Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 309

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 305

←

Archive 307

→

Creating A New Page

So I am attempting to make a page on the new Dave Davies album but I don't know how to do the picture of the album, group name, label, length, and genre opener that always greets people when they open the page on an album. How do I construct that opener for an album that is the standard Wikipedia format that is used in most album articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua0228 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome! I think you are looking for the Infobox which can be found at Template:Infobox album. If you need anything don't hesitate to contact me at my talk page! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Accurate representation of company history

I am trying to appropriately edit our company (PMC-Sierra, Inc.) history pages, which is currently loaded with a bunch of one-liners about "In 200X, XXX people were laid off... In 20XX, XXX people were laid off... and on and on. It's not fair and it's not an accurate representation of our history. What can be done?

Ron

rmay2007

Rmay2007 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Are there lines of when the company was founded and milestones? I wrote on Rockview Farms you can check. Deesm (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rmay2007, the information you removed was referenced and no valid reason was given for its removal. As you pointed out it is baldly written as a list, but that is a reason to copy-edit not delete. By your own statement "I am trying to appropriately edit our company" and "not an accurate representation of our history" it's clear that you have a Conflict of interest and should not edit the article - and certainly not just deleting information to make it more palatable to your company. If any of the information is factually wrong, or you have good references for other history that would make it less negative, I would suggest adding such information/requests for change to the talk page of the article. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rmay2007, I have updated the history to reduce the list style - but all the information remains. A company having multiple rounds of redundancy is just as important as the acquisitions that you didn't attempt to delete. However now I think it represents the company as having had a bad number of years, but has since been growing/acquiring. I'm not a good copy-editor but hopefully its better. KylieTastic (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Article references and notability

Could someone please tell me if my article about RealSelf has enough notability? Also, let me know if there are any reference format changes that I need to complete. I'm still a beginner and would love the feedback! I want to make sure everything is correct.

Thanks! Realsimone Realsimone (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Realsimone, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, definitely, I would say that has enough notability and the references are fine. I would recommend that you add the "|date=" parameter to the cites (I added a couple), because often it's important when an article was published. I also added a "Cite needed" tag to one of the statements. If you can find a source for that, you can go ahead and delete the tag, or delete the statement, as it doesn't seem all that important to the article as a whole. Once you do that, I think it's ready to submit. Good job, thanks for adding this. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

New updates of Awards received by Korean boy band Got7

Kindly update the awards and nominations received by Kpop boy band Got7. I am fan. I knew they have already 16 awards for groups and 3 individual awards. but only 3 are recorded. These are: BEST KPOP ROOKIE GROUP OF 2014 from 1) SBS POP ASIA, 2)6th PHILIPPINES KPOP CONVENTION AWARDS, 3)2014 EATYOURKIMCHI AWARD and 4) 2014 INTERNATIONAL K-MUSIC AWARD (I.K.M.A) -JAPAKO MUSIC Another award for BEST NEW ARTIST from 5)2014 SBS MTV BEST OF BEST, 6)KPOP + MUSIC AWARDS 2014 and 7)JPOPASIA MUSIC AWARDS 2014(KPOP CATEGORY and 8)2014 SOOMPI AWARDS And also ASIAN NEW GROUP AWARD at 9)2014 YOUKU NIGHT other awards: 10) BEST FANDON VOTING in TWITTER, 2nd place. For individual award: There are 3. JACKSON for 11) MALE HOTTEST STAR at 6th PHILIPPINES KPOP CONVENTION AWARD, 12) BEST NEWCOMER ON VARIETY SHOW at 2014 SBS AWARDS and 13) BEST VARIETY STAR at 2014 SOOMPI AWARDS. Please update. Thank you. Jonah514 (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jonah514. The Teahouse is a place for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. It is not a place for K-pop fans to request other editors to carry out specific edits. Are these truly notable awards? Are the awards discussed in reliable sources? As a fan, are you capable of fully complying with the neutral point of view? If so, you can carry out the edits yourself. Read Referencing for beginners for instructions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jonah514 this suggestion is something best placed on the Talk: Got7 page, where you can discuss it with other editors that work on that article. :) Peachywink (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning up a talk page

The talk page on the Universal Medicine article is a mess Talk:Universal Medicine. Responses are posted in the middle of paragraphs asking questions, and there are cites at the bottom of the page that related to a section rewrite that now sits no where near them.

What's the correct WP etiquette for editing the page to try and bring some sense of order and therefore meaning to it so the discussion can be followed by all and entered in to by anyone who is interested? 79616gr (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have changed the url in your question to a wikilink. I have added {{reflist-talk}} templates to 2 sections of the talk page to keep the references in the sections to which they belong, but in both cases there seemed to be attempts to use at least one named reference without having defined it. I'll leave someone else to answer the rest, but if someone has posted responses in the middle of questions it might be wise to point this out to the relevant editor on their user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I realise now that in at least one of these cases the person posting to the talk page has copied material from one part of the article without worrying about whether this leaves references undefined when they are pasted into the talk page. Hopefully anyone sufficiently interested in the detail will be able to follow to where the detail is given in the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you David Biddulph that's a big help. 79616gr (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Am I permanently Barred from Editing/Writing?

My first article, updated one time, was in my sandbox and was deleted on the fast-track process. I believed the sandbox was a place where items in development would receive feedback. I am now puzzled. Do I start over or am I permanently barred from participating? titantenor 2601:D:3780:E33:980B:9C17:EF7:392D (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Titantenor. Your sandbox, as shown in its deletion log entry, was a blatant copyright infringement of existing copyrighted text, which was the reason it was deleted on a "fast-track process" here, called "speedy deletion". You are not permanently barred from editing/writing (though I must tell you that copyright violations are serious matters and people who continue to engage in them have their accounts blocked from editing). But here it looks like you were just unaware that you could not copy and paste content. Now that you are, just don't do this again.

The sandbox content (though I don't know if you were done with it) also suffered from one major problem that would have kept it from being accepted: It did not cite to any reliable sources that verified its content and demonstrated the notability of the topic. That is not a problem that would have resulted in speedy deletion, but it was one that would have kept the article from being accepted. So please bear that in mind – citing reliable sources is the key to the Wikipedia kingdom. The best way to write an article is to gather sources, digest them, and then let what they say guide your writing hand (in your own words, but citing to them) rather than writing what you know and then trying to back into sources later, if they exist. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What qualifies as paid editing

I was invited to write a new page and an entity offered to pay me for my time. They won't have any control over the content but is this still a form of prohibited paid editing? Deesm (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes that would qualify as paid editing, but if your article is unbiased and well written it is ok. There is no specific rule against paid editing, but there is against biased articles. Read WP:PAY for tons more information! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

To editor Deesm: One important thing to note in the page EoRdE6 linked is that if you proceed, you must disclose your affiliation. Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. And disclosing does not reduce the chances of an article being accepted? I guess well written is the key. 2602:30A:2C89:9E50:21C:B3FF:FEB8:28C8 (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutral is the first key. Reliable independent sources is the second. I.E. avoid press releases and company published information as far as you can. You should insure that there is "significant coverage" (I.e. more than a passing mention, or directory entry) from "multiple reliable independent sources" or the company is likely to be deemed not yet notable enough for an article. Good luck and... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

Where do you find a listing and explanation of Wikipedia markup language?

For instance, I discovered something called { { od } } (extra spaces inserted to prevent the margin-shift within this question) in an article. It shifted the discussion off indent and back to the left margin. But what does { { od } } mean, and stand for? And where would be a comprehensive list of Wikipedia markup language? Bruiserid (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wiki markup has a brief general introduction and a link to a very detailed internal document about Wikipedia's own use. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bruiserid. {{od}} stands for outdent. Also, you can use <nowiki></nowiki> tags to show markup like I did with {{od}}. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bruiserid. In addition to the comments above, I have found the Cheatsheet useful. If you want the details about a specific template (such as {{od}}) then you can just go to the normal Wikipedia search box and search for "Template:OD". This will tell more everything you could ever want to know, and more, about OD. In Wikipedia coding terms, a "template" is included inside double braces ({{...}}). Also, if you want to know how to do a specific task, such as making lists, then you can search for "Wikipedia:Lists" or just "WP:Lists" for short. And if all else fails, you can always come back and ask at the Teahouse! --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I just found a far more comprehensive listing, in case you need it, at Help:Wiki markup. Hope this helps! --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:DE

There is an editor that is making (what I consider to be) offensive and off-topic questions/remarks/edits on the TP. I have already spoken to them on their personal talk page about it, but they do not seem to care. What should I do? Darknipples (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Note - Topic replicated and covered above in section "Possible WP:UNCIVIL". ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

Can you please help me by giving me information of getting back my wikipedia account from deletion by the authority due to speedy deletion criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monirlawbd (talk • contribs) 06:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Monirlawbd, welcome to the Teahouse. Your account itself is not up for deletion, but rather the page you've written.

Please understand that Wikipedia is not for advertising, publicity, or social networking. If you want to have an article about an organization on Wikipedia, you need to find a significant number of reliable, independent sources that discuss it in detail (more information).

You should go to Articles for creation to rewrite the article, so there is a lesser chance of it being deleted. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 07:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Criticism of Wikipedia page should have a section about criticism of the Wikipedia Teahouse

Hello, on the criticism of Wikipedia page, should there be a section that points out criticisms of the Treahouse on the English Wikipedia? like to know th. Thanx. Frogger48 (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, @Frogger48: Wikipedia covers what is found in reliable, published sources. If the Teahouse has received criticism that has been covered in such sources (such as news sources, articles, journals, etc.), then it could potentially be added - but there hasn't been much coverage, if at all, as far as I'm aware. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there has been quite a bit of coverage of the Teahouse in reliable sources, and you can find links to five instances of such coverage in a yellow box at the top of the Teahouse talk page. The problem for Frogger48's proposal is that the coverage has been mostly positive instead of critical. If someone writes a critical article about the Teahouse hosts, I hope they mention me. I can always use some constructive criticism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What about critiscisms of Wikipedia from racial realists and white supremacists/black supremacists? Frogger48 (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia is unavoidable. In fact nowadays almost everything get criticized as different people have different opinions. We can not cover every opinion here on Wikipedia. But widely criticized areas usually mentioned. I believe we should first try to fix those issues rather than chasing after more criticism.--Chamith (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

{{ Hey, thanks for the help, your article could uuse a section on Wikipedia and cyberbulling though.Frogger48 (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Create an article

Hi I am writing articles about former football players . Can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.190.120 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to. What help do you need?Save Draft (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"G" sorting to "C" on a category page

OK I'm baffled. God Moves on the Water turns up (wrongly) under "C" in Category:Works about RMS Titanic. But (correctly) under "G" in Category:Blind Willie Johnson songs, Category:1929 songs and Category:Blues song stubs. W - as they say - tf? Narky Blert (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

PS I added that totally unnecessary DEFAULTSORT tag only to see if it made any difference. It didn't. Narky Blert (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Ok, I've gone ahead and fixed the issue for you. See what I did here. When adding a Category, don't put any of "|" in it. They will change where it appears in the listing. Just list each category individually. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

See more at Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort keys. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: @PrimeHunter: Gottit, thanks! (Slaps self on head, I've used that pipe trick before now to force list articles and the like to the head of a category, outside the alphabetic list.) Narky Blert (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

The articles that talk about pseudoscience seem to be pro-skeptic and anti-pseudoscience, in that the article are harsh towards the topics. What do you thing about this? ex. Naturopathy article labels natural medicine as dangerous and harmful. Frogger48 (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must be neutral but true as well. and it is true that they are dangerous as no proper scientific procedure or belief is used. though it may hurt some peoples' feelings, we can't help it.

For example; venomous snakes: like a cobra for instance. Cobra usually doesn't attack and bite until threat displayed. But when they do it is dangerous and thus it is there.

~"aGastya" ✉ let’s talk about it :) 08:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand. But, Lots of links used in these articles are from orgs that promote the Skeptic movement (like the Skeptic's Dictionary). Are sources like theses reliable, by standards of Wikipedia?Frogger48 (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a whole noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard dedicated to the subject of what is or isn't a reliable source. If you have specific sources that you want to enquire about that's the place to do it. Pseudoscience is also the subject of it's own guidance notes at WP:FRINGE/PS. Nthep (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What to do so the article I submitted is accepted

I submitted an article about the pianist and composer Arik Strauss and it was declined for reasons I don't understand. I was asked for sources and I don't know what is needed by that. I did put in external links reviews on his work posted in two important jazz music sites. Is it not enough? I await your reply. Thank you.ציפור שיר (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. In the grey box inside the pink box at the top of your draft it says: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you." The words which appear in blue in the original message are wikilinks, which in each case take you to useful information which ought to answer your question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 11:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You will see that the same message, with the same links, appear in the feedback message on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello David Biddulph. Thank you for your reply. As you advised I briefed through the instructions concerning adding inline citations and references to an article, but I still have a problem doing it. I wrote the article based on personal acqaintance with the musician and on the info he gave me. I don't have references except, maybe, those reviews I put in external links. Maybe he can find some more articles from before 25 years. He can try and look it up, but why couldn't it be accepted withouth it? (In the Hebrew version it was accepted as is). Please instruct me further. Again thank you.ציפור שיר (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

In the English Wikipedia if there are no published reliable sources independent of the subject then the article cannot exist. Verifiability is one of the basic tenets here. Your personal acquaintance counts as original research and is not acceptable as a source for an English Wikipedia article. The Hebrew Wikipedia may, of course, have different criteria, but they do not affect us here. If the subject receives published coverage at some stage in the future then of course an article can be written then. - --David Biddulph (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

New Article Creation and Citation Help

Please i am New to WIKI but i am interested in becoming an Editor i have started with a New topic on RAY BLAZE but was refused due to Citation and i have tried to read on how this works but Since am New still looking for may way around. Any Help will be Really appreciated on how to get the minimum standard for inline citations of my Article. Henryokeyia (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Two pages that will hopefully help you out: this essay will give you the basics of how to correctly add a citation, and this page explains the sort of citations that you need - many of those in your draft are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

How to message to another user

Hello, I undid an edit on the page Mauritius starling on the status section wich reported it as extinct by the IUCN but if you search for the species on the IUCN it doesn't appear so I undid it but this morning I came to see that an user has undid my edit how can I leave a message to him about the reasons I did it?Owlsofeurope (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Owlsofeurope. If you click on the "View history" tab at the top of any page, you can see a list of edits made to it - for Mauritius starling it looks like this. Here you can see that your edit was reverted by Gaff - next to his name is a link labelled "talk" which will take you to his talkpage. Click on the "New section" tab at the top of his talkpage to leave him a message. There's more information on using talkpages at WP:TALK. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Article rejected several time - need advice

Article written for client was rejected several times as too promotional. I've pasted the last rejected one and a recent update we want to submit. Can you give me advice? Thanks for the help.

This is not the place to post an article

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

SmileCareClub, Nashville, TN, a teledentistry1 company founded in 2014, provides orthodontic teeth straightening using a series of custom-designed, clear plastic aligners to gradually adjust teeth. The treatment, self-done by the patient at home, is overseen by an affiliated dental professional (licensed in the patient’s state).2 It is appropriate for patients age 15 and over with mild to moderate malocclusion and not recommended for severe orthodontic issues.3 It offers an alternative to metal braces and aligners done in a dental office. SmileCareClub rebrands and repackages the FDA-approved invisible aligners.4

The Treatment Process The patient takes an online smile assessment. A 3D computer scan is done and a series of custom, clear plastic aligners are designed by an orthodontic lab. The aligners (changed every 3 weeks to gradually adjust teeth) are worn 24 hours a day (removed for eating, brushing, and sports activities). The treatment, normally completed in 4 – 14 months includes retainers and a teeth whitening system.

References 1. Jampani, Nutalapati, Dentuna, Boyapati. “Applications of teledentistry: A literature review and update.” Journal of Int. Soc. of Preventive & Community Dentistry. Retrieved 17 February 2015. 2. "eVisits: the 21st century housecall". Deloitte. 2014. Retrieved 19 January 2015. 3. Saint Louis, Catherine. "Straighter Teeth by Mail". Well Blog New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 3 February 2015 4. "FDA". FDA.gov. FDA. Retrieved 19 January 2015.

SmileCareClub, LLC is a Nashville, Tennessee, based company that connects individuals seeking correction for mild-to-moderate malocclusion with licensed healthcare providers. The company partners with dental professionals in the United States to facilitate teeth straightening treatment done at home using a series of clear plastic invisible aligners that gradually adjust the teeth. Through the remotely performed process of teledentistry1, teeth straightening is completed at a lower cost to patients, making the service accessible to patients who typically do not elect to straighten their teeth due to the associated cost and time constraints.2 As the dental and orthodontic professions adapt to improved connectivity and increased insurance coverage for remote treatments, new and disruptive delivery methods have emerged.[3] Many professionals have resisted the change, but more complicated cases are referred to participating professionals.4 The telehealth industry increased 400% in 2012 (one in six visits were virtual in 2014) in the U.S. [5] History and management team[edit] SmileCareClub, founded in 2013, is backed by the Camelot Venture Group6], a private equity group that invests primarily in direct-to-consumer companies in sectors including online, retail, technology, financial services and sports management. Executives David Katzman, Jordan Katzman, Alex Fenkell, and Doug Hudson combined business experience includes:1800contacts, HearingPlanet.com, DiabetesCareClub, CPAPCareClub and RxCareClub.The company has facilities in Tennessee and Michigan.7 Treatment Process[edit] The evaluation and treatment process begins with an online smile assessment and dental impressions done at home (via a mailed kit or a visit from a licensed dental technician). After the scan or impressions are evaluated, a 3D model is created plotting the gradual movement of the teeth. Treatment is prescribed by an affiliated professional in the patient’s area (in 43 states)8 and a series of clear plastic aligners are custom-designed to gradually shift teeth to the desired position. Each aligner (received by mail) is worn for a period of three weeks and must be used a minimum of 22 hours per day. The treatment takes between 4-14 months, depending on correction needed. The cost is lower than that of braces and aligner treatments involving office visits.9 SmileCareClub is FDA-Approved10] as a Repackager/Relabeler. The aligners are fabricated at a partnering orthodontic lab and SmileCareClub rebrands and repackages the FDA-approved invisible aligners.

References[edit] 1. Jump Up Jampani, Nutalapati, Dentuna, Boyapati. “Applications of teledentistry: A literature review and update.” Journal of Int. Soc. of Preventive & Community Dentistry. Retrieved 17 February 2015. 2. Jump up^ Smith, Ernie. "DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME: ORTHODONTISTS WARN AGAINST HOME REMEDIES". www.associationsnow.com. Associations Now. Retrieved 7 February 2015. 3. Jump up^ Kennedy, Eleanor. "Telemedicine: Where it works best". www.bizjournals.com. Nashville Business Journal. Retrieved 11 February 2015. 4. Jump Up “Meet SmileCareClub”. The Progressive Orthodontist. Q1 2015: 33. Retrieved 17 February 2015. 5. Jump up^ "eVisits: the 21st century housecall". Deloitte. 2014. Retrieved 19 January 2015. 6. Jump up^ "Camelot Venture Group". Camelot VG. Retrieved 19 January 2015. 7. Jump up^ Kennedy, Eleanor. "This Nashville startup wants to fix your smile from afar". Nashville Business Journal. Retrieved 10 February 2015. 8. Jump Up Saint Louis, Catherine. "Straighter Teeth by Mail". Well Blog New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 3 February 2015. 9. Jump up^ Strong, Bernadette. "Do-It-Yourself Tooth Straightening? No. Mail Order Orthodontics? Maybe.". Youth Health Mag. Retrieved 7 February 2015. 10. Jump up^ "FDA". FDA.gov. FDA. Retrieved 19 January 2015.2601:6:1500:9600:9984:C4CE:15D5:E405 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

2601:6:1500:9600:9984:C4CE:15D5:E405 (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It feels to much like a ad. Try rewriting it in a encyclopedic way. Clubjustin3 (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, 2601:6:1500:9600:9984:C4CE:15D5:E405. I'm afraid that you and your client are under a misconception about Wikipedia. To first approximation, Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject (whether a person or an organisation) has to say about themselves, or what they have published. Wikipedia is mostly interested in what other people, unconnected with the subject, have written about the subject, and published in reliable places. Ideally, every single piece of information in an article should be individually referenced to a reliable published source, and most of them to sources unconnected with the subject. I can't easily look at the references in your draft above, but it does not look to me as if many of them, if any, are independent articles that write substantially about SmileCareClub (The Nashville Business Journal looks from its title as if it might). You need to find several such sources, all unconnected with the SmileCareClub or its funders, and base the article should say almost nothing that is not in one of these sources.

Further, the article should be written in a neutral way, and take into account all published views on the subject (critical as well as approving). This is difficult for somebody connected with the subject to do, which is why editing with a conflict of interest is discouraged. Paid editing in particular is rather strongly discouraged, (and in my personal opinion, any organisation or person who pays somebody to work on a Wikipedia article about them creates the presumption that they are doing so for their own interests rather than Wikipedia's).

So, if you wish to continue, you need to declare your paid status (preferable create a Wikipedia account, in order to have a static user page on which to do this); find substantial independent writing about the organisation, published in reliable places, and base your writing pretty well exclusively on those; read the links above, and also about neutral point of view and your first article; and use the article wizard to draft it in a separate workspace and then submit it for review. --ColinFine (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

How to find neutral senior editors for the sexism article

Good evening,

I tried adding some examples of sexism against men into the, nothing big that would change the overall. However, there are two senior editors which block any attempts and there is already a long and futile discussion on the talk pages. They block me and other with a ton wiki acronyms and regulations, and I am not too frustrated to carry on by myself. However, I do believe something should be done, because currently the article is too suggestive to be part of and encyclopedia.

I think the article needs some serious reworking for three reasons: 1) It is manly a collection of examples (often strongly suggestive) and not an encyclopedia article (please compare it to the racism article). 2) There is no systematic information about research on that topic given. 3) Although media coverage and research focus almost exclusively on sexism of men against women, other combinations should be also part of the article (i.e. women-women, men-men, women-men).

The result should be a scientifically sound and fairly neutral article.

Where can I find some people which are experienced in wiki editing and sufficiently neutral to improve this article?

Kind Regards, Lucentcalendar (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome. While we can't change the behavior of other editors, I can suggest a few things. Make sure all contributions are supported by reliable sources. Second, make good use of edit summaries explaining what and why you are doing something, maybe making reference to your post on the talk page. Third don't remove too much content in one edit. This concerns editors into instant reversion without thinking. Do it in steps with explanations for each removal. Good luck! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings here in the Teahouse to you Lucentcalendar. Your comment has piqued my interest quite a bit and I have been very busy in the sexism article trying to get it cleaned up. It reads more like a magazine article to me. I just wanted to point out one thing at this point, and that is that there are really no senior editors. We all have the same rights and responsibilities and privileges. I invite you to return to the sexism article and give me some of your thoughts.

Bfpage |leave a message 23:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect move help

I moved an article to its correct title, because I thought it was a new article. However, the article was a 2006 redirect that was correct, but had been incorrectly turned into an article on a different topic (where I moved it).

Can anyone fix the mess or tell me how to, as it seems that edit histories are very important and the original redirect with its edit history should remain.

I turned Tuberous sclerosis complex into Tuberous sclerosis complex tumor suppressors because that is what the stub article, which I found in Uncategorized from January 2015, was about. However, Tuberous sclerosis complex was a redirect created in 2006 to Tuberous sclerosis, and an editor incorrectly edited it to be about Tuberous sclerosis complex tumor suppressors, an entirely different topic. The original redirect should be left as it was, the article I moved should be at Tuberous sclerosis complex tumor suppressors. MicroPaLeo (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a quick look and see if I can. For future reference Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests is a good place for this sort of thing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

Thanks. It seemed straigth-forward, as if the article had just been created and left uncategorized, though. I am a little lost in the mess, and I appreciate the help. MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It's done, there was a little confusion as the page you changed was Tuberous Sclerosis Complex, not Tuberous sclerosis complex ... both now redirect to Tuberous sclerosis. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

That's why when I looked again, it looked like it had been done on one end. Thanks! MicroPaLeo (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

how to insert my user name in these posts

I created a sign-in but don't know how to id myself in these posts. Thanks for your help. jeannef 2601:6:1500:9600:9984:C4CE:15D5:E405 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse. You currently aren't signed into your account, which is why you appear to be editing from an IP address. Head over to Special:UserLogin to log into the account you created. You can then sign your posts as you just did, by instering four tildes (~~~~) after your message. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Another way to log in is the "Log in" option in the top right corner of the screen. (This is on a PC; not sure where it is if you're using a phone.)--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Article for creation

Hello. I think an article should be created on the chips Australian snack food "Grain Waves". I have attempted and failed. I found this place on Wikipedia called articles for creation but I didn't understand it. I thought it might have been a place where you suggest an article to be made but I don't know. The snack itself is notable enough to warrant an article. It's is as notable as anything in the product list Here. You Can easily find references for it. If someone where to create it I would definitely contribute. But it's the initial creation process I am struggling with. Ping me of a reply. DangerousJXD (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: Hi DangerousJXD. I just performed a few Google Books searches of "Grain Waves", each with a delimiter included to remove false positives (such as snack, smiths and so on) and failed to find a single reliable source discussing this snack food in any detail. The existence of reliable sources discussing a topic in detail and which sources are independent from the topic is the basis for having an article. Finding such sources first, seeing what they say, and then writing based on that while citing to them, is the best way to write here. I will gladly start the article if you can provide a links to a number of sources. My failure to find any, though, makes me think this topic may not warrant one, and might better remain a simple listing as one of Smith's products in its article (and that it should not be red-linked). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. articles for creation is a guided forum for users to write an article and then submit it for review and acceptance. There is a dedicated forum to suggest that an article on a particular topic be created as you were looking for, Wikipedia:Requested articles, but in my experience it's like dropping a penny down the Challenger Deep. That is, there are numerous listings at that forum's various pages from years and years ago that haven't been touched.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Singer qualification

I am just wondering about qualifying as a singer. Does an actor/actress who sand in a film be considered a singer? Take for example Keira Knightley in her film Begin Again, she sings in the film but she's not considered a singer by the media. Rather, she's just considered an actress.Save Draft (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Save Draft: I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place: this page is for assistance with editing Wikipedia. You might ask at the Entertainment section of the Reference Desk. My personal answer, for what it's worth, is that there's rarely a single answer to an "is X considered a Y" question unless you say who is doing the considering. But somebody who started their career singing and then went into acting is more likely to be considered a singer, while somebody who did the reverse is less likely. Somebody who started in musical theatre, both acting and singing from the start, is more likely to be considered both. --ColinFine (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much ColinFine! I'm sorry for my mistake of posting here. I will refer to that inquiry board you suggested. Again, many thanks!Save Draft (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

How to combat a political party deleting any information they deem unfavourable for their party

In this page in particular; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBD_and_South_East_Light_Rail there appear to be a number of usernames directly linked (through examining their edit and creation histories) to one political party. They remove any factual information they appear to perceive as damaging for their party. They normally do not give any reason nor do they communicate to question any items they delete. I have been attempting to provide a balanced/neutral page with all material sourced from verifiable/reputable sources including the project's own material, Hansard (for dates and Parliamentary orders etc) as well as published newspaper articles. The edits (mainly entire deletions) made of my and others contributions or corrections to selective and misleading quotes from Media Releases (leaving out the first part of a sentence that places the included text in context) provide no justification. How should I and others progress?

Thanks for your time.

regardsA M R Sydney (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)A M R SydneyA M R Sydney (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, A M R Sydney, and welcome to the Teahouse. I took a look at the material you've been adding, and it looks like right away you've run into one of the most difficult problems we have with neutrality. In addition to being reliably sourced, there is the question of due weight. You may feel that all of that material is necessary to understand the issues, but others may feel that we don't need to go into that level of detail. Especially when a topic is controversial, with pro- and anti- viewpoints, you sometimes see one side trying to prevent the other side from adding all of the details that it would like. The best course in this case is to step back and look at it from the viewpoint of our best secondary secondary sources. What do they consider to be important? Obviously the cost is going to be important, so that should be described in some detail. Specific bus routes or documents that may or may not exist, maybe not so much.

I also looked at the edit history of the editor who removed a big chunk of your material, and it looks like he has done a lot of work on other rail lines. So rather than politics, it may be that he is just really interested in rail transport and has some experience in writing articles about it. I'd suggest more communication on the talk page. You could ask what objections he had to that material, and make your case for why you think it's important. This is a good process because often it's a way to identify the points that everybody can agree on as important, and the best sources. He for his part should have given better reasons in his edit summary and discussed his concerns on the talk page before acting. So that's what I would suggest. If you can find points of agreement, then it's likely that our readers will interested in those points too, and concentrating on them will improve the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

How to transfer document out of sandbox to the encyclopedia

I have written an article in the sandbox about the Eureka Quartzite formation. Now, I want to make it an official Wiki entryAhlitanah (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ahlitanah, welcome back to the Teahouse! You can edit the sandbox and add the code {{subst:submit}}. This will submit it for review to make sure it's appropriate. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Created a page, submitted for editing. Need to pass along contact information (changed companies)

Hi - i created, well tried to create a page called "Gravity Media," while working for the advertising agency by that name. I followed all the rules, cited lots of third party sources and build a nice robust post. I left the agency, but would like to pass along the information necessary to follow up with the page - or a link so they can further edit while its in review, etc. How do I find the page? I can not recall my log-in information. Thanks. Adam 01:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:5100:854:B0C2:B2CB:8DAE:7CBB (talk)

All Wikipedia accounts represent individuals; if anyone would like to work on the page further, they would need to make a new account, and make it clear that a/ it represents an individual and b/that the individual represents the company and therefore has a WP:Conflict of Interest. But placements on a list, minor awards--especially when they are not for first place--, and mere announcements, do not make for notability--you need in depth articles about the firm. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Page View Statistics

Anybody here know what's wrong with this extension? I've been using this feature for a long time even before officially joining as editor and it doesn't update regularly as it did before. It's really interesting to view article traffic and how it co-relates to the news cucle of a particular subject. Anybody know when will be fixed? Save Draft (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Save Draft! You will need to contact the maintainer of the tool, Henrik, with any problems with the tool. Unfortunately, Henrik has gone mostly inactive (last edit was in August of last year) since c. 2012, and you may not get a response. Anyway, good luck and thanks for your contributions and copy-editing (you may want to join the Guild of Copy Editors). Esquivalience ^t 03:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for being very acommodating and kind! I will surely check out that guild! Thanks again! Save Draft (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible WP:UNCIVIL

I tried to post a question earlier but it didn't seem to take. There is an editor that is asking (what I consider) offensive and off-topic questions. I have already asked them to stop on their talk page and they do not seem to care. What should I do? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Darknipples (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse DN. I looked at the comments from the other editor and found them to be annoying, but I've seen a lot worse. As long as there isn't a reverting war going on my best advice is to not communicate with this editor if at all possible. Discussions taking place on talk pages can often get incredibly rude and disruptive. On a personal level, if I know that I am annoying someone I will do what I can to stop being that way. Your interactions on this other editor's talk page probably won't resolve anything for either of you. If you would really like someone to leave a comment and ask the editor in question to "play more nicely" I can do that, but I really don't think it would do much good. Remember the Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing and at this point I'm not sure I really accomplished anything for you.

Bfpage |leave a message 01:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bfpage: There ~~is a~~ may be dispute on edit war-ing, but it is with another editor and the one I am referring to. If you could ask them to please consider why their comments and questions are offensive it would be appreciated. Is there any other recourse that might work? Something that deals with stereotypes and name-calling? Darknipples (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I recommend you work on a different page for awhile, and not continue to engage. See WP:DISENGAGE RudolfRed (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

If you feel I should disengage from dealing with that particular editor I agree, however, my passion for WP began with this article, and I do not see how allowing them to drive me away does anyone any good, with all due respect. Am I "wrong" in coming to the TEAHOUSE to discuss this issue? Darknipples (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel your pain, DN. I have been editing for less than a year, so I don't have nearly the experience of the other people who will give you answers here in the Teahouse, but perhaps that also means I am closer to those initial experiences which you talk about. In my less mature days, I got involved in some very heated discussions with another editor, who turned out to be employed by the organization whose page I was editing. I was right, and I knew I was, and I could document from every angle to show I was, but he kept thwarting me. Eventually in frustration, I asked for advice here in the Teahouse. Two surprising things happened. Firstly, one of the senior editors here reverted my changes, saying that I had breached a guideline. Secondly, and most valuable of all, I was advised to step away for a week and do other things. I thought that was about the dumbest idea I had ever heard, but I took the advice anyway. I edited other pages, nothing to do with the problem one. I debated questions with all sorts of other editors and we reached consensus. I learned more about editing and the guidelines and what makes for a better Wikipedia. In the end, it was about a month before I came back to that "problem" article. When I did, as if by magic I could see what those other folks had been talking about. I approached the issue from a very different viewpoint, had no problems with the other editor, and the resulting changes I came up with are still there today.

So to answer your questions from a not-quite-beginner's standpoint:

I think it is okay to ask questions like that in the Teahouse. You may not get the answers you wanted or expected, but they just might be the answers you need.
Walking away and throwing yourself into something else (at least for a time) helped me a lot; it might help you too. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Your advice makes sense and I am taking you up on it. However, when I return in a week, if these issues are unresolved and the article goes to shambles, I'll be coming to you personally for some support ;-) Thanks for the advice, and rest assured it is being taken to heart. Darknipples (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Gronk Oz for some very good advice. Let's break down how this dispute started. The editor in question edited Gun show loophole, adding a statement that "gun school loophole" is a term that only gun control advocates use, and their edit summary said "only hoplophobes use this phrase". For those unfamiliar with the "inside baseball" terminology of U.S. gun politics, hoplophobe is an obscure term that means someone who has an irrational fear of guns. Some gun rights activists use the term to describe their opponents in polemics. Its opposite is, perhaps, "gun nut", which is at least easier to understand, but also commonly used in polemics. The edit summary, on its face, seems to refer to people in the "real world", as opposed to Wikipedia editors in general, or ~~Lightbreather~~ Darknipples in particular. If the edit is incorrect, the best response is to point to reliable sources other than known gun control advocates who use the phrase "gun show loophole", which may include government agencies, neutral academics who take no stand on gun control issues, or reliable publications which have not endorsed gun control. Another response might be to calmly explain that you, personally, have no fear of guns. Instead, ~~Lightbreather~~ Darknipples, it seems that you chose to take offense and set out on a campaign of chastising the other editor. Quite predictably, things went downhill from there.

The best thing to do when someone throws out "argument bait" is to ignore the bait, search for the substance in the other editor's view of things, and to address that concern calmly and rationally. So where is the calm response about the range of reliable sources other than known gun control advocates, who use the phrase "gun show loophole", without a critical or ironic stance? That is by far the best way to respond.

One of the great advantages of evolving into a general purpose editor interested in a wide range of topics as opposed to a single purpose editor is that you realize that countless articles need your help, that this encyclopedia must accommodate a wide range of views, that there are bitter disputes where you have no "dog in the fight", that the ability to evaluate all sides of a dispute can be cultivated and developed, and that the neutral point of view is probably the most important attribute that every serious, long-term Wikipedia editor should cultivate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me, Cullen328, but you seemed to have referred to me as Lightbreather...

"Instead, Lightbreather, it seems that you chose to take offense and set out on a campaign of chastising the other editor. Quite predictably, things went downhill from there."

If so, you are very mistaken. It also seems as if you are defending the stereotype of gun control advocates as "hoplophobes". Forgive me if I'm incorrect in my perception...Also, if you feel I am merely a "sock" of Lightbreather's, let's request a "checkuser" (whatever that is). Darknipples (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Sorry, but this is not what I expected. I am very disappointment by this. I came here for help, and now I feel as though I'm being tricked into saying something that isn't true. Now where am I supposed to turn? Darknipples (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologize to you, Darknipples, for referring to you by another editor's name. I am very tired and pretty old, and accidentally used the name of another editor active on that page, and I do regret that error. If it seems to you that I am defending the use of the term "hoplophobe", then I think you may be influenced by my editor name error. Since I assume good faith of you, and assume that you strive to be a neutral editor, then I also assume that you would object as strongly to calling any person a "gun nut" as you would object to calling any person a "hoplophobe". But we both know that all kinds of name calling goes on every day. Recently, I observed that feminist editors are not actually being systematically purged from Wikipedia, and got called a misogynist by some random person who made no attempt to learn anything about me as a person. They didn't look at my edits or article work in the area of women's biographies, for example. I let the insult go, like water off a duck's back. I recommend the same strategy to you. I didn't mention "sock" and again apologize for confusing you with another editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen. After my recent experience with such uncivil editors at GSL, I am a bit touchy, considering there seems to be no recourse for me other than to just "give up" for a while. Please accept my apology as well. Darknipples (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The best recourse is to work on other topics. Though this may be your primary interest here, surely there are other things that interest you also. We have, for example, many articles on guns and similar topics that greatly need expansion, if you know where to find good references for them DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Het, Is there an Article in Wikipedia that lists some of the flaws and mistakes that were made by scholarly and academic groups

He y, is there a page within Wiki that shows and points out the flaws, errors and mistakes as well as unintentional bias and distortions accidently made by (resources that are often accurate and be giving a neutral point of view), like universities and professors (toward a certain country, ethnic group or continent - (for example a peer-reviewed study on a topic is carried out by a large group of universities in a single continent or country and upon subjects from a single country, continent or ethnic group) from scholarly and academic groups, reliable and notable magazines, books (such as books published by university presses), scholarly and scientific journals, and educational films and lectures from universities? what if there isn't. I think a list could be made on this, if there s not already a page abon this for here. Thankyou very. Frogger48 (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Frogger48. I have not seen such an article, and I seriously doubt that such a thing would be possible. The nature of progress is to replace one understanding with newer, more accurate ones - over and over as we learn more. In Newton's day, his Laws of Motion represented our best state of knowledge. Later, Einstein changed that with Special Relativity. Then again with General Relativity. Then along came Quantum Mechanics ... you get the idea. Every one of the earlier models could be called "wrong" (although I think "incomplete" may be a more accurate depiction). And the same process takes place in every field of science. And economics. And architecture. And plumbing. And medicine. And ... you get the idea.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Gronk Oz, personally, I am not being antagonistic here, are you certainly 100% on this? Oh, and do you have universal, genuine evidence to support your claim? That would really help me a lot! Thank you very much, and have a goood day. Frogger48 (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Frogger48 I see you and Gronk Oz are addressing different questions. For the sort of thing I think you have in mind see Scientific misconduct, Academic dishonesty, Hoaxes in science, Scientific controversies, Retraction -- with it's list of specific cases, and all the many articles covered listed in the Category Category:Scientific misconduct. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

How to create a new page?

How do I create a new page? Son of All (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

you click a red link Valehd (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and Teahouse! First of, I left you a welcome message on your talk page to help you get started on Wikipedia. Second, how to create a new page, you first want to ensure that your article subject meets notability criteria and has been covered by reliable sources. Now tot he creating part, Wikipedia has several pages to help you get started, however I would suggest Articles for Creation, a friendly place where you could start an article with assistance and reviewing of experienced editors. Click "Click here to create an article now!" button and it will guide you through, with pre-filled templates to give you a base start. ///EuroCarGT 04:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Help Editing

So I was going to rewrite and resource a fairly large article and I have done 2 sections however I the article is a mess (wrote the problems in the talk page). Just wondering if there is a place I can post the article for it to get edited or if someone would do it. I'm still relatively new and this would take me ages. The article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Creek_Center Thanks Wrightie99 (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome! I'm afraid Wikipedia has an eternal backlog, if you really want something done, you've got to be bold and just do it. It can always be done in parts, or the draft space and then moved. Good luck! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrightie99, I can start you off with some specific advice, based on what has been considered good practice for similar articles. Remove statements of praise, such as " This building will offer exciting opportunities for Salt Lake City". That's pure puffery. Trim the space for routine features--they needn't be described in detail. remove names of tenants except perhaps the major flagships. Be careful with statements about what is hope for in the future. Document everything with a 3rd party reference--especially statements of controversy--major newspaper reports are what's need for that. Remove the duplication of the information from 99 West--either combine the two articles or just make a link. Remove then image gallery that shows nothing important, such as the part of the center occupied by a grocery store--they go in a publicity booklet, not an encyclopedia.

We do have a backlog, but even though I cannot rewrite every article that needs it, I will always try to offer specific assistance to anyone asking in evident good faith. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'l start going through the article Wrightie99 (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)