![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page. |
Archive 975 | ← | Archive 980 | Archive 981 | Archive 982 | Archive 983 | Archive 984 | Archive 985 |
Dear Folks,
I have created a new page entitled Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria. It happens that formal research that I have just had published indicates that the Sugarloaf Creek pastoral station, founded in 1837, was more notable than has ever been recognised. There has never been a Wikipedia for this Sugarloaf Creek.
But I cannot get the title searchable. If I search google with 'Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria' (without quotes of course), I do not get it.
How do you fix it.
Thanks,
Mwill66 ( talk) 06:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
All new articles have a "noindex" tag attached to them that tells Google not to index them. The tag is removed when a patroller reviews the article, and experience tells me that once that is done, it will be indexed by Google within minutes and you can then immediately find it by searching.
There is a large backlog of articles waiting to be reviewed (as in several months long), so Wikipedia is also set to automatically remove the "noindex" tag after 90 days, even if the article has not been reviewed by anyone, and in theory, this should make it available for indexing by Google. However, this doesn't actually seem to make Google index the article - even after the 90-day mark passes and the tag comes off, I have found that they still won't index my articles until a patroller marks them as "reviewed", anyway.
Long story short, as others above said, you just have to sit tight and wait (usually for several months) for a patroller to get to your article and review it. I have several articles that have been waiting 3 months already and still aren't indexed by Google because they haven't come up for review yet, so be patient. It takes a while due to the backlog. Lilipo25 ( talk) 10:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The Polish Chicken Wikipedia page < /info/en/?search=Polish_chicken> contains a whole lot of speculations about the origin of this breed of birds. I understand that this breed has been bred for a long time in Holland and eventually registered in the US as of Dutch origin, but that doe's not mean that the information recorded in US poultry association is reliable, valid, and relevant.
Somewhere in the second paragraph, I found something a somewhat ludicrous revelation, that the bird's name Polish (or Poland) is derived from the Middle Dutch word "pol". Let's be serious. Similarly, the author of the note might want to derive the name of the country of Poland from this Dutch word. Is this the standard we a hoping to provide in Wikipedia? My belief is, that as long as the authors speculate their statement is burdened with many risks of cognitive distortions that result in the circular logic type of argument, where conclusion becomes its premise. In my opinion, this kind of speculations should not be included in a text that has the ambition to serve as a source of popular knowledge. I am asking the editors to critically review this thread.
Another weak thing is supporting the text with popular guides' references. Look, we live in times of print-on-demand and self-publishing, and every literate layperson person can at any time become a self-made expert in popular knowledge. That's what some references provided here look like. Let's have a look at the first sentence: <The oldest accounts of these birds come from The Netherlands; their exact origins are unknown, however.[1] (Carol Ekarius, 2007)>. The Ekarius book is very carefully published but it is by a small Publishing house. Ekarius is their livestock expert with diverse interests < https://www.storey.com/author/carol_ekarius/>. In the second paragraph of her book < https://archive.org/stream/Storeys_Illustrated_Guide_to_Poultry_Breeds_Complete/Storey's%20Illustrated%20Guide%20to%20Poultry%20Breeds%20Complete#page/n3/mode/2up>, p.145, Ekarius explains that "In spite of the name, the Polish breed is not from Poland" (no reference), and further: "The breed as we know it today comes from Holland,..." (no reference, no details) and further: "... (where Polish birds show in paintings dating back to the fifteenth century) but its beginnings are unclear." (no references about the source form Mrs. Ekarius, no particulars about aforementioned paintings or painters). This is unsubstantiated claim and is an unsupported opinion, and even if printed in a book, I don't think it fits the standard, Wikipedia should be aiming at.
I do not know where this breed comes from. I am Polish and, of course, it would be nice to feel a historical-cultural relationship with this bird that is loved my so many. I know that it appeared here and there in Polish literature and visual art (at least in what was not damaged during the two world wars and the country partitions during the entire nineteenth century, i.e., at the time of the documented breeding in Holland), but it would not be acceptable for me, to force in my beliefs and wishes where I don't hold strong evidence.
Please, take a critical look at the Wikipedia text on Polish Chicken, and where possible, please verify the references, add a relevant in-text citation or revise the text deleting the information which is not evidence-supported. We cannot post unsubstantiated statements, are we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasia Polish ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm trying to edit an article, "Human sexuality" and I don't think I did it right. I have all my information in a google doc but i'm still confused in how to publish/add my work into the article. Varzolao ( talk) 19:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Lately I've noticed small, colored icons appearing in users' signatures. Example:|😹|✝️|. Is this a feature of Wikipedia? Are they encouraged? Does WP have a way of constraining their use, or, at least, preventing their display to certain users? Thanks, Quisqualis ( talk) 23:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Liz: To me, your signature looks OK, and I can still see from its highlighting you're an adminstrator - unlike Lourdes whose admin status is not visible from their signature, which I find misleading (especially after what I seem to remember happening after their RFA.) Goldenshimmer's is pointless as far as I perceive it. Pretty, but totally not needed, and confusing to other editors. There - I told you I was old-fashioned! Nick Moyes ( talk) 10:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
admin status? — Rutilant ( talk) 10:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
"...unlike Lourdes whose admin status is not visible from their signature, which I find misleading (especially after what I seem to remember happening after their RFA.)"is spot on. My signature is like this because I want to mislead people, especially after what happened post my RfA. I'm pleased you've summarised it well. Thank you. Lourdes 14:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC) (Check the new blue color in my signature. I think it rocks. What do you think? Oh, I already have the answer. MISLEADING!)
Hello,
Can you please tell me if this page is good to go online ? /info/en/?search=Draft:MissWrite
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommErt ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
{{subst:submit}}
at the top of your draft and see what feedback you get. :) However, I think it's better to move
Draft:MissWrite to
Draft:Eurailtest before submitting. --
CiaPan (
talk)
15:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Is it OK to cite a physical copy or a physical DVD? Maxikray ( talk) 16:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxikray ( talk • contribs)
Is it OK to cite a newspaper article that can be found on Newsbank? To find out what NewsBank is, check out the following link:
http://guides.ccclib.org/c.php?g=43943&p=277576
Maxikray ( talk) 16:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
http://guides.ccclib.org/c.php?g=43943&p=277576
Maxikray ( talk) 17:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Portmanteau § Examples in English includes
The title of the cited article is nothing like that, just "Renault Twingo hatchback review", and these words do not appear in the article itself. (In fact, the article and archive links go to two entirely different texts in different journals, but that's another can of worms.)
I'm sure I've seen a template to tag a footnote with something like "Not supported by reference", but I can't find it. Where is it, please?
* I found {{ Failed verification }}. Thnidu ( talk) 22:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
References
--
Thnidu (
talk)
21:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@
Cthomas3 and
Usedtobecool: Thank you both!
Usedtobecool, I'm going to copy your advice about not refactoring to save with my useful wiki info. --
Thnidu (
talk)
13:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Is this the same sweet young name that does cameoes on the Korean variety show Home Alone, and what is the name of the Chinese historical drama he stars in as a king,? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.229.126 ( talk) 16:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi-
I researched in grad school who does not have a Wiki entry and I feel should have one, and I joined so that I can write one, since I've accumulated more than enough resources about him and his work. Much of his work I have seen either in person or in photo documentation, and I'm wary of how much of my own observations, if not included in the verbiage of one of my sources, I can include in my entry.
Can descriptive observations of a work of art be included in a wiki entry if they are made either in person by the writer of the entry, or from images and documentation for which there is no accompanying text?
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmerringer ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
How can i make my page visible on search engines and create exact page as the link below: /info/en/?search=Akinwunmi_Ambode
Thank You
Destiny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destiny Chiamaka Emmanuel ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Also note the helpful articles listed on your Talk page Best of luck to you.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 17:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
It appears that what you did is use your User page to create article-like content. This is not what the User page is for, and has been deleted. You can attempt to create an article in your Sandbox, or as a draft. Neither of these will appear in search engines. Only if submitted and then approved by reviewer would an article move to main space, and be searchable. Quisqualis gave you informative pages to look at, among them that Wikipedia strongly advises against attempting an autobiography. David notMD ( talk) 19:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Is this an intended thing by the software. I mean, that you create a div that is above all content of the page and blocking clicks as well as scrolling? 85.199.71.123 ( talk) 17:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Could you please help me with the afd deletion notices on this page. Ben Lee (violinist) the page.Or how one would go about finding help with editing the page, so it may be saved from deletion. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Armstrong21 ( talk • contribs)
The Build a Bear article was vandalized. I know a bit about reverting, but if I revert, am I responsible for placing a warning on the user talk page of the vandal? Thanks. -- DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 19:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I'm, pretty new to Wikipedia and was wondering if there was anyone I could talk to to get a better understanding of how everything works. I'm considering starting a research-based club at my school and was wondering if Wikipedia would be a good place to post our findings. How do you become better at editing pages? Do you do research with the sole intention of adding to a page, or do you only edit pages where you have background information? (sorry I haven't made my profile page yet) Owenwitt ( talk) 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Owenwitt
Specifically the section of packs they've come out with.
I've never edited an article and have no intention to but the pride pack, college pack, and many others aren't showing up and should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.233.83 ( talk) 22:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know the best way to deal with the situation at Midwest University. There is an editor with an admitted conflict of interest who is behaving as though s/he owns the page, is changing the work of two other editors back to how s/he believes the page should read, and won't engage on his/her talk page. Is this considered vandalism for AIV purposes? Is there something I should do that I haven't done yet? Eyer contact 03:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I wrote a question that was mistaken as an article. I don't know Henry's last name but do know he acted in a classical kdrama and does cameoes on Home Alone. I wanted to know what the name of his new Historical Chinese dramas is. I also wonder why Home Alone isn't in his credits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.229.126 ( talk) 06:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I fixed a dead link:
after putting in the correct url, should I remove the dead link part:
permanent dead link
Or should I leave that for the moderator to check the work and they'll remove that part?
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpful Hippopotamus ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that explanation :)! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Helpful Hippopotamus (
talk •
contribs)
22:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
There is a wiki article under the name Michael Hiltner- he is still living and has been known as Victor Vincente of America (his now legal name) since the 70s. I am working on an article about him, but believe the title should be changed and there should be a "...formerly known as Michael Beckwith Hiltner," in the bio section. From what I've read, it's not so simple to change this. Would someone share what my options are, if any? I want there to be a fleshed out and acurate article that reflects the name he's had for the last almost 50 years.
Thank you, Ash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelvie ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
hello, I have edited an Arabic page but it says it is" Flagged Revisions" I would like to know the reason please and how I can fix it. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temlal Rozi ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Most Draft articles have no content on the Talk page, but I've seen a few. What happens if the article goes through successfully? Does the article start with a blank Talk page, or does the content carry over? David notMD ( talk) 14:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I was reading User:Jimbo Wales and saw a word in a sentence that added nothing it. I removed it with an edit summary of better. User:Serial Number 54129 reverted the edit with no explanation as to what was wrong with the edit. I restored my edit and used a better edit summary, "unexplained revert, no need for either of these words, they add nothing to the sentence" Serial Number 54129 again reverted the edit without explaining why. I went to User talk:Serial Number 54129#User:Jimbo Wales and asked for an explanation why they reverted the edits. The response was that user pages shouldn't be refactored. I discussed that doesn't apply to that page as Jimbo has specifically said that he wants people to edit his page. Their response is that you can edit but the edit might not stand. I responded that I accept that but not that no valid reason is given to revert the edit. The response is a huge picture of books. With that being their only response I removed the word again. This time the revert had a reason, "rm trolling". As this was their 3rd revert in 3 hours, I left an edit warring template on their talk page and explained I was not trolling but making an edit I thought was an improvement and no one had countered. Those two edits were reverted by User:Bonadea with an edit summary of "Well, this is certainly trolling". I left a message for Bonadea asking how that is trolling (they have yet to edit since they reverted the edits). Then over an hour after Serial Number 54129 made their last revert, they left a warning on my talk page calling my edits; "test edits". I would like someone else's opinion. Are my edits trolling? And if you feel they are trolling, please explain how they are trolling. 155.178.180.12 ( talk) 17:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
in the case of this particular paragraph the wording was carefully chosen by him to address particular issues (that sources differ regarding his name and date of birth, which causes obvious issues when it comes to being the figurehead of a project based on only reflecting sources), and probably shouldn't be changed without good reason( [1]). Not me, not Larry Sanger, and not you. Incidentally, Bonadea was referring exclusively to your edits on my talk, which by then was patent trolling. —— SerialNumber 54129 17:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello IP user, as per our
article on the subject, Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation...
If you would like to further explore the topic, you can raise the question at the
reference desk. The Teahouse can only tell you what you can do with the issue you have encountered. When someone reverts you for the first time without a summary, you are within your rights to revert it back and ask for an explanation in the summary. But, if it's reverted again, you have found yourself in a content dispute and are advised to follow
dispute resolution procedures, even if the other user doesn't give a reason for the revert. At the very least, this gives you a highground if you end up having to seek third party intervention. You should not violate the
WP:3RR rules, and can report the other user to
WP:AN3 if they do. Keep in mind though that, in a highly vandalised page like
User:Jimbo Wales, experienced editors of good repute might have a valid case for violating 3RR, as vandalism is an exception to that rule. The
WP:TALK could be invoked and work in their favor as well, despite the fact that the user specifically asked you to edit (Note that the user has also said that vandalisms will be reverted promptly by watchful others.). Now, with regard to the content dispute, per
WP:BRD, you should take the matter to the talk page of the relevant page, which is
user talk:Jimbo Wales. Taking it to the editor's talk page had better be done only if the editor doesn't respond to a call for discussion on the relevant talk page. Note that a user talk page could be watched by many of their friends, and you might find yourself a minority pretty quickly. Alternatively, they might have pissed off a lot of disruptive editors in the past, and the opposite might happen. As such, that is not a neutral ground for seeking consensus over a dispute. When and if you can't resolve the dispute between yourselves, you can ask for a
third opinion, and if that doesn't work, you can start a formal
Request for comment. Refer back to
WP:DR for full details and procedures. If the other editor is uncivil or displays disruptive behaviour during your attempt at dispute resolution and consensus building, you can seek administrator support at
WP:ANI. I would add that
WP:POINT and
WP:IAR also exist and should be kept in mind when you enter a formal process in Wikipedia. Good luck!
Usedtobecool
✉️
✨
19:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Since a while my Tablet Fire HD (Fire OSD 6.3.0.1) stopped synching with my Android one smartphone. The moment I log In Wikipedia on my Fire tablet I get the message “logged in”. Unfortunately, Wikipedia keeps showing “LOG IN”. I guess I’m not properly logged in and thus synchronization does not work? This worked in the beginning. Both devices update OS automatically. It is impossible to know this problem started after a certain update. Thank you for helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dqcrob ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
Hope you're well.
I have edited the AdviceUK page on Wikipedia, however it has been deleted for copyright reasons. The text has been used from our website and it is our context, it is not copywriting. Can you please explain why this has been taken down?
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Kind Regards,
Aashish Parmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by AParmar2019 ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I have a company registered in London. I want to put my company details on the wikipedia for better understanding about my company. But when i placed my article Wikipedia have deleted my article. How can i put my company information on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UKTASK ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh what a blessing, oh what a lesson that the street could bring don't wanna miss it just like child lean a.c.d 123 as I step to the street o Lord have mercy, street success Lord never make me ckik buket gat make money filled ma pocket (yeah) street might be hard but never too bad just wanna find away to succeed now, street is rugged money matter you get I get that's it better you been through I been through you know how it is money talking buisness — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zealmoses ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page. |
Archive 975 | ← | Archive 980 | Archive 981 | Archive 982 | Archive 983 | Archive 984 | Archive 985 |
Dear Folks,
I have created a new page entitled Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria. It happens that formal research that I have just had published indicates that the Sugarloaf Creek pastoral station, founded in 1837, was more notable than has ever been recognised. There has never been a Wikipedia for this Sugarloaf Creek.
But I cannot get the title searchable. If I search google with 'Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria' (without quotes of course), I do not get it.
How do you fix it.
Thanks,
Mwill66 ( talk) 06:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
All new articles have a "noindex" tag attached to them that tells Google not to index them. The tag is removed when a patroller reviews the article, and experience tells me that once that is done, it will be indexed by Google within minutes and you can then immediately find it by searching.
There is a large backlog of articles waiting to be reviewed (as in several months long), so Wikipedia is also set to automatically remove the "noindex" tag after 90 days, even if the article has not been reviewed by anyone, and in theory, this should make it available for indexing by Google. However, this doesn't actually seem to make Google index the article - even after the 90-day mark passes and the tag comes off, I have found that they still won't index my articles until a patroller marks them as "reviewed", anyway.
Long story short, as others above said, you just have to sit tight and wait (usually for several months) for a patroller to get to your article and review it. I have several articles that have been waiting 3 months already and still aren't indexed by Google because they haven't come up for review yet, so be patient. It takes a while due to the backlog. Lilipo25 ( talk) 10:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The Polish Chicken Wikipedia page < /info/en/?search=Polish_chicken> contains a whole lot of speculations about the origin of this breed of birds. I understand that this breed has been bred for a long time in Holland and eventually registered in the US as of Dutch origin, but that doe's not mean that the information recorded in US poultry association is reliable, valid, and relevant.
Somewhere in the second paragraph, I found something a somewhat ludicrous revelation, that the bird's name Polish (or Poland) is derived from the Middle Dutch word "pol". Let's be serious. Similarly, the author of the note might want to derive the name of the country of Poland from this Dutch word. Is this the standard we a hoping to provide in Wikipedia? My belief is, that as long as the authors speculate their statement is burdened with many risks of cognitive distortions that result in the circular logic type of argument, where conclusion becomes its premise. In my opinion, this kind of speculations should not be included in a text that has the ambition to serve as a source of popular knowledge. I am asking the editors to critically review this thread.
Another weak thing is supporting the text with popular guides' references. Look, we live in times of print-on-demand and self-publishing, and every literate layperson person can at any time become a self-made expert in popular knowledge. That's what some references provided here look like. Let's have a look at the first sentence: <The oldest accounts of these birds come from The Netherlands; their exact origins are unknown, however.[1] (Carol Ekarius, 2007)>. The Ekarius book is very carefully published but it is by a small Publishing house. Ekarius is their livestock expert with diverse interests < https://www.storey.com/author/carol_ekarius/>. In the second paragraph of her book < https://archive.org/stream/Storeys_Illustrated_Guide_to_Poultry_Breeds_Complete/Storey's%20Illustrated%20Guide%20to%20Poultry%20Breeds%20Complete#page/n3/mode/2up>, p.145, Ekarius explains that "In spite of the name, the Polish breed is not from Poland" (no reference), and further: "The breed as we know it today comes from Holland,..." (no reference, no details) and further: "... (where Polish birds show in paintings dating back to the fifteenth century) but its beginnings are unclear." (no references about the source form Mrs. Ekarius, no particulars about aforementioned paintings or painters). This is unsubstantiated claim and is an unsupported opinion, and even if printed in a book, I don't think it fits the standard, Wikipedia should be aiming at.
I do not know where this breed comes from. I am Polish and, of course, it would be nice to feel a historical-cultural relationship with this bird that is loved my so many. I know that it appeared here and there in Polish literature and visual art (at least in what was not damaged during the two world wars and the country partitions during the entire nineteenth century, i.e., at the time of the documented breeding in Holland), but it would not be acceptable for me, to force in my beliefs and wishes where I don't hold strong evidence.
Please, take a critical look at the Wikipedia text on Polish Chicken, and where possible, please verify the references, add a relevant in-text citation or revise the text deleting the information which is not evidence-supported. We cannot post unsubstantiated statements, are we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasia Polish ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm trying to edit an article, "Human sexuality" and I don't think I did it right. I have all my information in a google doc but i'm still confused in how to publish/add my work into the article. Varzolao ( talk) 19:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Lately I've noticed small, colored icons appearing in users' signatures. Example:|😹|✝️|. Is this a feature of Wikipedia? Are they encouraged? Does WP have a way of constraining their use, or, at least, preventing their display to certain users? Thanks, Quisqualis ( talk) 23:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Liz: To me, your signature looks OK, and I can still see from its highlighting you're an adminstrator - unlike Lourdes whose admin status is not visible from their signature, which I find misleading (especially after what I seem to remember happening after their RFA.) Goldenshimmer's is pointless as far as I perceive it. Pretty, but totally not needed, and confusing to other editors. There - I told you I was old-fashioned! Nick Moyes ( talk) 10:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
admin status? — Rutilant ( talk) 10:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
"...unlike Lourdes whose admin status is not visible from their signature, which I find misleading (especially after what I seem to remember happening after their RFA.)"is spot on. My signature is like this because I want to mislead people, especially after what happened post my RfA. I'm pleased you've summarised it well. Thank you. Lourdes 14:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC) (Check the new blue color in my signature. I think it rocks. What do you think? Oh, I already have the answer. MISLEADING!)
Hello,
Can you please tell me if this page is good to go online ? /info/en/?search=Draft:MissWrite
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommErt ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
{{subst:submit}}
at the top of your draft and see what feedback you get. :) However, I think it's better to move
Draft:MissWrite to
Draft:Eurailtest before submitting. --
CiaPan (
talk)
15:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Is it OK to cite a physical copy or a physical DVD? Maxikray ( talk) 16:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxikray ( talk • contribs)
Is it OK to cite a newspaper article that can be found on Newsbank? To find out what NewsBank is, check out the following link:
http://guides.ccclib.org/c.php?g=43943&p=277576
Maxikray ( talk) 16:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
http://guides.ccclib.org/c.php?g=43943&p=277576
Maxikray ( talk) 17:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Portmanteau § Examples in English includes
The title of the cited article is nothing like that, just "Renault Twingo hatchback review", and these words do not appear in the article itself. (In fact, the article and archive links go to two entirely different texts in different journals, but that's another can of worms.)
I'm sure I've seen a template to tag a footnote with something like "Not supported by reference", but I can't find it. Where is it, please?
* I found {{ Failed verification }}. Thnidu ( talk) 22:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
References
--
Thnidu (
talk)
21:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@
Cthomas3 and
Usedtobecool: Thank you both!
Usedtobecool, I'm going to copy your advice about not refactoring to save with my useful wiki info. --
Thnidu (
talk)
13:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Is this the same sweet young name that does cameoes on the Korean variety show Home Alone, and what is the name of the Chinese historical drama he stars in as a king,? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.229.126 ( talk) 16:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi-
I researched in grad school who does not have a Wiki entry and I feel should have one, and I joined so that I can write one, since I've accumulated more than enough resources about him and his work. Much of his work I have seen either in person or in photo documentation, and I'm wary of how much of my own observations, if not included in the verbiage of one of my sources, I can include in my entry.
Can descriptive observations of a work of art be included in a wiki entry if they are made either in person by the writer of the entry, or from images and documentation for which there is no accompanying text?
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmerringer ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
How can i make my page visible on search engines and create exact page as the link below: /info/en/?search=Akinwunmi_Ambode
Thank You
Destiny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destiny Chiamaka Emmanuel ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Also note the helpful articles listed on your Talk page Best of luck to you.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 17:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
It appears that what you did is use your User page to create article-like content. This is not what the User page is for, and has been deleted. You can attempt to create an article in your Sandbox, or as a draft. Neither of these will appear in search engines. Only if submitted and then approved by reviewer would an article move to main space, and be searchable. Quisqualis gave you informative pages to look at, among them that Wikipedia strongly advises against attempting an autobiography. David notMD ( talk) 19:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Is this an intended thing by the software. I mean, that you create a div that is above all content of the page and blocking clicks as well as scrolling? 85.199.71.123 ( talk) 17:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Could you please help me with the afd deletion notices on this page. Ben Lee (violinist) the page.Or how one would go about finding help with editing the page, so it may be saved from deletion. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Armstrong21 ( talk • contribs)
The Build a Bear article was vandalized. I know a bit about reverting, but if I revert, am I responsible for placing a warning on the user talk page of the vandal? Thanks. -- DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 19:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I'm, pretty new to Wikipedia and was wondering if there was anyone I could talk to to get a better understanding of how everything works. I'm considering starting a research-based club at my school and was wondering if Wikipedia would be a good place to post our findings. How do you become better at editing pages? Do you do research with the sole intention of adding to a page, or do you only edit pages where you have background information? (sorry I haven't made my profile page yet) Owenwitt ( talk) 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Owenwitt
Specifically the section of packs they've come out with.
I've never edited an article and have no intention to but the pride pack, college pack, and many others aren't showing up and should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.233.83 ( talk) 22:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know the best way to deal with the situation at Midwest University. There is an editor with an admitted conflict of interest who is behaving as though s/he owns the page, is changing the work of two other editors back to how s/he believes the page should read, and won't engage on his/her talk page. Is this considered vandalism for AIV purposes? Is there something I should do that I haven't done yet? Eyer contact 03:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I wrote a question that was mistaken as an article. I don't know Henry's last name but do know he acted in a classical kdrama and does cameoes on Home Alone. I wanted to know what the name of his new Historical Chinese dramas is. I also wonder why Home Alone isn't in his credits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.229.126 ( talk) 06:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I fixed a dead link:
after putting in the correct url, should I remove the dead link part:
permanent dead link
Or should I leave that for the moderator to check the work and they'll remove that part?
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpful Hippopotamus ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that explanation :)! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Helpful Hippopotamus (
talk •
contribs)
22:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
There is a wiki article under the name Michael Hiltner- he is still living and has been known as Victor Vincente of America (his now legal name) since the 70s. I am working on an article about him, but believe the title should be changed and there should be a "...formerly known as Michael Beckwith Hiltner," in the bio section. From what I've read, it's not so simple to change this. Would someone share what my options are, if any? I want there to be a fleshed out and acurate article that reflects the name he's had for the last almost 50 years.
Thank you, Ash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelvie ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
hello, I have edited an Arabic page but it says it is" Flagged Revisions" I would like to know the reason please and how I can fix it. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temlal Rozi ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Most Draft articles have no content on the Talk page, but I've seen a few. What happens if the article goes through successfully? Does the article start with a blank Talk page, or does the content carry over? David notMD ( talk) 14:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I was reading User:Jimbo Wales and saw a word in a sentence that added nothing it. I removed it with an edit summary of better. User:Serial Number 54129 reverted the edit with no explanation as to what was wrong with the edit. I restored my edit and used a better edit summary, "unexplained revert, no need for either of these words, they add nothing to the sentence" Serial Number 54129 again reverted the edit without explaining why. I went to User talk:Serial Number 54129#User:Jimbo Wales and asked for an explanation why they reverted the edits. The response was that user pages shouldn't be refactored. I discussed that doesn't apply to that page as Jimbo has specifically said that he wants people to edit his page. Their response is that you can edit but the edit might not stand. I responded that I accept that but not that no valid reason is given to revert the edit. The response is a huge picture of books. With that being their only response I removed the word again. This time the revert had a reason, "rm trolling". As this was their 3rd revert in 3 hours, I left an edit warring template on their talk page and explained I was not trolling but making an edit I thought was an improvement and no one had countered. Those two edits were reverted by User:Bonadea with an edit summary of "Well, this is certainly trolling". I left a message for Bonadea asking how that is trolling (they have yet to edit since they reverted the edits). Then over an hour after Serial Number 54129 made their last revert, they left a warning on my talk page calling my edits; "test edits". I would like someone else's opinion. Are my edits trolling? And if you feel they are trolling, please explain how they are trolling. 155.178.180.12 ( talk) 17:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
in the case of this particular paragraph the wording was carefully chosen by him to address particular issues (that sources differ regarding his name and date of birth, which causes obvious issues when it comes to being the figurehead of a project based on only reflecting sources), and probably shouldn't be changed without good reason( [1]). Not me, not Larry Sanger, and not you. Incidentally, Bonadea was referring exclusively to your edits on my talk, which by then was patent trolling. —— SerialNumber 54129 17:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello IP user, as per our
article on the subject, Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation...
If you would like to further explore the topic, you can raise the question at the
reference desk. The Teahouse can only tell you what you can do with the issue you have encountered. When someone reverts you for the first time without a summary, you are within your rights to revert it back and ask for an explanation in the summary. But, if it's reverted again, you have found yourself in a content dispute and are advised to follow
dispute resolution procedures, even if the other user doesn't give a reason for the revert. At the very least, this gives you a highground if you end up having to seek third party intervention. You should not violate the
WP:3RR rules, and can report the other user to
WP:AN3 if they do. Keep in mind though that, in a highly vandalised page like
User:Jimbo Wales, experienced editors of good repute might have a valid case for violating 3RR, as vandalism is an exception to that rule. The
WP:TALK could be invoked and work in their favor as well, despite the fact that the user specifically asked you to edit (Note that the user has also said that vandalisms will be reverted promptly by watchful others.). Now, with regard to the content dispute, per
WP:BRD, you should take the matter to the talk page of the relevant page, which is
user talk:Jimbo Wales. Taking it to the editor's talk page had better be done only if the editor doesn't respond to a call for discussion on the relevant talk page. Note that a user talk page could be watched by many of their friends, and you might find yourself a minority pretty quickly. Alternatively, they might have pissed off a lot of disruptive editors in the past, and the opposite might happen. As such, that is not a neutral ground for seeking consensus over a dispute. When and if you can't resolve the dispute between yourselves, you can ask for a
third opinion, and if that doesn't work, you can start a formal
Request for comment. Refer back to
WP:DR for full details and procedures. If the other editor is uncivil or displays disruptive behaviour during your attempt at dispute resolution and consensus building, you can seek administrator support at
WP:ANI. I would add that
WP:POINT and
WP:IAR also exist and should be kept in mind when you enter a formal process in Wikipedia. Good luck!
Usedtobecool
✉️
✨
19:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Since a while my Tablet Fire HD (Fire OSD 6.3.0.1) stopped synching with my Android one smartphone. The moment I log In Wikipedia on my Fire tablet I get the message “logged in”. Unfortunately, Wikipedia keeps showing “LOG IN”. I guess I’m not properly logged in and thus synchronization does not work? This worked in the beginning. Both devices update OS automatically. It is impossible to know this problem started after a certain update. Thank you for helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dqcrob ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
Hope you're well.
I have edited the AdviceUK page on Wikipedia, however it has been deleted for copyright reasons. The text has been used from our website and it is our context, it is not copywriting. Can you please explain why this has been taken down?
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Kind Regards,
Aashish Parmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by AParmar2019 ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I have a company registered in London. I want to put my company details on the wikipedia for better understanding about my company. But when i placed my article Wikipedia have deleted my article. How can i put my company information on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UKTASK ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh what a blessing, oh what a lesson that the street could bring don't wanna miss it just like child lean a.c.d 123 as I step to the street o Lord have mercy, street success Lord never make me ckik buket gat make money filled ma pocket (yeah) street might be hard but never too bad just wanna find away to succeed now, street is rugged money matter you get I get that's it better you been through I been through you know how it is money talking buisness — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zealmoses ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)