Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 630

Archive 625

←

Archive 628

Archive 629

Archive 630

Archive 631

Archive 632

→

Archive 635

How do I do the arrow thing when a conversation drags on for too long?

excuse my wording

Like when a parent conversation has too many children, I see people using an arrow to reset it or something The Verified Cactus 100% 20:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There are two ways to accomplish this. The first is places a line all the way to the beginning

like this, by using an {{od}} code.

(←) Another option is to use an arrow, as you mention above, which is {{od2}}. These are called "outdents". Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus: - I guess it might help if I do this... lol - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged! The Verified Cactus 100% 21:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

If you browser is like mine, it will try to autocorrect {{od}} to {{of}}, so watch out for that! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Spelling it out—{{outdent}}—works fine. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

acting against policy

Dear Friends, I am interested in both editing and creating new entries. As part of my job, I am interested in making sure that we have a positive and truthful presence on Wikipedia - but want to make sure that I am adhering to policy. Any advice, help and guidance are appreciated.

Thanks.Kirschnik (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kirschnik. The most important piece of advice I can give is that if you are editing as part of your job, you need to make a paid-contribution disclosure. I will leave a welcome message on your talk page with further links to pages that explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Also important, don´t WP:COPYPASTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Kirschnik. Your interest and Wikipedia's broadly coincide in wishing that anything we have about is is accurate, (though on Wikipedia's side, only according to reliable published sources, so unpublished information does not belong). Where they do not coincide is that Wikipedia is not interested in your having a "presence" on Wikipedia, still less a positive one. If reliable published sources, independent of you, predominently describe you in positive terms, then that is how you should be covered in Wikipedia. If they are predominently negative, or mixed, then that is how you should appear. If there is little or no independent coverage of you, then you are not a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article at all (see WP:CORP). --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Remove a map of my own with an error

Hi Teahouse

I have uploaded an image file of my own with a map showing the Indian territories as described in the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851). There is an error on the map, and that is not good at all. Please help me delete that file. File name "Fort Laramie Treaty (1851), Indian territories JPEG". I have already uploaded a new file with the Northern line of the Crow Indian territory right. Thanks and enjoy your cup of tea. Naawada2016 (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Naawada2016. Because File:Fort Laramie Treaty (1851), Indian territories JPEG.jpg was uploaded by you more than seven days ago, AFAIK you have to request deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests (if it was under seven days old you could have used Commons:Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion# 7. Author or uploader request deletion instead). You can automate placing such a request a bit by clicking on the "Nominate for deletion" link from the bottom of the menu on the left hand side of the file page. (Make sure you're actually at the file page at the Commons, and not just viewing the image locally, e.g., if local, you'll see "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below" with "description page" a link to the actual file. This has fooled many a user.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I am looking for some feedback on my first article written around the North Highland Way.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated as I have been awaiting review for a few weeks now, and if i could amend my article before this stage I hope that it could speed up the process (I am also unsure if i have to post a link to my draft page or can you find it from here? hopefully you can find it from here!) thank you in advance. EleanorLC (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I assume this is Draft:The North Highland Way (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, EleanorLC. To link to any page, you just need to put its title inside double square brackets, so in this case [[Draft:The North Highland Way]]. You've picked what I think is an interesting topic to write about, and done a good job so far. Based on a quick skim, I'd suggest that you remove or reword phrases such as "exploring all that Scotland’s north coast has on offer", which sounds like an opinion rather than a verifiable fact. You also still need to provide sources for some parts of the article's content (e.g. "However, the walk has now been taken forward by Ian Ellis who has walked the route a number of times, and has registered the route with Walkingworld.com"). Finally, you need to remove all external links such as walkingworld.com from the text of the article. Such links only belong in the external links section of the article (see Wikipedia:External links on what should and shouldn't be included there). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, EleanorLC, and welcome to the Teahouse. A few additional points to add to what Cordless Larry said above. When we say that no external links should be in the body of the article, that does not count URLs for citations to sources. Those are very much desired, when a source is online. I note that most of your cites are to ViewRanger. A few additional cites to other sources would be desirable, if possible. When available, please include the publication date, page number (for printed or PDF sources) and author in your citations. I added these to one cite, and combined two two duplicates into a single multi-use citation in the draft. But this does look good to me, better than many drafts at this stage. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! It is greatly appreciated! I shall edit as appropriate. In reference to the citations for the route itself, I couldn't find many details on the full route, a number of walking holiday companies provide some details of the route, but do not outline the full route, would it still be appropriate to use these as citations? Thanks again! EleanorLC (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Walking holiday companies' websites aren't likely to be the best sources, EleanorLC, as they are likely to be written with the aim of promoting the route rather than neutrally describing it, and they probably aren't subject to very strict editorial control. Coverage in specialist magazines and websites would be better, if it exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any more information about the route else where (other than on walking holiday sites, which as expected, would not be appropriate) will this have a negative impact on the article? Or will the citations I already have be sufficient "evidence"? (Thank you so much for all your help, it really means so much!) EleanorLC (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There are two separate aspects to the sourcing issue, EleanorLC. The first is that Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that readers can check that information in an article comes from a reliable source. So, where would I check that "During the summer, it is also possible to see puffin colonies" is correct, for instance? The second aspect is whether the draft meets the Wikipedia:Notability test, which requires an article to demonstrate that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. DESiegel might be better placed to offer advice on this second aspect than me. I would have thought that a walking route would pass this test fairly easily, as they tend to get written about quite a lot, but I've also been struggling to find sources about this particular route. It might be that the sources cited so far are judged to already establish notability, however, and in that case the issue would just be about verifiability. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

EleanorLC, it is my view that the sources already cited are enough to establish notability but only just. Things like the puffins would need to be sourced or removed if anyone challenged them. Cordless Larry is 100% correct that non-commercial sources would be better, if they can be found. Note that off-line newspaper coverage would be perfectly acceptable. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have just checked LexisNexis and there's not much, but did find two articles in the Aberdeen Press and Journal and one in The Herald, which I don't think are available online. When I get some time, I'll read them properly and try to use them in the draft. It also turned up one that is openly available on the web, here. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I managed to find a citation for the puffins, the citation also includes a map of where the puffins can be seen in the UK, so hopefully that is enough to back up the information, however, it is not a huge issue if this needs removed. I shall have read over the Scotsman article and see if there is anything that I can include or cite in the North Highland Way page. Again, I am so grateful for all your help and advice, this has been an excellent learning process for me and your knowledge has really helped. EleanorLC (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It's always a pleasure to help write a worthwhile article rather than having to provide advice to paid editors writing about businesses or celebrities, EleanorLC. I've redrafted the history section based on some new sources. What this has highlighted is that there's a bit of a gap in the story between 2014 and today. In 2014, it was reported that more work was neeed on various aspects of the project, but the route now seems to exist, so are there sources that tell us what happened in the past three years (or does the route exist more on the internet than "on the ground" with signs, etc.?). Also, the route was described as 115 miles long in 2010 but seems to have grown to 150 miles today. Some clarification would be helpful here too. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Shiba San - I began an article that violated the terms and would like to find the content

Hello,

I wrote an article under 'Shiba San' and cannot find the content any longer. Even though it was removed from wikipedia, I would like to at least find the actual article, as it took hours and hours to compile. ShibaSan (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I've emailed the deleted contents to you. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: thank you!

Can you please help?

Hi. I would love it if you'd send me an email so I can send you what changes I want to be made on protected pages for media companies. If you have an email address, can you please send it to my username on this page? Thanks! NS4545678 (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, NS4545678, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid that isn't quite how things work here. Instead, go to the talk page of that article(s) you want changed, and describe your requested changes there, with reasons. Don't forget to provide sources that can be checked. Then place {{Request edit}} on the page. You can find more detailed instructions at Template:Request edit. Do that and an admin or experienced editor will look over your request and respond, possibly making the changes you request. We don't normally handle editing via email. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I did post edit requests on the talk pages, but people kept removing them for no reason at all. That's why I asked you guys to email me. NS4545678 (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

NS4545678 You have made only 4 edits under this username, all of them versions of this request or followups to it. Perhaps they were made under a different username, or while not logged in?

Anyway, Even if i got your suggestions by email, the content and source would still be posted on the talk page of the relevant articles. You might as well post the article names, at least. That will be enough to find the issue in the page history or talk page history, probably. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Advice for sources for my draft

Hello, Teahouse Host. I am currently seeking an AFC review for my draft, and before the review starts, I would like some advice regarding sources for the draft. I could not find a lot of third-party sources to back up the draft through Google search alone. What other methods could I use to locate sources?

Thanks! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 02:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jd02022092, and welcome to the Teahouse. If I were reviewing that draft as it now stands, I would decline it as not having enough sources to clearly establish notability. Did you try google books searches? Did you try library searches? Perhaps there are specialist publications not online but known in the furry community that discuss this con? Ultimately it is up to you to find sources, and the article will not be accepted without sources. Whether the sources you now have are sufficient is a judgement call, and reasonable reviewers might disagree. Also Flayrah which is the source of two of your three current citations, describes it self as "written by the community since 2001" and describes its articles as 'fan postings". I fear it would not be considered a reliable source. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Unblocking pages to edit them

Hi, I've been using Wikipedia since 2010 and I've been wondering how to edit a blocked page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramount Pctures (talk • contribs) 22:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Paramount Pctures, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suppose that by "blocked" you mean "protected". It very much depends on what page, and why you want to edit it. Most protected pages are protected for good reasons, and should only be edited by users with the appropriate rights while they are protected. Please read Wikipedia:Protection policy to learn about the various types of protection, why they are applied to pages, and how to request that protection be removed or reduced. If that doesn't answer your questions, please ask again in this thread, giving the name of the page involved, and more detail. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Paramount Pctures. First, as to terminology, pages are not blocked, only users can be blocked. What I'm fairly sure you're referring to is a page that is protected from editing at some level. (However, on the issue of blocks, you need to change your username. I will not block you for it, but it is a username violation, and don't be surprised if you keep using it if someone else does. Please read Wikipedia:Username policy and then Wikipedia:Changing username).

Since you are not yet autoconfirmed, you may be here about a page that is semi-protected, or one that is fully-protected or one more rarer possibility. Note that your account will become autoconfirmed once you make three more edits, and then wait until 21:43 (UTC) on June 25, 2017.

The way to edit such a page is to make your request on the talk page. To draw attention to it, you can post above your request the template {{Edit fully-protected}} or {{Edit semi-protected}}, depending on which form of protection is at issue. You can also do this by clicking view source at the protected page, and you should then see a notice with this button: Submit an edit request. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, While it is potentially confusing, I think the user name Paramount Pctures (note the exact spelling) is not technically a violation of the Wikipedia:Username policy. It does not unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product. Still I think you would be better advised to change it, User Paramount Pctures, as it could easily be confused with someone editing on behalf of the well-known company. See WP:CHU for instructions on how to request a change of username. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

DES: There's that, but it's coupled with WP:ISU: ""Usernames that are simply names of companies or groups are not permitted". Even if this teeters on the edge of WP:ORGNAME, it seems squarely in the shared type of name hole. Regardless, it sucks for any user to continue with a username that is not unlikely to be blocked at some point; always better for the person to be told and to make the request when he or she has few edits (and hasn't become too attached).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

But it is not the name of a company or group, Fuhghettaboutit, although it closely resembles one. Nor does it strongly imply shared use, in my view. If anyone blocked this for a username violation, I would unblock, unless there was a consensus at AN or ANI or UAA to support the block. All that said, a change would be very advisable to ward off possible drama and conflict. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

DES We agree on the last. The technicality that it has what appears to be a typo, in what is plainly intended to invoke the name of a famous corporation, and even were it not, where it patently reads as an entity name and nothing but, makes is subject to WP:ISU, if not WP:ORG. The policy is not about intent, it is about perception of third parties reading the name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that the user has been soft blocked for their username, apparently unrelated to this discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And I have asked that the blocking admin unblock, and stand ready to do so myself if convincing reasons are not provided. Note that the policy does not deal with either intent or perception, but with actual facts. A neame either is simply the name[s] of [a] compan[y] or group[s] or it isn't. This isn't. A name either unambiguously represent[s] the name of a company or it doesn't. This doesn't. This policy is one of the clearer one we have, Fuhghettaboutit, and there is no reason to stretch it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You think I'm stretching it. I think you are doing somersaults to avoid this name not fitting within its meaning and spirit. Anyway, you sound like you're ready to wheel war. Don't do that. Start a discussion at a larger location instead.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to wheel-war. I am strictly following the exact letter of the blocking policy and the policy against wheel-warring. Note that wheel-warring is defined as repeating an admin action after it is reverted, not as reverting one. Wikipedia:Blocking policy says Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter I am so contacting. WP:RAAA says: administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged. I am doing all that. WP:WW says: When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. I am not going to do that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Simply having a typo or a missing letter in the username does not make it "ambiguous", and it doesn't make the username not a violation of relevant policies or guidelines. It's a username that was a company name; let's not beat around the bush here. If simply having a missing letter or a slight miss-spelling makes a username no longer an unambiguous violation of relevant policy, then I guess usernames such as "WIKIPEDIA CAN GO FCK ITSELF" or "IM GONNA RAEP BABIEZ" would be acceptable. Come on! Don't be ridiculous! Wikipedia policies and guidelines are created with the intention that they be read and enforced using the spirit and principle in which they are written, and we're expected to use common sense in favor of what will benefit the project. I think you're reading into our policies and guidelines much too closely to the letter and to the point where it seems that applying the spirit of the rule or even common sense is not proper enforcement, which is absolutely not true and for situations just like this. I appreciated your message, by the way, and I hope that my response was adequate :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Unable to edit any page as logged in user.

I have edited some pages without logging in. However, in the history of the edited article, it shows my ip address instead of username. I want to edit as logged in user. But when I save my changes after editing as logged in user. I get following error.

"Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try saving your changes again. If it still does not work, try logging out and logging back in."

I am using Chrome in Mac OS and I have enabled my cookies. Please suggest.

96.241.237.240 (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, 96. What is the username you're trying to use? John from Idegon (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

If you get that "loss of session data" message, all you need to do is what it says – try saving your changes again (i.e., press "Save changes"). It usually goes through OK the second time. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

149.134.174.160 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Hi John, I am using my username psmeeta to login to wiki. After login, it takes me to read page as logged in user. ( Read page from right top corner). When I choose edit. It directs me to edit page but logs me out and gives me following message "You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to a user name, among other benefits.". If I try to login again, it logs me in but takes me to "Read" page and the cycle repeats. Any idea ?

As far as I can see, the user name User:psmeeta ‎was already taken. Registered and made one edit Feb 06, 2014 14:43:05 in 2014, and never made another edit since. I don't think you have ever successfully registered an account. Try again with a different name. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sacharya (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC) I registered new account.Thank you (Kudpung)

Please note that your signature should be placed at the end of your comments, not the start, Sacharya. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess the problem is resolved since you made a new account. But I'm curious if the issue may have been caused due to some browser add-in you had. My add-ons sometimes interfere with website functionalities. If the issue recurs, you might try temporarily disabling some of your add-ons to see if the issue is resolved. UltravioletAlien (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

template fix

I updated the alt-right and MLB postseason templates. However, even though on some pages it is updated, on others it isn't. Can you please help? thanks.Vinnylospo (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Vinnylospo:, for technical caching reasons such templates or other transcluded information are sometimes not immediately updated in all affected sub-articles. This minor issue should sort itself out after a while, but if you want to "force" a page to display its actual content immediately after a template change you can purge the page's content. More details and a better technical explanation are available in the linked info. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a page waiting in the draft.

Hi guys, I have Draft:Edgar Phillips waiting in the draft. Is anyone able to check it out and help me activate the page please.

Georgiethejourno (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Added link. John from Idegon (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that your question hasn't yet been answered, Georgiethejourno. I have added a template to the draft with a button that you can press to submit it for review when you think it is ready. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

references keep duplicating

I entered my references and they show up fine, but I keep seeing "1,2,3" with "link text" in addition to the reference links I input -- how do I get rid of those that automatically appear?? When I go to edit, they don't appear in the edit box?

Judithmunson (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Judithmunson and welcome to the Teahouse. You have put your references in twice. I've copied the details for your first ref to the in-line version. You can do the same with the others, then delete the duplicates at the bottom. The system shows the reference details so you don't need anything else after "reflist". Click "Edit" at the top of the page to edit the whole page. You will need to find some independent references in WP:Reliable sources if you want to establish that the subject is notable in the Wikipedia sense. Dbfirs 06:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Convenience link: Draft:Factumsoft, LLC. --CiaPan (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

CiaPan, thank you for correcting the other two references and for inserting "cite web".

Judithmunson, you just have to click the edit at the top (to the left of the "Search Wikipedia box) so that you edit the whole page instead of just editing a section. Have a look at the references now. You do need some better references. I have not been able to find any mention of the subject in the second or third references. Has the content changed since you looked at them, or do they serve different content to different countries? Dbfirs 19:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Judithmunson, thank you for pointing out that the two references are about the founder. I see that now, but they do nothing to establish the notability of the subject of the article, or to establish that he founded the company. You really do need to find some better references. By the way, you can reply here so that others can see both parts of our conversation. Dbfirs 06:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, working on that right now. Thank you!

Judithmunson (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Devon van Oostrum

Hi I am new to Wikipedia and I have edited a page about a Dutch basketball player called Devon van Oostrum. He is listed as "British-Dutch" even though he is Dutch (born in the Netherlands to Dutch parents), but he has just played basketball in England. There is no source or reference whatsoever confirming if he has dual nationality, yet another editor on his page has insisted that he should be listed as "British-Dutch" since he "plays for a British basketball team" and thus automatically has the British nationality because of that. There is no way this is possible according to British Nationality Law, but this other editor has threatened to "block" me if I revert his nationality back to list him only as Dutch. Could an experienced editor please intervene in this situation? This other editor (his Wikipedia name is Bozalegenda) is not willing to discuss this with me at all (I either have to accept his way to list this person as 'British-Dutch' or I will get blocked according to him as he says that he believes that my edits are 'vandalism'.....). I have looked into British Nationality Law and there is no way that his explanation/logic to list this basketball player as "British-Dutch' because "he played for a British team" makes sense at all.--Danteday (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Danteday, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia doesn't invariably follow legal definitions of nationality, we are more concerned with how a person is normally described, and what will give useful context to readers. That said, it would be unusual in my view to assign a nationality to a person merely because of what sports team that person played for. This is an issue that should be discussed on the article talk page, in this case on [[Talk:Devon van Oostrum It appears that neither you nor the other editor involved has yet done so. If you cannot come to agreement there, you can start with dispute resolution, perhaps with a third opinion. No edit honestly intended to improve the encyclopedia is "vandalism" even if it is incorrect or misguided. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope he is willing to discuss this with me--Danteday (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(e/c [followed by loss of internet connection].) Hi Danteday. I'm not sure about the underlying content dispute. I do have some comments though:

• No one has posted to the article's talk page (Talk:Devon van Oostrum). Talk pages are for discussion of issues of the article, and are the first place a content dispute about an article should try to be worked out civilly. I suggest using a ping there upon your post to the other person involved in the issue, just as I've pinged you to this response by linking your username and signing this post.
• If that is not fruitful (but remember Wikipedia is slow motion in many ways; don't expect a response will come within five minutes or even five hours, this issue is not one in my view that requires quick action) you can seek a third opinion, or maybe start an entry at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for more about these and others.
• I am not saying anyone has violated it. Just a heads up to avoid trouble. You and Bozalegenda should be aware of the three-revert rule, and our policy on edit warring in general, which the rule is a section of.
• Bozalegenda: you really needs to stop labeling good faith edits you disagree with as vandalism. That is a violation of community norms. Vandalism is about clear intent to harm. Even if you think an edit is terrible, and needs to be reverted, it is not "vandalism", and should not be labeled as such, unless it is quite clear that it was intended by the person to harm Wikipedia.
• Be aware of the WP:BURDEN section of our core verifiability policy. In short, some of the edits have involved removing unsourced content, noting it is unsourced. When that happens, it is bedrock policy such content cannot be returned unless the removed content is directly sourced, using a reliable source, cited through an inline citation.
• There may see some guidance for the underlying issue at Wikipedia's Manual of Style. I have not tracked down which section though (if any).

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the advice given above, but just a correction to your characterisation of part of the dispute, Danteday: Bozalegenda did not write that van Oostrum played for a British team, but the British national team (see the edit summary here). Playing for a British club would be a strange reason to describe someone as British, but playing for the national team is a much stronger basis for such a claim. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that note, Cordless Larry, it may be relevant. There have now been several posts to Talk:Devon van Oostrum, where I am trying to get a proper content discussion started. I have linked to and quoted relevant MOS guidance (from MOS:PLBLEAD). I have strongly urged the end of further edit-warring, and informed both parties that it can lead to a block. Thanks for your comments, Fuhghettaboutit, I fully agree with them. Additional eyes might be helpful, but this is a fairly ordinary content dispute, and can be settled like many others have been and will be. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Help

Can anybody explain a user here why I was trying to remove the extraneous images on the article Desert Cottontail? Also, in the article, he is editing while changing the complete meaning of the sentence, and as per the citation that I provided, I changed it back. However, he does not seem to listen to it. Also, he seems to continuously attack on the talk page provided above, despite me trying to kindly explain him the reason why I removed the unneeded images. Check this too. The user also changes the corrections made by me despite me explaining him the reasons. He does not even seem to read the citations that I provided. Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be a situation where involved parties need to take a step back for awhile, or even move on to different areas. There is much usage of the word "friend", however nothing in the behavior seems friendly. This is a losing battle, which has the potential to lead to further situations down the line. Furthermore, I would suggest keeping article discussions on the Talk page of the relevant article, instead of sitting on another user's talk page. As it currently stands, the talk page is basically empty, so another editor could come along and have no clue what they're stepping in. (*just my personal, unbiased opinion*) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 19:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, sadly I can't read the citation for the phrase in question ("You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book"), however the sentence as it currently stands is poorly constructed. If it's truly a direct citation, then I surely can't fault you for that, however I certainly wouldn't want my daughters coming across that sentence. :D - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 19:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

If you read his talk page, you would notice that I was consistently friendly while he was continuing to attack me. I explained him so many times that it makes no sense to be frustrated on Wikipedia, and that everybody on here are friends. Apparently, he has deleted all of that, so you can check the history for that. Also, the sentence written by him is completely different than what I had written, and also present in the citation (though rephrased due to copyvio). The citation does open for me. Could you click the link directly and check? https://books.google.co.in/books?id=L1qYYLeTx58C&pg=PT13 Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I read the conversation, hence my first comment. I've also been able to track down the page that the citation was pulled from, and unfortunately both of you were partially correct. While his sentence was grammatically correct, it didn't fully convey the idea that the writer was trying to send. While you included a touch more accuracy to the statement, the grammar was way off. (*hence my statement about the poorly constructed sentence*). Again, I think this is a situation that could have been handled more reasonably on the talk page for the article instead of having a back and forth on their talk page. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, so I did explain a lot of times and without attacking even for once. However, he did not keep his calm, and instead of correcting the sentence structure, he was just putting his sentence. If you read this conversation, you would understand. (Just check his English too, you will see many more flaws despite which I never attacked him in any way) Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

In either case, I've started the discussion at the article talk page. Personal back and forth between editors will not get the article to the place that it ultimately needs to be. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup. You are right buddy. However, he needs to understand my point of removing the extraneous images, which he might revert again. It is just like he changed my image repositioning earlier. He does not seem to understand the point I made on commons being for all the extra images, and not wikipedia articles. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

One thing at a time, and again -- on the article talk page. Discussions need to be based on the article, not anything to do with "he" or "I". - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Gotcha. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Adityavagarwal, Tricky Behavior by Kimberley Jane Pryor (like your earlier suggestion Daisy and Ducky Mallard by Judy Moulton) is a book for children. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a reliable source for a scientific article on a mammal species. Please reassure me that you do understand the difference. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not a self-published source, and Marshall Cavendish is a very big publishing company. Also, on verifying with other sources such as this and this, the information does look correct. It is also an independent source, and not a web citation (so increases the likelihood of being reliable). Also, please correct me if I miss out anything so that it would be useful in the future. Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Adityavagarwal. The post above does not imply to me that Justlettersandnumbers was indicating any problem with the source being self-published, nor by a small publisher, nor just a web citation, nor non-independent. Source use is contextual. What they are reliable for is contextual. To give you an example, a news article in The New York Times, a sterling source for many things, when it mentions in an article in the Fashion Section, by a fashion writer, some aside about quantum mechanics, is generally not a good source for an article on quantum mechanics theories, whereas, an article by a dedicated science writer appearing in the Science Times section of The New York Times, citing peer reviewed scientific journals dedicated to physics, might be. Children's books often simplify concepts for good reason and in general are not going to be go-to sources for science knowledge. See also WP:RSCONTEXT and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences)#Choosing sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for explaining. It does make sense. Also, one small question, that is it to be identified by the look of the book? (like cover page, and all) or is there any other way to know if it is a children's book? Yup, the previous two books in Just's comment are children's books (can be said by the looks of it), however, just so that I do not miss any in the future, could you say if I am correct, or there are other ways too? Fuhghettaboutit Adityavagarwal (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Adityavagarwal, with a couple of simple Google searches, I easily found many sources, including academic sources, that indicate that the Desert Cottontail freezes when it sees a predator, and runs in a zigzag pattern if it thinks an attack is imminent. Simply select a better source and add it to the article. As for determining whether this book is a children's book, Google Books categorizes it as "juvenile nonfiction". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Adityavagarwal, apart from the Google Books category which Cullen328 rightly points out, the main and obvious indicators that that book is for children are: the title; the cover; the page layout; the language of the text; and the limited amount of actual content in the text – all those things would be quite different if the book were intended for adults, still more so if it were intended for scientists. It's also published by a publisher of children's books, but I didn't know that and had to look it up. Fuhghettaboutit has given an excellent explanation of why a children's book is not a good source even if it has the facts right. If you have more questions, please ask away! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I understood where I went wrong. Thanks a bunch buddies to give such a nice explanation, and how could I have any questions after such a wonderful explanation? As always, questions asked in the teahouse (actually, not only teahouse but also in most user's talk pages too) are explained really nice. I will take care of it in the future. Thanks again. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-english citations in article on EN Wikipeida - allowed?

I'm trying to help a new user clean up an article he created Draft:Nenad Vasilic about a Serbian guy. The article has multiple issues, the main one being was no secondary sources for the non-NPOV claims being made. He's gone through and added a number, mostly in a Baltic language I assume is Serbian. I have no idea if they support the text of the article. - Is this okay? - Any other suggestions? Ta, AntiVan (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-English sources are allowed. See WP:NOENG. TranquilHope (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello AntiVan. While Google Translate (or other similar machine translations) is not good enough to create article content, if it is applied to non-English cited sources, it will often be good enough to let an editor who does not read the source language to see if the citation supports the statements it is cited for. Determining whether such a source is reliable is harder, but WP:RSN can help with that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DESiegel & TranquilHope - AntiVan (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Serbia is quite some way from the Baltic, AntiVan! ;-) Cordless Larry (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I'm well out of my depth here Cordless Larry do I mean Slavic? AntiVan (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought you might perhaps have meant Balkan, AntiVan. People get those two confused. Serbian is indeed a Slavic language, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Fractal Rainbow

What i have to do to inprove my page about "Fractal Rainbow"? Sure it is a good concept.... and WIKI will help to know it and to be improved by other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapifo (talk • contribs) 19:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: I have moved this question out of the section for another question, above. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dapifo. You need to demonstrate that the concept has passed Wikipedia's notability criteria by demonstrating that it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the concept's creator. The best sources here would be articles in scientific journals. At present, you're citing a self-published book, which isn't a good source at all for this kind of topic, and doesn't contribute to establishing the concept's notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted this draft as a blatant copyright violation of content from this site. Dapifo, see the message I left you about this at your talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

What i have to do to inprove my page about "Fractal Rainbow"? Sure it is a good concept.... and WIKI will help to know it and to be improved by other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapifo (talk • contribs) 18:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Dapifo please stop asking questions in threads (sections) on other topics. Also, please do not simply repeat a question. Fuhghettaboutit has told you that the article was delted because it was copied from an outside web site. The firat thing you cna do is to write future content for Wikipedia in your own words, not copied from elsewhere. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Dapifo... but before you spend more time on explaining the concept, you need to establish that it has been written about in independent reliable sources, not just in one self-published book. I'm not convinced that either the concept or the book is notable in the Wikipedia sense, but you are welcome to prove me wrong if you can. Dbfirs 21:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is article rejected

Hi,

I think my article might be rejected due to lack of references. The article is about a not-much-studied species of cactus and references are available, but obscure.

Should I include the old references (100 years old).

JoeSatxjoe (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, it is because you copied it from somewhere without permission. Dolberty (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it is fine to use 100-year-old documents as references, but you must not copy from them directly without attribution. Even if you are absolutely certain that the publications are out of copyright, it is still much better to give the information in your own words. If not much has been written about the species, then it might not be sufficiently notable to deserve its own article, but try to add more information and lay out the article with a lead section like other fuller articles, and try to find somewhere else that the species has been written about so that you have two references. Dbfirs 19:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the article is better suited for Wikispecies. Isn't their goal to have articles on all accepted species? I have created two Wikipedia plant articles with limited references, they were for a new genus and species. I do believe the references were of high quality.User-duck (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I find the people managing a page or a portal?

How do I know who are the people managing a portal in case I notice a mistake or something and but the editing keeps being rejected?

Minnin (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Minnin: Hello and welcome. Virtually all pages on Wikipedia have what is called a talk page; you should be able to access it by clicking the word "Talk" located at the top of the article. Once there, you can edit it to pose your questions. If you are referring to this edit you attempted to make, I can say that Islamic honorifics like that are usually omitted from articles, unless as part of a quote; please see this page for a better explanation. 331dot (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Minnin. There are no people who "manage" a page or a portal. Anyone may edit (almost) any page at any time. many articles have more or less regular editors who work on them with some frequency, but they do not have more rights than anyone else. See WP:OWN. However, that does not give anyone permission to violate Wikipedia's policies, such as neutrality. 331dot is correct that an article talk page is the place to discuss what does or does not belong in an article. It is also the place where the regular editors of a page are most likely to see and respond to a comment or suggestion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

got it, thanks !!

Minnin (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Uploading an article

I created an article (WILLIAM AV CLARK Geographer Demographer) it was sent back for revision I did the revisions but I cannot find the article. How do I find the text and upload. Please help WilliamAVClark (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@WilliamAVClark: Hello and welcome. It appears that you did not create the page while logged into the username that you are using now. I could not get any results while searching for the name of the article you gave. Did you create it in a Sandbox under a different username? 331dot (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The title of the article was William (Bill) Clark (Geographer- Demographer)

WilliamAVClark (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The unreviewed submission is at Draft:William (Bill) Clark (Geographer- Demographer). Nthep (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit confict) @WilliamAVClark: It's at Draft:William (Bill) Clark (Geographer- Demographer). It was resubmitted 26 May 2017 and is pending review. You are welcome to edit it before the unknown time where it will be reviewed PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, I have found the page which is located here. I think you edited it while logged out(which is why it doesn't appear under your username's edit history). It appears that you submitted the draft on May 25th and it is still awaiting review. As articles are reviewed by volunteers, it can take some time. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted this page as a copyright violation of this site. WilliamAVClark if you own this text (even though it reads more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article) you could only post it here after verifiably releasing its copyright to the world, irrevocably, into the public domain, or under a suitably free copyright license. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I now see the problem as I used material from a court report. If the page can be undeleted it would be a simple task to edit that text. I would be grateful for an undeletion so that I can edit and have the page reviewed thank you 45.50.161.221 (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry William, we cannot undelete copyright violations because they are a violation of law and have the prospect for legal liability. You can't copy and paste previously written material (or in the case, if this was your writing, as I advised above, you would have to go through the formal process to release the copyright). As we often tell people: "You may use external websites or other writings as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words." You should also understand (as relevant here) that copyright infringement is not avoided by surface modification of existing content, e.g., changing a word here and a word there, while substantially retaining the wording, structure and creative expression in the original material. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.

I don't understand what you mean about a court report, unless the content from the website I linked was reproduced there. To give an example from a larger swath of copied content, the draft said:

• "Clark has participated as analyst and expert witness in the major desegregation court cases which took up the question of how we can understand the patterns of ethnic and racial separation in large US cities..."

and the linked website says:

• "He has participated as analyst and expert witness in the major desegregation court cases which took up the question of how we can understand the patterns of ethnic and racial separation in large US cities..."

Regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

References

(Erm, I don't know what I was thinking above, but there's no way you can release the copyright, because, despite your account name, there's no way you are the subject—a college professor would have decades of experience with citing sources, not copying and proper paraphrasing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC))

What I am not understanding is why we cannot bring up the draft , it was not yet accepted to wikipedia, and I can then work on the draft - what you are requiring by deleting my not yet accepted page is requiring me to redo the total submission which is a lot of work. This does not seem a sensible response. I am not asking that the page be accepted simply that I can work on the draft. Please advise 45.50.161.221 (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

We cannot host material violating copyright - not in article space, not in Draft space, not in user space, or in any other space. Rmhermen (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

False edit

Can someone please tell me how an edit can appear under my name without me having made it. I refer to this edit which I did not do, the   appeared as soon as I opened the edit window. This kind of thing should just not happen. Jodosma (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jodosma: you must have done it as there is no way to change who made an edit. The edit summary "somebody is trying to make it look lie I did this but I didn't" also supports you having done it. My guess is that you somehow got to an edit window and typed that into the edit summary field thinking you had already made the edit, then submitted the edit. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I suspect the fact that the article is Witch-hunt may be relevant? ;-} - Arjayay (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Jodosma, are you using any tools to semi-automate your edits, like AWB? A few times I've seen tools like this make automatic suggestions based on rules they follow, that have left users wondering how some part of an edit they made got added. (But AFAIK you still need to click save or the equivalent in the programs, even if inadvertent). Other sources are things like Twinkle that will automatically make certain other edits if set to, based on one you invoke, like notifying the user based on a tagging you've done to an article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

That wouldn't explain the edit summary "somebody is trying to make it look lie I did this but I didn't", though, Fuhghettaboutit. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not make the edit but tried three times to stop it after previewing to prevent it appearing, without success, so just left it there so I could show what I was talking about. I have very few tools and in any case this has never happened before. @Nihonjoe: How does anyone know that Wikipedia can't be hacked, and @Arjayay: Witch-hunt? Give me a break! And I don't think this warrants a smiley. Jodosma (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) @Cordless Larry: You're right, and given it, that edit raises a specter of account compromise doesn't it? Jodosma, I don't know what is going on, but assuming you didn't do this, is it possible you stepped away from a public computer somewhere; do you have a little brother who might be messing with you that you might interrogate? etc.? I suggest changing your password immediately, to something strong.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jodosma: Please take a step back and chill. Nothing is 100% hack-proof, but I can guarantee you this kind of things just doesn't happen. Whether you like it or not, you made the edit, likely accidentally. Don't worry about it and move on. There's nothing to be concerned about. Wikipedia can be somewhat confusing for people new to the interface, and it's entirely within the realm of possibility (and far, far more likely than someone hacking in to make such an edit) that the edit was submitted accidentally. Just Let It Go. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you clarify the steps here, Jodosma? When you say you "tried three times to stop it after previewing to prevent it appearing", do you mean that you changed the text and previewed the change, but didn't save it? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jodosma: Though, as Fuhghettaboutit mentioned, you're welcome to change your password. Just go to Special:ChangePassword. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) @Jodosma: Your post above confuses me. It implies something else going on. I was under the impression you were saying you did not make the edit, entire, period, including the edit summary. Based on your post above, are you saying that: you wrote the edit summary; the issue is that when you clicked edit the   was automatically inserted, and you could not get rid of it, so you wrote the edit summary to flag the issue and then saved?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

After I had done my edit and noticed the intrusive one I started from scratch without saving anything, then clicked "edit" again and saw that the &.nbsp; appeared without me touching any key, I just scrolled to check it, then made my summary so that I could explain what had happened. Jodosma (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jodosma: are you using AWB or WikEd? Both have these have known issues/settings where sometimes non-breaking spaces are introduced without the editor doing anything. As others have said it's no big deal if this is the case. Nthep (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I have been using WikEd for a long time but this has never happened before. Could this happen randomly? Jodosma (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's happened to me before. Nthep (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jodosma: The article had the Unicode character U+00A0 which means a non-breaking space. wikEd automatically converts it to the HTML character entity   in accordance with MOS:NBSP: "Always insert hard/thin spaces symbolically ({{nbsp}}, {{thinsp}},  ,  ), never by entering them as literal Unicode characters entered directly from the keyboard." PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all, I think I get it now. Jodosma (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)