Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 516

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 510

←

Archive 514

→

Spelling mistak

How do you notify Wiki of a mistake? On my Notifications page, for Unread Messages, it states "There are no notifications matching this criteria." This should be "criterion"...Kenwyn74 (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kenwyn74, and welcome to the Teahouse. For that feature specifically, you can try reporting the problem at Wikipedia talk:Notifications. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Kenwyn74. That's a great thing to fix – seemingly minor, but unprofessional and probably seen by vast numbers of people. One other option given at Wikipedia:Notifications#Reporting feedback or bugs is to "post it on Phabricator". By the way, I often bite my tongue and don't post when I see the error of referring to Wikipedia as "Wiki", but since you brought up an error, I felt more empowered to bring it up in response, so ... there you go. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. Sorry for the abbreviation! I was trying to be affectionate, but didn't realise my error.Kenwyn74 (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Using copyrighted media with permission from rights holder

How do I include copyrighted media (photographs) if the copyright owner gave me permission to use in a Wikipedia entry? Artmonkey textmaker (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Artmonkey textmaker. The short answer is, you cannot. Other than if the media met our stringent requirements for fair use of non-free copyrighted material, the person (or entity) who owns the copyright would have to irrevocably release it to the world under a suitably-free copyright license (or into the public domain). That owner would have to provide that release directly, in a verifiable manner, showing their authority to do so – except for unusual circumstances, it could not be secondarily released by you as an intermediary. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for some guidance on how this might be done. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

how to properly make/publish a professional looking wikipedia page

Hi my username is Pseudoeight, i am currently making a wikipedia page for the english band DEATH PIGS and im very new to this, i currently have no clue what im doing... how would i go about embedding links in words or having the page verified? thank you Pseudoeight (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You can read Wikipedia:Your first article for starters. It will tell you how to do most of what you need to know. I also made a userpage, User:White Arabian Filly/Help for New Users that shows how to do the coding and wikilinks. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pseudoeight. In addition to the links suggested above, I encourage you to read our Notability guideline for musicians. I did a variety of searches for "Death Pigs" and found only the predictable social media sites controlled by the band. I found no Google News articles about them in major newspapers or magazines, and no mention in books. I searched the Rolling Stone magazine archive and found nothing. At this point, I see no evidence that this band is notable. Future news coverage could change that, of course. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

How to redirect users to an existing page

If a page is already existing. Someone is trying to search matters which is included in the page. Due to slight difference in the article name and search name, the user is not directing to the page. Then how could we redirect them to the page. സജീഷ് ജെ എസ്സ് 16:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajeeshjs (talk • contribs)

Hi Sajeeshjs. Please see Wikipedia:Redirect. In brief summary, you create a page at the title you seek to redirect, with this text as the content: #REDIRECT [[Target page name]]. This code can be automatically placed by the editing interface button with the symbol:

. By the way, what do you mean by your use of the word "we" in your post? Is the account you're writing from being used by more than one person?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for your useful reply. By the way the word "we" was a mistake intead of "I". I am the only user of this account.

സജീഷ് ജെ എസ്സ് 06:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajeeshjs (talk • contribs)

wikipedia in viewing my page

Why i can't find my page in Wikipedia when i search Abidit Wikipedia in google. help if possible . 05:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abidit (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Abidit. If you are referring to User:Abidit, that is your user page, not an encyclopedia article. Your user page is for letting other Wikipedia editors know about your interests as an editor. Google does a good job searching our encyclopedia articles, not our user pages, as user pages are not intended for the general public. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Advices about my new article

Hi, I discussed with Biblio at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Biblioworm#European_Society_of_Surgery and he recommended me that I should talk with you to get advices from you how to improve my article User:Ksiarkiewicz/European Society of Surgery and to get your approval to publish it. So I'd like to ask you to read it and list me your notices. Later I will fix and I hope you will agree to release my new page. BR Ksiarkiewicz Ksiarkiewicz (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ksiarkiewicz, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would sum my advice up as "reference, reference, reference"! The bulk of your draft isn't supported by references to reliable sources, whereas WP:VERIFY requires that readers should be able to verify the content of an article by consulting its sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

page up for deletion - what to do?

I went to a wikibomb today for women in STEM (at Microsoft in Adelaide) and during that course we started pages, however i didn't finish mine during the course but published it hoping to finish at college...not long after i got the message that the page maybe deleted. It would have been nice during the course to get more instruction...however...i do believe my subject that I was given is noteworthy..not sure how to reply as I am not yet familiar with talk etc. Jacbazz (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(Note: see related discussion here. The unheralded flood of Australian academics was viewed suspiciously at first but good faith has been recognized and I hope better communication is under way :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jacbazz. Wikipedia gets a lot of poor quality articles created, many or most from spammers trying to advertise or people creating hoaxes. Because of that there is a vetting process that new articles go through, and it looks like your article got caught up in it because of a misunderstanding.

Maybe the best thing to do would be to create the article in your sandbox. (You can access your sandbox by clicking here.) That way you can get it 100% polished up before you create it. Your sandbox is visible to anyone who visits it, but it's more-or-less a place for you to work on things privately until you're totally finished.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask away. TimothyJosephWood 12:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It is by no means assured that the existing article will be deleted, Timothyjosephwood (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Jane Howlett), so I'm not sure whether advising Jacbazz to start a second version is wise. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

As I was. Didn't mean to start a second version. Was anticipating a follow up of "how to I move this to there". TimothyJosephWood 12:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Moving would make more sense, yes. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Commented on the AfD to this effect. TimothyJosephWood 12:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jacbazz. I think you're quite right that Howlett is notable and the deletion nomination seems likely to fail at this point. It will take a few days for the discussion to be closed and the tag on your article removed, but in the meantime I'd suggest you just continue to improve the article. I hope this won't put you off continuing to edit, and thank you for taking the time to contribute to Wikipedia. Joe Roe (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I made a risky error?

Hello,

Thank you very much for the invitation to the teahouse. May I ask if I have accidently made a serious mistake. I signed up to make changes and continued to make changes and have just discovered that some were not under my user name but my PC address. Is this a great risk? Can the PC address be deleted or changed to my user name? It is great to have started editing - improving!

Aehullia (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Aehullia, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume that you are referring to your IP address, which you are worried you might have disclosed. There is no way to reassign your edits to your user account, but you can request suppression of the details of your IP via Wikipedia:Oversight. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Aehullia, I made an educated guess which edits you meant, and suppressed the IP address. Take a look, and if I guessed wrong or there are others, then you can request followup by email. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thank you soo much! I feel like I have been welcomed into a family! Aehullia (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

That's good to hear, Aehullia. Unless you live somewhere where the state monitors internet use and persecutes citizens based on their activities, I don't think that revealing your IP is inherently risky (some editors don't even bother creating accounts, which means that their IPs are revealed with every edit), but there are possible privacy concerns with doing so. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, an occasionally dysfunctional family, but a family just the same. Welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

wanted to edit indian movies wiki

i wanted to ask that why google removed our edits because i updated few Indian movies wiki ( i added the collections of movies in Indian rupees) but it was automatically removed by google from movies wiki??? so if you can explain how google removed the edits or if i wanted to updated my edits what should i do ?Shoaib79791 (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Shoaib79791: Google has no power to remove edits from Wikipedia. If your question refers to your recent edit to Great Grand Masti, that was reverted by a human editor, Materialscientist, probably because it was unreferenced. Maproom (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

i dont think that was fake info was provided by me ?? but how does human editor has the rights to remove my editsShoaib79791 (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Maproom didn't say that the info was fake, but that it was unreferenced. Please read about verifiability and about referencing. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Shoaib79791, Wikipedia is not interested, at all, in what you know, or what I know, or even in what Jimbo Wales knows. It is only interested in things that have been published in reliable sources. If you can cite a reliable published source for the information, it might be acceptable in a Wikipedia article (though that is not the only criterion); but if you add information without citing a source, anybody may delete it. --ColinFine (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

"CityU MFA" Next Step

I added "CityU MFA" page content in my talk page, and this is after my initial attempt to create the page in June and the comments and advice from Wikipedia editors Robert and Cullen. Can anyone please share advice on how this page will be published? Thanks. Knoxtennessee (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You submitted very brief drafts at Draft:CityU MFA and User:Knoxtennessee/CityU MFA. If you intend to use the content which you've currently got on your talk page at User talk:Knoxtennessee#CityU MFA as an updated draft then you would include it at Draft:CityU MFA and resubmit, but before that you ought to read the advice you've already received after the previous unsuccessful submissions. Some obvious problems with the material on the talk page are:

You've tried to use Wikipedia as a reference, but that is not acceptable, see WP:CIRCULAR.
You've used bare URLs.
I suspect that many of the "references" don't actually mention the subject of the article. You need to concentrate on published reliable sources independent of the subject which give detailed coverage of the subject.
A lengthy list of alumni who (being redlinks) are presumably not notable in Wikipedia's terms does not help to show the notability of the subject.

--David Biddulph (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned above, I will add that I agree with what David Biddulph wrote in response. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Knoxtennessee. There is really no point in adding this material to your talk page: it is very unlikely that anybody will do anything with it there. You need to add the material to Draft:CityU MFA. Nobody will interfere with what you put in a draft, unless it is something really bad like a copyright violation or a personal attack. However, in my opinion, most of the material you have added to your talk page is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. What I suggest you do, if you want to write about the course, is to start by ignoring absolutely anything published by the university or its staff, and forgetting absolutely everything you know personally about it, and look for places where people who have no connection with the university have published material about it (this also excludes items based on interviews or press releases from the university). If you cannot find much independent published material about the course, then it is not notable in Wikipedia's terms, and there is no point spending time on trying to write an article. If you can, then it may be appropriate to write an article, based almost entirely on what these independent people have published about it. You can then add a bit a uncontroversial factual information from the University's own website, such as dates and locations. But if, for example, you cannot find an independent source that talks about Dr X's or Professor Y's contribution to the department (not just a directory that lists them) then you should probably not even mention them in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for your prompt feedback and especially, your time reviewing and writing. I intended to keep writing on the initial draft but I could not find it when I logged in last time, so I wrote it on the space where is readily available to me, the talk page. Thank you, ColinFine. Now I know more about the talk page. Points are taken on 1. using wikipedia as a reference 2. using bare URLS. Thanks, David. These can be easily corrected, however, as much as I am impressed with Wikipedia's quality control, I have begun to lose hope on the site regarding its rules on page notability. Would appreciate your help if any. Knoxtennessee (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have difficulty finding your previous draft, firstly there are links from the feedback on your user talk page, and secondly you can find pages to which you have contributed by clicking on the "Contributions" link at the top of any page. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Help creating page

Hello there, I am an author that wrote about a band I am familiar with, and it got marked for deletion. When I asked why, another moderator said that it was marked because it had no indication of notability. Would someone please be able to help me create a proper article and fix my work in a way that it will be a proper page and not get deleted? Please let me know. thanks. Amy Sumtinfancy (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Amy. Reading Your first article is a good place to start. But general advice (which I've just given to somebody else further down this page) is that Wikipedia is not interested - at all - in what you know, or what I know, or what anybody else who edits it knows. It is only interested in information which has already been published in a reliable place; and mostly in information written and published by people who have no connection with a subject. So the way to start writing an article is to find reliable independent sources, and then forget everything you know about the subject and work from those sources only. --ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Colin, Yes, I understand. However, All of the info I wrote is on the NBC Webpage on Emil and Dariel and/or on the AGT Wikia page on Emil and Dariel. How do submit that as my proof of a valid source? Would someone be able to help me properly recreate this page. Please let me know. thank you! Amy Sumtinfancy (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Sumtinfancy. You can read how to reference sources at Help:Referencing for beginners, but note that a Wikia site is not considered a reliable source, because it contains user-submitted content, just like Wikipedia. Please see WP:USERGENERATED for an explanation of this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

add name to alphabetized list

Category is "Fellows of the American Institute of Architects."

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Fellows_of_the_American_Institute_of_Architects

Names are listed beneath each letter of alphabet. I am not seeing where to add/insert a name.InsightOut1 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, InsightOut1. Articles are listed in categories by adding the wikicode for the category to the bottom of the article itself. You do not edit the actual category. The biography in question should include a reference verifying that the person is a Fellow of the AIA. Add the following code to the bottom of the biography:

[[Category:Fellows of the American Institute of Architects]]

I hope this clarifies things. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, InsightOut1, and welcome to the Teahouse. You've made a common mistake and got things, well, inside-out. What you need to do is add the category to the article, not the article to the category. See Wikipedia:Categorization on this. You need to add the code [[Category:Fellows of the American Institute of Architects]] to the bottom of the article, but make sure that the article includes a reference to a source that supports the categorisation. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:JAYS0 - How to get draft to display

I’m stumped. I reviewed Draft:JAYS0 and declined it because I couldn’t view the text due to the codes that hid the text. I then received a message on my talk page asking why I declined it. I have since been trying to remove the codes and get the text to display. Can someone help me, and also its author, and also possibly comment on the quality of the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe the problem is the trailing "!" here

<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE ----!> Therealmorris (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I finally succeeded at the same time as I got the advice. Thank you.Robert McClenon (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

At this point, my major comment on the quality of the draft is that, while the subject appears to be notable, the draft reads promotionally. This one was a puzzle. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Can someone else please comment on the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a notable person but it's written in promo language, which I boiled down in a few places. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Want to add so much more to the 'Jackanory' web page based on YT viewing ........

I'm watching so much and the page seeems so missing of the love the program had. Please may I add factual stuffed based on the series and the BBC 'making of' prog with ref to YT and please could someone be my mentor as I have never done significant updates to wiki and fear I may be predudice or wrong in some way so would want an experienced person to keep a careful eye on me and advise me when I go wrong? Can it link directly to (for example) a video of 'George's Marvelous Medicine' or an episode of 'Jacanory night'? I'm sure I could probably also find direct quotes from the BBC too? A sort of collaboration for a newb please. My active time of editing would probably be late UK time, roughly 10pm to 3am.

I will keep this page open and refresn each day for new replies (if any). Not quite sure of the best way to know how I have responses otherwise :( I have ticked to watch this page so maybe wiki emails me?

DM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dormouse7 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dormouse7. What I suggest is that you first take a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial for a general introduction to editing. Then – and because proper sourcing is so important here – that you please read Help:Introduction to referencing/1 and Help:Referencing for beginners. After that, you can boldly add well cited factual material to Jackanory, using only reliable sources that you attribute well and which verify the information you are adding.

Though for things like plots, sometimes the work itself is used as your source, in general you should be attempting to find secondary sources, written by third parties to the topic and then citing them using inline citations—so you probably should not even use those videos, much less link "directly to them". If you want to suggest an edit rather than make it directly, you can do so on the the article's talk page, which here would be Talk:Jackanory. Also if you want, I would be willing to review any suggested edit – drop me a note on my talk page (which you'll see linked in my signature). Just be aware in advance that any suggested additions must be accompanied by identifying a reliable source, or that'll be the first thing I'll be asking for:-) By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

i'm useless and would appreciate it if someone could make the following notation for me...

in re the Mark Zuckerberg page in the section on political controversies, the text cites an Israeli minister verbatim and refers to same as simply "minister" as opposed to using the article "a" before it, implying that "minister" should be followed by the name of the minister, which I was curious to know, but it is absent. I hope this makes sense and appreciate any assistance available.

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Mark_Zuckerberg&action=edit&section=15&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro Jedherman 20:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedherman (talk • contribs)

EDIT: The footntoted Newsweek article identifies the minister as Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan. http://www.newsweek.com/israel-minister-facebook-zuckerberg-blood-hands-over-teenager-settlement-477399

It would seem preferable to either name the minister in the text of the article or to use some modifier before the word "minister" for clarity 20:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Jedherman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedherman (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jedherman. I added Gilad Erdan's name to the article. You could have done it yourself quite easily. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Cullen328: Mark Zuckerberg is semi-protected, and if I'm not mistaken Jedherman's account is not yet autoconfirmed, so they couldn't have edited it themselves. Joe Roe (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Joe Roe, for pointing out what I did not notice. My apologies to you, Jedherman. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

this is why i'm useless! thank you for making the change I requested @JoeRoe and for your help @Cullen328. i know that there are extremely rational reasons for it, but i am completely overwhelmed by the UI on the editing side of Wikipeida and never have any clue of the appropriate way to do somethign myself or attain assistance in doing so. I've tried. it's embarassing. cheers to all and thanks for working on this place. i love it.

Jedherman 05:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedherman (talk • contribs)

Images from 1942

I came across an image that was published in 1942 and therefore, I think, in the public domain. I loaded it in Commons under public domain, but apparently it is now problematic. The file is called Baragwanath hospital, 1942.jpg. What do I do to sort the problem out? Regards, Vaaljapie (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Vaaljapie. The standard commons uses for public domain via age is either A) the life of the author plus 70 years, or B) created or registered prior to January 1, 1923. If the author of the picture died in 1942, which is unlikely, the picture would have only entered the public domain in 2012. If the author lived many years after the picture was taken, which is most likely, then the picture would not be in the public domain under this standard.

Also might want to keep Wikipedia:Media copyright questions in mind, as they specialize in this kind of thing. Hope this helps. TimothyJosephWood 12:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Vaaljapie. A good principle to follow is: don't upload unless you have some specific information to make you think an image is suitably free, and if you're not sure, ask. For the image you are asking about, it appears that is in fact public domain – another user has added Commons:Template:PD-SA to the image description which provides detail on why, replacing the zero license you used, which was opaque here. So that image appears to be okay, as better tagged. Images from Google Earth are not PD so File:Baragwanath Hospital today.jpg, appears to be a copyright violation. For File:Suideroord Cemetery - Johannesburg.jpg, you don't provide the date of the original work depicted so what might make that image okay? The date you took the picture, which you do provide, would be controlling if the subject was not itself copyrighted (if your photographing of it was sufficiently creative to form a second copyright, then the concept of derivative work would apply for which, here there would be no de minimis exception, given the image). What might make that PD as you marked it? Forget that, original image text has details making it highly likely it's older than 50 years and is obviously a South African image. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Regards, Vaaljapie (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Received Speedy Deletion notice for My Article. Need Help

Hello,

Today i created an article "Azea Botanica" in wikipedia and got speedy deletion notice.

What can i do to save it from deletion? Azea Botanica (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone review it and let me know what i can do? Azea Botanica (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Azea Botanica. Your user name violates WP:USERNAME as a company name. Your article is written in a highly promotional tone that must be removed. Please read about conflict of interest and comply. Also, read and study Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok.. Thanks for the info. I have requested for username change.

Also, now i understand why it is a conflict of interest. I think i should not have created the page in the first place. Rather i should have requested an article to be created.

Would that be the right approach? If the editors feel it is worth including in wikipedia, they can create an article for it. Also, I hope this will remove conflict of interest issue. Azea Botanica (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the right approach. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Pyshological distress

This article has a misspelled title while Psychological distress also exists. Maybe somebody would like to do something to it?--by Huhu9001 (talk) at 14:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Huhu9001. Looks like the former is a redirect to Stress (psychological), while the latter is a redirect to Mental distress. Seems like Mental distress may be a good candidate for a deletion or merge discussion. Other's here may be able to comment further. TimothyJosephWood 14:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

For the time being, I've redirected Pyshological distress to Mental distress since it doesn't make sense to me that they have different targets. Also stress and distress are quite different. On another note, Huhu9001, redirects are there to help readers who have typed in the wrong thing to still end up in the right place. Most of them are synonyms but many of them are common misspellings that get enough hits to justify a redirect. Happy editing! Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy Squirrel, looking at the Stress (psych) article, it seems to cover distress pretty thoroughly. Looking at the Mental distress article, it defines itself in the first sentence as "Mental distress (or psychological distress)". Seems a bit more like an editing mix up than two entirely distinct concepts. TimothyJosephWood 15:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

There's also Distress (medicine) which seems to have considerable overlap. Joe Roe (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikiproject medicine would be a better venue to discuss this if it involves many articles. Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

does 'Ignore All Rules' apply to blocked users?

This is not the place to discuss Wikipedia policy, especially with a block evader

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

WP:IAR says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

What if you have been blocked from editing? The rules say you can't edit. But WP:IAR tells us we should ignore this rule if it prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:582A:317E:D137:51D7 (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Users are blocked for disrupting the encyclopedia, not for improving the encyclopedia. Blocked editors should abandon their disruptive behavior 100% and wait until the block has expired before editing. Appeals are also possible and sometimes granted. If the block is indefinite, they should explain on their talk page that they understand why they were blocked and pledge never to engage in such behavior again, and then keep that promise. Editing while blocked is disruptive behavior rather than productive editing. The community is largely united in its belief that editing while blocked is unacceptable behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"Editing while blocked is disruptive behavior rather than productive editing." Not necessarily. Just because someone was blocked doesn't make them incapable of constructive editing. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:582A:317E:D137:51D7 (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No, but it does mean that the community has no confidence in your ability to determine that your edits in this case will be constructive. Either wait out the block, or go through the proper procedure and request unblock. You are pushing the community's willingness to assume good faith in even asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, but the community could be wrong. That's where IAR comes in. If somebody who got blocked sees a typo and fixes it, that improves the encyclopedia. If the community didn't have confidence in that person to fix that typo, they were wrong. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:582A:317E:D137:51D7 (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my statement: Editing while blocked is disruptive behavior. We see massive evidence of this type of disruption all the time here on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Selection bias. You don't see all the times it is not disruptive. When people come back and continue whatever got them blocked, obviously that's disruptive. But if they go about routine editing, that doesn't break any rules other than the block-evasion, I don't see how you can call that disruptive. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:582A:317E:D137:51D7 (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You came here to this very public forum asking for advice and have received it from two experienced editors. Your inclination to argue and dispute the advice offered, instead of simply listening and moving on, is evidence in favor of the theory that you may well be a tendentious and disruptive editor. Although I cannot be certain, it seems likely that you are a blocked editor trying to re-litigate your block anonymously here at the Teahouse. That is a really bad idea. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with you. That's allowed. It's not disruptive or tendentious. Your appeal to the authority of yourself is humorous. As for your argumentum ad hominem, I'd like to remind you of your duty to discuss content, not the contributor. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:582A:317E:D137:51D7 (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You seem quite familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Are you sure you need this clarification of what should be a common-sense guideline? Dschslava^Δxparlez moi 06:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought I'd double check but am quite surprised to find the common sense answer is not what I'm hearing. It says very clearly Ignore All Rules but everybody here is saying 'well, don't ignore that one.' 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:1F4:213:7B86:5929 (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Look, if you see something uncontrovertially wrong with an article, you can always just propose the change with a helpme tag and someone may very well come along and take responsibility for the edit. I've done it for typos found by students stuck behind a school-block. There are excellent reasons why we take a hard line on socks. Happy Squirrel (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The fatal error in your argument is the premise that IAR trumps everything, always, no matter what. Those dealing in competence and good faith do not take its title so literally. There are plenty of Wikipedia rules that would never be broken on IAR grounds, even if we disagree with them. The most applicable p&g is WP:EVASION and WP:POINT. You asked a question and it has been answered. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Why doesn't somebody update WP:IAR to reflect this? It's confusing when it says 'all rules' when that's not what it means. As for your assumption of bad faith and calling me incompetent, I remind you of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:1F4:213:7B86:5929 (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the proposed IAR approach is that it encourages blocked users to disregard their block any time they feel they are contributing an improvement to the encyclopedia. Every good-faith contributor here thinks they are contributing improvements to the encyclopedia (why would they submit an edit if they didn't think it would help?). However, even good-faith contributions can be disruptive. We see this the most with edit warring—although edit warring is extremely disruptive behavior (it destroys the collaborative atmosphere of the project), those participating in edit wars usually believe genuinely that their version of the article is what's best for Wikipedia. For this reason, if we allowed blocked users to ignore their blocks as long as they believe they are contributing improvements, it opens the door for them to resume their disruptive behavior. Blocking would become useless. It is far better to just say no to block evasion in any form whatsoever—which is why, as Cullen notes, the community considers block evasion inherently unacceptable behavior (and, therefore, not covered by WP:IAR). If a blocked editor spots a typo, they can then point it out on their user talk page, as Happy Squirrel suggests, using {{helpme}} or a {{ping}} to draw attention to it. Doing this would improve the blocked user's chances at a successful appeal, as it shows that they can be trusted not to violate their block. Mz7 (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with much of that. However with something like edit warring, it would be obvious the block is being evaded and they'd just be re-blocked. I was more referring to situations where nobody would even know the person was blocked. Making uncontroversial edits, minor edits etc. Yes, it would cause problems to publicly say 'go ahead and evade your block!' but really, WP:IAR already says that. It's a rule that you cannot block-evade... 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:1F4:213:7B86:5929 (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm gathering that you do understand that it would be highly problematic to advise users to evade their block for anything, even those situations where they probably wouldn't get caught. What's problematic is the block evasion itself. The best way to explain it, I think, is that when a user is blocked, the community or an administrator believes for the time being that the problems associated with a user's overall participation here outweigh the potential benefits. So even if blocked edits may seem benign on the face, they wouldn't be considered "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" because of their context.

There is something in the blocking policy that is kind of like IAR, and I think this might be what you're trying to get at. It's from the point of view of an unblocked editor reviewing the edits that a blocked user has made while blocked, not the blocked user making a decision whether to evade or appeal. The blocking policy states: Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. However, written in the policy itself is a IAR-like clarification: This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. The blocked user will still likely face additional sanctions for evading their block if they get caught (since, as explained above, block evasion is inherently disruptive behavior), but that does not mean that the typo corrections and obviously helpful changes should be reverted. Mz7 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

IAR is not an unconditional "get-out-of-jail-free-card", every instance of invoking IAR must be justified and defensible. Block evasion is ipso facto disruptive editing, regardless of the intention, nature or content of the edit itself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

WMFlabs links on Contributions page appear down

'Pages created', 'Edit count': Haven't been working for a few days. I do appreciate them when they're available. Is there anything I can do? Swliv (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Swliv. They don't seem to be working for me either. The Teahouse is a place for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, though, so I don't think this is the appropriate place to raise this issue. Could Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) be a better place? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Larry. The tools are working again so no need now but Village pump (technical) did look better for it, for future reference. Swliv (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

my edit for Costello Tagliapietra

Hello We are Costello Tagliapietra and made those copy paste edits.... I am pretty new to wikipedia and would love help if I did something the incorrect way. Thank you Robert TagliapietraHughesspina (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Host, please see Costello Tagliapietra's page history, as well as Hughesspina's talk page for reference. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Read the conflict of interest policy. It appears that you may have a conflict of interest. For that reason, you should not be editing the article, but may request edits on its talk page. If you own the copyright to the copyrighted material, you may donate the copyright under a CC-BY-SA copyleft, but that does not mean that the language will necessarily be acceptable anyway, because it may be non-neutral. Also, you may not simply authorize the use of the copyrighted material without donating the copyright. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

change my name

Can i change my name i don't to be problem to another people article i need to change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valvular (talk • contribs) 18:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

May I ask why you can't edit the article with your current username? -- Gestrid (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

If you change your username, the change will be reflected in any previous edits. That is, you won't lose the record of any edits that you don't want to have made. However, if the reason you are asking is that you created two pages in article space that have been tagged for speedy deletion as made up (or test edits in article space), once they are deleted, those edits will no longer be visible to non-administrators. If you have learned not to make test edits or made-up stories in article space, welcome to Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Why must we have editors who insist on keeping an article different from the style guide requirements, who are not sanctioned for it?

OP blocked, prolific sock

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

While I've been reading up on the rules here, I've looked at some articles that come into question (but haven't tried editing them yet; see explanation below), and upon going down the list of changes on some of them, have discovered that one or a few editors insist on keeping an article not conformed to the manual of style. Let me use just one article as an example for now, though I'm sure there are many more.

For this one example, please look at Pink (singer). Notice that the wording goes "...known professionally as..." even though the manual has it worded as "...better known by the [her/his] stage name..." (and even has a link to that article about stage names). The latest editor to change this found that the article already met that style from the guide, but then insisted upon changing it back to an edit that did not match [presumably because he or she believes that just because something's been a certain way for a long time, that is the "better" or "stable" way), claiming that the compliant edit "was not stable" (or, more accurately, that his or her edit was "the stable version"), and that editors should discuss the change on the talk page.

So I ask these questions: Why? Why should anything for which there is already a rule from the manual of style dictating the format it should take be discussed any further (except, perhaps, at that section of the style guide itself)? And why should his edit take presidence over the long-established rules set by the Wikimedia Foundation or whoever sets that? Why do we even have a manual requiring certain styles if there are editors who insist on reverting articles away from it, and why are these editors' changes not enforced back to the established format set by the rules?

So why don't I just change it back to meet the standard? Because with all the warring that has gone on about it, it looks like anyone who tries to make this and other articles like this actually fit the requirement get caught up into that war and that the more established editor always prevails even if she or he is definitely astray like that. It looks like it would take quite the established editor to stand their ground and look for all those articles like this and fix them to match the required style. Can we get a few sensible editors to bring their brains and muscle to the table on this, please? Banners and Shirts (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The place for discussion is on the article's talk page, in this case Talk:Pink (singer). It is also worth reading again what it says at the top of the WP:Manual of Style, namely:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

--David Biddulph (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No, David, you've misunderstood me. I named Pink (singer) as an example of several articles that have this problem. So this isn't a question best answered on that article's talk page, but in a more general location, such as right here.

Even according to mere common sense, why should there be any good reason for this editor's edits to defy a manual which has already, itself, said it should attempt to be followed (which means that leaning towards it, rather than away from it, would tend to be the better option? Banners and Shirts (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Banners and Shirts: Please link to a guideline when you discuss it. The full text of MOS:LEGALNAME is:

For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym:

Louis Bert Lindley Jr. (June 29, 1919 – December 8, 1983), better known by the stage name Slim Pickens ...

The line with "better known by the stage name" is an example of how to follow the guideline. It doesn't mean every article must use that exact formulation. The main part of the guideline is the first sentence "For people ..." and not the example. Pink (singer) currently says: "Alecia Beth Moore (born September 8, 1979), known professionally as Pink ...". That seems OK with the guideline. Here is an example of not following it even though it says stage name: "Pink is the stage name of Alecia Beth Moore ..." PrimeHunter (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "and not the example," @PrimeHunter:? I know the example I supplied (Pink) doesn't say that now, but it used to, and then it didn't, and then it did, and then it didn't... but it's the same kind of situation with her and her name as the Louis Lindley example is (not a legal name change, and not just a nickname of her real name, etc.). So why should this wayward editor be allowed to keep enforcing that it shows up differently? Why shouldn't someone be allowed to set the article to how this MOS example shows it?

And why do you figure that this style rule is only suggested even though I've seen some people act like they must be enforced down to the wire? Banners and Shirts (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, first off, Wikipedia doesn't have hard and fast "rules", it has policies (which represent site-wide consensus) and guidelines (which are recommendations). If someone else mistakes a guideline for a hard-and-fast rule, that's their problem.

Second, the manual does not say that it must be phrased "better known by [the/his/her] stage name." It provides that as an example of a general principle, not a hard and fast rule that someone will get blocked for not following. There is no "problem," there. The only "must" here is that the legal name should come first, followed by whatever pseudonyms they're known for (of course, Zodiac killer doesn't "follow" that because we don't know his legal name). WP:COMMONSENSE would dictate that English is a language with synonyms and alternate means of formulating sentences and that we don't have to be a bunch of robots because people aren't just machines that can only read "perfectly" formatted code.

By the way, is this edit an example of what you were talking about? And would that edit happen to be by you? Ian.thomson (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Whatever; "policies" or "rules..." they're basically the same thing. When a company says that they don't allow something because they have a policy that... [such-and-such], they treat that as one of their rules. Anyway, no, Ian. Do you see my name on that edit? Of course not. Maybe you didn't read everything I wrote in here, but I suppose that's forgivable from time to time. Anyway, I was talking about the most recent one that reverted it back away from the suggested format in the manual (on 08/11).

I understand that some of them can't go by that format that I'm talking about, because maybe someone will just not use their last name, and that won't be cause for saying "stage name," and maybe someone will just use some of their initials with their last name, etc.

Why can't anyone, so far, answer my question of why one or two editors (so... a minority) get to keep enforcing their preference in the wording there ("known professionally as..."), but if someone else tries to put it back to the suggested format (maybe not required, then, but still suggested0 from the MOS (I can see several occurrences of this in the history), it looks like enforcements are used against any of those people who try it? What is so sacred about keeping the non-suggested format (whether it's a hard and fast rule or not) in place?

In other words, even if that were not a recommended wording by the MOS, why does Wikipedia look like a place that opposes consistency between articles? Why should two articles--both of which contain someone with their legal name and then a different name for their stage name--not be worded consistently, so much so that the edits from long-time editors come out as the ones enforced, even if it's obvious that they're not keeping things consistent? Banners and Shirts (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't like other companies, so no, policies and rules are not identical here. Wikipedia is maintained by volunteers. By editing here, you are just as responsible for any messes as anyone else. And again, MOS:LEGALNAME is a guideline, not a policy. Also, just because someone's name isn't on an edit doesn't mean it's not theirs. It'd be easier to read everything if you'd be clearer, more to the point, and linked to examples of what you were talking about instead of making people hunt for it.

This edit on "8/11" (8/12 on my computer because I'm on Chinese time) brings the edit back in line with the MOS. Sro23 wasn't changing it to "his preference," he brought it back in line with the MOS. As has been explained, the example isn't some draconian divine law that must be copied and quoted exactly or Jimmy Wales will smite us all -- it is just demonstrating the principle of "legal name first, pseudonym second".

If your issue was that it was changed to "(first name) (stage name) (last name)" for a bit, that was a mistake that was fixed. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Ian, I was going by the general definition of the two words, not some oddball different idea given by some guy on the wiki. But fine, please show me a place here on this site where a so-called "policy" is less strict than a so-called "rule," and where the wiki seems to define it. It's not that hard to go to the history of the article in question and just look down at the date, is it? But all right, fine, in the future, just for you I'll try to post a link to every edit I'm referring to. No, my issue is not that it was like first-stage-last. The edit that he(?) (sro; not a name we can guess the sex of) last made was what took it farther away from the MOS. It was already closer to the MOS example before he(?) came back by and touched it. So why is it that even after so many people have tried to bring it up to par with the suggested wording (again, fine, it's not a requirement according to you, but still the suggested method), his way (less like that method) must always be the one that takes over, even though it's less like that suggested method? Banners and Shirts (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Banners and Shirts, it sounds to me like you're taking the MoS a wee bit too seriously. Maybe other editors' work is not always completely in line with our house style, but is that really so important? By all means correct errors and inconsistencies when you see them, but if that change gets reverted it's silly to get upset about it or dragged into an edit war. There's no rush to get everything perfect, and do you really want to spend your time here arguing about minor differences in wording? Joe Roe (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Banners and Shirts: If you think that changing things from "(first name) (pseudonym) (last name)" to almost quoting the MOS is less out of line with the MOS, you haven't read the MOS. Likewise, if you think that using the example in the MOS as a template that must be blindly followed, you need to read WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR. If you want to complain about this older edit of Sro23's that fulfills the spirit and the WP:COMMONSENSE letter of the MOS (and doesn't even affect the current version of the article), you've got to be a sockpuppet pushing a trollish grudge.

Think carefully about your response. So far, the only common thread I'm seeing in your posts is that you're wikilawyering with rhetorical questions to try and get established editor(s) in some sort of trouble. Are you just mistakenly treating the MOS as the only thing keeping God from sending us to hell, are you just mistakenly thinking that Wikipedia's articles must be set in stone, or are you subtly trying to WP:HOUND an editor whose done far more for the encyclopedia than you have? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, @Joe Roe:, I'm not taking the MoS too seriously just because I want some questions answered. That's not what asking questions is. And by the way, they're not just for rhetoric; I actually want answers to them, but there's one that you're consistently stepping around answering. You just got done telling me to correct inconsistencies when I see them. So how about the inconsistencies between one article and another of the same format, which is exactly what I see these other editors fighting against sro23 to do. Why, then, shouldn't their edits (and mine like those, if I add them) stick? And why shouldn't he/she be the one who's expected to just leave it alone and read WP:COMMONSENSE instead of continuing to revert it?

No, @Ian.thomson:, you've misunderstood again. Please pay attention this time. I'm not talking about "(first name) (pseudonym) (last name)." Besides, he wasn't almost quoting the MOS. Other editors had already tried to quote the MoS almost exactly ("better known by the stage name..."), but then along comes this guy who puts it away from MoS ("known professionally as..."), and then expects people to discuss with him before putting it back to MoS. That is what I'm asking about. How do you figure that trying to improve an article to meet these standards is being WP:NOTHERE? (Don't forget to still answer the questions from above and below this.)

Also, Joe, I'm asking you and Ian the same question over and over, but you're not answering it. So let's try this again: Why is it always sro's version (less like the MOS) that gets supported, while the MOS version ends up being the one that the other editors are told not to put back unless there's been a discussion on the talk page first, or that the other user is edit-warring while sro's not, etc.? Shirts and Banners (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Shirts and Banners: I've only posted in this thread once so I don't think you've asked me that question before. But I'll answer: the way things usually happen, when a change is disputed, is that the change is reverted back to the articles "stable" (i.e. prior) state until the dispute can be resolved through consensus. That doesn't mean the other editor is "winning" (because Wikipedia isn't a competition); it's simply a widely-accepted convention that has proven useful for resolving disputes cleanly and amicably (see WP:BRD).

Please realise, I'm not trying to take sides in the dispute between you and sro. I'm merely saying that, in my experience (and it took me a while to learn this lesson!), if you want to save your valuable time for improving content, not to mention stay sane in this project, a very good skill to have is being able to step away from minor disputes and let imperfections be. It's quite likely you will see other editors not following that advice and edit warring or bickering about inconsequential points of style, but that just means you can congratulate yourself on taking the high road. Joe Roe (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)