company and not the founder, although I wrote about her because it is a feminist editathon and wanted to highlight her relevance. I have a problem to find national newspaper references because my national (Honduras) is not your national (I assume) and actually not her national (France). I have a lot of french references that could be considered relevant in Europe, but not sure if in USA as well. So thanks and I will keep working on it to see what is the best way to do this. --Princesskaly (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , If you have (independent, reliable) non-english sources, use those. There is no requirement that sources must be in English. Vexations (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not fully sure I understand your reply. You may use any language reference you like to support notability or to support individual stated facts. Whilst English sources are preferable on en-wiki, it's definitely not a requirement. We do not judge notability only by whether a person has been mentioned in the NYTimes, or the Times of London (!), but we would want to see evidence of coverage in, say, major Honduran news media or Honduran historical books or journals, not just Honduran trade and insider journals. By the way, are you aware that you can make inter-language wikilinks between, say, en.wiki and es.wiki, using the template? It can be very handy at time to strengthen an article using wikilinks to other wikipedias when there is no article here on English wikipedia (and I presume, vice versa). Oh, and I'm guessing that you are probably already familiar with the Women in Red Wikiproject? If not, they may well be able to offer you and your editathon help and support on the subject of women's biographies (of which we do need a lot more here to redress the balance a bit!) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Astralwerks New Logo - Edit 3/6
Hi there -

I work at Astralwerks Records and so I cannot edit our label page as my edits keep getting removed. We have a new logo and updated website and I just want the new logo on our page. This is becoming quite the issue for me at work as I was asked to do it a month ago and I can't seem to get it to stick. Can someone please help to update this for me?? astralwerks.com has all the proof and new logos etc.

THANK YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.249.90.65 (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello there. If you are talking about this page (Astralwerks), I do not see any edits to it that occurred today. To update the image, navigate to File:Astralwerks New.jpg and scroll down to where it says "Upload a new version of this file", and do so. Also, in the future please sign your post by using " ~ " without the quotes, at the end of your message. — BladeRikWr  20:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It says I cannot overwrite the file, and there is nothing that says "upload a new version of this file". I didn't try the update today but I did a few days ago and am just following up. can you please update? 209.249.90.65 (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just realized you need a Wikipedia account to upload images, to prevent image spam from random IP addresses. Please create an account; it's free and only takes a minute. — BladeRikWr  21:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I logged in and am still seeing the same thing. I've also in the past suggested the edit and no one helped me. Is it possible for you to just upload a new image? It's right on the website... Nicolee2492 (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe you're looking for the File Upload Wizard! Just upload it there, put some information and then it should be available on Wikipedia. YouGottaChill (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It won't let me use the uploader as my account is not confirmed because I have not made 10 edits. Can someone please just upload it for me? Nicolee2492 (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I tried, but it's funky. THe image seems to link to the old logo, but the new logo shows up, too. Check the image file history., It seems to be there to me. Maybe you can work with that. What'd you change it for, anyway. The old logo's pretty good. If you all want an update, just, make it orange. Liberty5651 (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

How to remove pages from categories?
I edited a couple of articles that were in inaccurate categories, and at the bottom of the pages the categories no longer appear. When I go to the category pages themselves, the pages also seem to have been removed until I log out of my account..and they become visible again. Is this common? What's going on? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudzuman84 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you give us an example of an article and the category you tried to remove? TimTempleton <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

On the category of living people I wanted to remove someone who is now deceased. Refreshed the page several times and sometimes the name was still visible, then they were gone, then they showed up again, and last I refreshed they were no longer there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudzuman84 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which article was that? I don't see any such edits in your edit history. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Garland listed in the persons with cancer category despite having died months ago. Article is not visible when I'm logged it but then reappears when I log out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudzuman84 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Where can I see the older version of the page?
Hi there, I see on a page, history shows as many as 500 versions, how about if I want to see even older version?

Thanks Wraper11 (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Click the "Older 500" link and it will show you the next 500. RudolfRed (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * [Tweaked your formatting – please use one or more colons to indent one or more spaces as I have done here (so a reply to this comment should start with two colons, for example); leaving blank spaces results in an odd-looking text box.]
 * To address your query, at the bottom of each history page there are a number of options to change its display, including the number of edits shown on the page and whether they are the most recent or the next oldest edits. Five minutes playing with them should show you how they work. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.27.125 (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To better address your query, clicking on "prev" for an entry in the View history list shows the changes that editor made. Clicking on the date for that entry shows the old version of the article. Old versions can be seen but not edited. David notMD (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Totally got it, thank you guys! Wraper11 (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Abanindra Maitra
THE EDITOR TEA HOUSE WIKIPEDIA Dear Sir, Why did you remove the draft Abanindra Maitra ? it was submitted for enlistment in Wikipedia. I gave the external and internal sources for inline citation. Regards Nilima Sen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilima sen (talk • contribs) 04:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, your draft is still at Draft:Abanindra Maitra. As you were notified on your user talk page, your previous Teahouse post and the host's reply was archived to here. —teb728 t c 07:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Topic of Controversy
There's been a featured article that's been the centre of controversy at the moment. I'm somewhat conflicted I feel that the article should at the very least, be mentioning the controversy surrounding the newest movie she's being featured in. However, another user who is editing such article claims that it's not following reliable sources and claims that it's only coming from "pissed-off men" (despite one part addressing a controversy about one of her movies in 2013). Am I wrong for wanting to mention such controversy? What is the right way to address the controversy? And is there a conflict of interest when it comes to this article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brie_Larson — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouGottaChill (talk • contribs) 01:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The right way to do it is discuss it on the article talk page, where several editors have weighed in. I don't understand your comment about 2013 (white men existed back then as well, and some of them were not happy), nor the question about COI. --bonadea contributions talk 08:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

What does it means when I see "The page ‪User:Wraper11‬ has been reviewed."
What does it means when I see "The page ‪User: Wraper11‬ has been reviewed." from email? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wraper11 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi - And welcome to the Teahouse.  It simply means that an editor who has "New Page Patroller" rights has looked at your user page and tagged it as reviewed.  Some editors do this, since there are certain things which aren't allowed on user pages (to see that, look at WP:UPNOT.  Take care.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 00:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you got it. Now my question is answered, what will happen here? Will this question be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wraper11 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The question and replies will be archived in a few days. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Business page
I am interested in creating a wiki page about a business, but I am directly related to the business concerned and I understand the requirement to have the page written from an independent point of view. Is there anyone able to help me with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benidormseriously (talk • contribs) 10:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can make a request at Requested Articles, but that area is severely backlogged. The best bet for your business is to wait for independent editors to notice your business in independent reliable sources and then write about it.  As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what independent sources state. This will help show if your business meets the notability guidelines for businesses written at WP:ORG; not every business does.  Also please understand that a Wikipedia article about your business is not necessarily desirable; see this page(this refers to individuals, but the principle is the same). 331dot (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Math concept names
A certain passage seems wrong to me, but I am not sure enough to simply change it. I would like for it to be discussed, but I don't see any local way of doing so. So, is this the venue for that? The passage in question occurs in the article 'List of mathematical concepts named after places': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_concepts_named_after_places

The passage is the very first item: anarboricity. It is asserted that this concept was named by Frank Harary for the city of Ann Arbor, and a reference is given in support of this assertion. However, the reference does not support such a strong assertion, but only that it is an unintended pun. After all, 'arboricity' is an appropriately defined term, and 'a' or 'an' is the standard prefix for negation, so the construction 'anarboricity' is an appropriately defined term. Furthermore, it is lacking the double 'n' that would naturally be expected if a true naming-after were being done. If I can get a consensus on this, I'll go ahead and delete that entry from the list. Kontribuanto (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

In my experience the students and graduates from The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor have a great deal of pride in their school. They like to describe everything in terms of the school, so that honestly or not, everything seems to be derived from Ann Arbor (there are more then a couple cultures that do this). It's the kinda thing that makes me suspicious. There'd be supporting evidence if it was a fact, right? That's what Wikipedia is about: sourced content. Does Frank Harry have any ties to Ann Arbor? Liberty5651 (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for wanting to contribute. The appropriate place for this sort of discussion is the article's Talk page: in this case, Talk:List of mathematical concepts named after places. Though that particular page has had no activity since 2013, apart from an administrative edit last year, so your question might not be seen. (It might, though: it depends how many people have it on their watchlists). If you posted there and got no response, then Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics would be a place to ask.
 * Having said that, I agree with you. I would suggest you edit the article to reflect more accurately what the source says. If somebody does disagree with you, they can change it back, and then you can discuss the issue with them on the talk page. (That is how Wikipedia generally works: see WP:BRD.) --ColinFine (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Problematic editor?

 * NOTE: I direct new editors to this page so this needs to be transferred somewhere else. It is simply the wrong place for such a discussion. Otr500 (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here because I want to see some action taken against an editor, but he is very good at hiding his intent and gaming the system rather well. Providing diffs to prove my case is hard to do for this reason and I would like someone with more time than I have to have a good look at the situation as a whole. It concerns the user Ylevental. Since his arrival on Wikipedia his editing has been highly questionable from the point of view of neutral editing, especially early on prior to learning how to game the system. His bias is towards promoting negative attitudes towards the autistic community, and removing any positivity. Early on he tried to delete articles about those promoting this positivity (eg Amy Sequenzia, Jim Sinclair, John Elder Robison and most recently Julia Bascom) as well as creating articles for those who take a negative view (eg Jonathan Mitchell, David Miedzianik, Benjamin Alexander (which has been prodded for deletion as I type this), Thomas A. McKean and the National Council on Severe Autism and he also has a draft for Thomas Clements). He has been editing current articles on Neurodiversity trying to promote the bad things and temper the good things and he has tried the same with Steve Silberman as well as trying to hide his own conduct by archiving the talk pages of both Neurodiversity and Jonathan Mitchell. There is a lot to go through but if someone could take the time to go through it I feel sure an agenda will become clear. If enough evidence can be found for action I think a topic ban would be ideal. He has a self confessed conflict of interest with Jonathan Mitchell, and at the very least he should be banned from editing that article. This user is adding bias and should be stopped. But it won't be easy and I hate passing the buck, but as I have said this needs someone with the time to look through it all in detail. Thanks for your attention. 2001:8003:5901:B400:71FC:9523:9E60:1970 (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Ylevental had been a Wikipedia editor since 2015 and has contributed close to 2,000 edits. Any eval for non-NPOV will not be simple, and likely beyond the scope of Teahouse editors. Is there another place this concern should be directed to? David notMD (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just spent a few minutes looking into these allegations. I think the IP editor has failed to interpret edit histories correctly. From the articles listed that I've looked at so far, the editor in question does not seem to have done the things alleged. I've remove the PROD which was incompetently place, but by an IP editor not a registered user. I see there has been discussion at the talk page of Neurodiversity and consensus reached. David is right to point out that this is not the forum to investigate other editor's motives. But my initial assessment is that they have endeavoured to add balance and weight to the articles they've edited (some they haven't edited for 3 years), and that your accusations are unfounded. And early on in our editing careers we all did things differently than we do today. There is absolutely nothing wrong in creating pages about notable people who take different views of the world than you do. You can't accuse an editor of bias on the grounds of page creation! You would definitely need to collate 'diffs' and present them as evidence at WP:ANI if your attempt to engage with the editor directly and to express your concerns to them was not deemed by you to be satisfactory. You've only ever made three edits here under this IP address, so I cannot see any evidence of that prior engagement, nor on their talk page. I do see discussion of disruption by IPs as part of a concerted campaign to modify the Neurodiversity article.  Best wishes. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - You haven't looked enough, Nick, with all due respect. Everyone he has added material to is against Autism. Everyone he has cut back (or tried to delete via AfD) is for it. He's gaming the system, and it isn't easy to spot so looking for just a few minutes isn't long enough. Like I said, I don't have time to go through it all myself for diffs. He's soapboxing by stealth, and you can hardly deny his COI with Jonathan Mitchell (it's on the talk page). Approaching the editor directly doesn't work. I do accept that the Teahouse editors aren't much better off timewise than me, but that's why I was (and still am) confused as to what to do. There is evidence off wiki but I can hardly present that to ANI obviously. I can give you one example - on the National Council on Severe Autism article. He tried to claim the executive were "well known" with an independent source. I put a tag on it looking for proof here. Consequent edits had the editor trying to put it back instead of getting an independent source. Eventually he did the right thing, because I believe he realised that if he persisted he'd be caught out as biased. Just now I restored the notability tag (I believe WP:TOOSOON applies, and they've done nothing of note. In effect it's a promotional article IMHO. Just to give you an idea. 2001:8003:5901:B400:D149:79D4:9C09:FA93 (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If your problem is a POV editor, I advise you not to look in the mirror. You are coming across as a rabid and borderline-prevaricating advocate. "...Against autism...","...his bias is towards...promoting negative attitudes towards the autistic community, and removing any positivity..." are such blanket statements, as is "...trying to promote the bad things and temper the good things...". You have a very partisan outlook, which Wikipedia, by its mission, does not have. I also wonder why someone with as much WP editing experience as you obviously have is presenting themselves as an IP editor with only 3 edits. You are not the only WP editor who can see around corners. As an uninvolved bystander to this drama, I perceive that you may be a partisan actor of the first order, and, in my view, less than honest in your self-representation.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you need to look again. The POV issue is with the other user. Is it suddenly applied to me as well when all I'm doing is trying to get biased material removed? Why is that suddenly an issue? How about you look for example at the talk page of Jonathan Mitchell and an ACCOUNT pointing out the issue I'm talking about with just that article alone. Also I can't help it if my IP changes every time I sleep. You're falling for his con and you need to remove your bias against me and have a look at the issue instead of assuming. 2001:8003:5901:B400:A5F7:B6A9:978C:1449 (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to ping won't have worked, IP editor. You can't ping someone by adding a ping template to an already existing comment, like you did here, because the notification is only triggered when you sign the post. See Notifications for an explanation. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the assist. 2001:8003:5901:B400:A5F7:B6A9:978C:1449 (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you here to build an encyclopedia, IP editor?--Quisqualis (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. And protect it from unencyclopedic information - which amounts to the same thing. Balance is balance. 2001:8003:5901:B400:6404:8665:63F3:E517 (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @IP editor: My advice to you is to register for an account and use that to watch and monitor the activities of any editor or at articles you have concerns about. Record diffs that provide evidence of your allegations, and then take them to WP:ANI where both their and your interactions and edits will be looked in to. It is unfair of you to throw any allegations around (as you've done here at the Teahouse and here at Autism, and who knows elsewhere under other IP addresses. If you don't have the time to do this, it seems unreasonable to throw allegations around, and then leave it for others to invest their time instead. I agree that I only spent a short time assessing your allegations. You provide the diffs (rather than just point to an editor whose contributions you dont like) and somebody may then take your concerns more seriously. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not being unreasonable. In fact you are being unreasonable expecting me to do something I have chosen not to do. This is worth the time to invest. It just needs someone who has that time. I do not - account or no account. There is off wiki evidence but I can't link that as it would violate the rules of WP:OVERSIGHT. I gave a number of clues as to what articles to look at, and also note what I said above to Quisqualis about the review on the talk page of Jonathan Mitchell. I was going to send that back to AfD but I have to wait a week now because it's been protected. No one's reading that review and I think they should. It's a very powerful indication of not just the issues with that article, but also about this editor's conduct. 2001:8003:5901:B400:6404:8665:63F3:E517 (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @IP editor. I'm just giving advice, that's all. I'm sorry if you think that's unreasonable. We are not an investigatory noticeboard - we give advice. You came here with your concerns and we advised you. If an editor chooses to investigate, that's up to them. But you would, I think, be wasting everyone's time trying to put the Jonathan Mitchell (writer) article up for an WP:AFD discussion, bearing in mind there's a very detailed Newsweek page about him. That said, I have supported the proposal to remove some content that has been repeated in detail in too many articles, including here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Re the AfD. The talk page of the article presents a very strong case opposing notability. Newsweek is just one source. To be notable it needs multiple sources to that degree and there aren't any. Anyway, I know for a fact that Jonathan Mitchell was pestering Newsweek for equal time after they gave the far more notable Ari Ne'eman ink and they relented. I think it's on his blog - yes not a reliable source but then I'm not looking to add that to the article here. I do however thank you for doing that to the All in a Row article, so it does show you're starting to get the idea of what this editor gets up to by stealth. There is more in the other articles I mentioned at the beginning I think, and I'll wager Ylevental will fight you on your deletions (if he hasn't already, I haven't looked yet and I'm about to). 2001:8003:5901:B400:647D:C647:E62D:64C9 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @IP editor: You are not here to build an encyclopedia. The statement "you are being unreasonable expecting me to do something I have chosen not to do" is what 2-year-olds say to their caretakers on a daily basis. We don't invite that age group to participate in editing WP, because that attitude, while serving the child's emotional needs at the moment, is unconstructive for WP. If an editor says what you said regarding, for instance, providing source citations, that editor is soon blocked on WP. With your dynamic IP, that will be a challenge, but doable. You are not the only disruptive editor in the history of Wikipedia. Wanting other editors to play Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys for you when you're perfectly capable is lazy, and insults the other editors. Sorry to frustrate you, but those are the facts. You won't change them.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. Way to be a bully. Is that how this place works? It so happens that I have a life off wiki. What, aren't I allowed to? It's you who's being the child right now, stubborn as a mule. Well guess what - I can play that game to if I want to. But I won't because I have the guts to tell the truth. You don't want to know. This is serious. Ylevental is violating WP rules and I want someone who has the time to look at it and properly. That is why I came here first. That editor is the one who is NOT here to build an encyclopedia - or rather he is, in his biased "requirements" against WP:NPOV. If you block this IP all you're doing is maintaining that regime, and opposing balance. He's a soapboxer and needs to be stopped. Let's talk about him instead of me huh? All you're doing is distracting from the issue. 2001:8003:5901:B400:647D:C647:E62D:64C9 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, both. Let's calm this down, shall we? We can all be polite, can't we? I am (slowly) seeing that the IP editor does have some grounds for concern, but similarly I, too, don't have the time or motivation right now to investigate four years of alleged POV editing by one person, when no diffs are offered. Nor is this forum the right place to address such matters. As yet I have deleted nothing from the article referred to above, but may do if more involved editors choose not to. The one thing that does surprise me is that one editor has made three wholly unmerited and failed proposals to elevate the article, firstly in 2015 from a Stub to a Featured Article, then two attempts in 2016 to promote it from a C-class article to Featured Article, without any effort being put in actually to improve the article in any meaningful way. (See and expand the 'Article Milestones' section at Talk:Jonathan Mitchell (writer).) Seeing the "a former Featured Article candidate" template permanently in place at the top of the article, despite its abyssmal failure ever to reach anywhere approaching even A or B class in coverage, quality and referencing does beg the question whether some editors on Wikipedia have in the past unfairly used FA nomination to 'game the system' by making articles permanently look to have had far more quality and coverage merit than has ever justified. I've never considered this before, but might look into it, and try to learn how the folks over at WP:FA dealt with such matters, and under what circumstances it is reasonable to delete former FA candidate template notices on the grounds of being nowhere near ready and/or simple POV-pushing to promote an article's apparent importance. Unless anyone here knows? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @ Nick: A short report on your findings at WP:FA would be of interest. If you don't mind putting a sentence or two in this thread, whenever, it will be appreciated. Thanks--Quisqualis (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Creating Another Source on WP:RSP
I want to add The Onion as not a reliable source to the Relible Sources - Perennial Sources but not sure where to start. I know that its mostly satire and written in a very funny way. I am pretty advanced when it comes to Wikipedia but the code looks like just a big mess. Maybe you could possibly help me add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianWikiEditor (talk • contribs)
 * One potential hang up I'm seeing is that each of the entries at WP:RSP links to at least two different RSN discussions specifically about that source in general. Because the Onion is so obviously wrong, this appears to be the only time there was a dedicated (sub)discussion about it (and the consensus there seemed to be "can we focus on the Daily Mail, please?").  As WP:RSP says, In updating this list, please be mindful that it should only summarize the content of past discussions, and should not include novel arguments not previously covered in a centralized forum. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see now. I must have been more mindful as I never checked the past talk discussions. I guess we'll have to wait until another discussion appears. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Or you could start one at WP:RSN. No one's going to mind if you outright say "hey, can we have a short discussion going just so we can add it to WP:RSP?"  Even if it gets WP:SNOW-closed, that would indicate consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OTOH, "This is a list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed". It may be that The Onion is not one of those. I'd imagine that if someone discover something cited to The Onion they would just remove it without discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised how many pages use The Onion as a source. Even the article for Wikipedia itself has The Onion.
 * Search for: insource:"theonion.com" on the Wikipedia search section.
 * I guess I'll create a discussion at the WP:RSN
 * AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , wow, that number of cites is really surprising. valereee (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * DeniWejust remove it without discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deni We (talk • contribs) 15:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Of course, it can conceivably have a use as a primary source, as in "The Onion did a thing about WP in 2009." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk page, numbers of people will be considered as the consensus?
Hi there, If an editing war happened, so people talk in the talk page. Is the number of people the only factor to be considered as the consensus?

If one side has 10 people, but everyone just say maybe 1-2 words, while the other side have 5 people but everyone says way more words and way more reasonable reasons, still the 10 people side considered the consensus? Wraper11 (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * . The number of people supporting a position is given little weight in judging consensus. What's important is the strength of arguments and the extent to which those arguments fit with existing policies and guidelines. See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:VOTE. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the length of the posts have no relation to the quality. If those people saying 1-2 words are all just pointing to a policy that explicitly says "don't do this exact thing," and the other people are arguing at length without addressing that policy, consensus is with those pointing to policy.
 * The number of people is a non-issue in both directions, so be very cautious about citing WP:VOTE in a one against many scenario. If 100 meatpuppets say one thing and 10 experienced users find that policy says something else, those 2 are correct.  If those same 10 experienced users tell a new user that they need to be careful about something, that person probably should pay attention.  (The experience itself doesn't give weight, but rather one cannot gain experience without being able to make arguments based on sources and policy).  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)