Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 796

Archive 790

←

Archive 794

Archive 795

Archive 796

Archive 797

Archive 798

→

Archive 800

So my article review was rejected due to no sources

My question is... upon only submitting factual statements that only I know about my own (registered) company [DAPULSE, LLC] How would I provide reference links to back facts only I know... if there isn't any links?

I simply want to state the facts of our founding and roots and mission... that is all... can I get someone to review my article understanding this point I'm trying to make? if anyone can help me

Here is the exact sample of my article submission

Overview:[edit source]

DAPULSE is an American online publisher and curating site of articles for topics including, Technology, News, Entertainment, Science, Life Style, and more. DAPULSE was founded in January 01 2016, by a few students attending San Leandro High School.

DAPULSE was able to run for the entire year of 2016 before it was discontinued due to lack of writers and contributors.

Following the discontinuation of the site... Alejandro M was able to focus the entire year of 2017 to rebrand and plan a relaunch for the new site.

On January 01 2018 DAPULSE was relaunched with a new site design and a different plan in mind in order for the site to succeed this time around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officialdapulse (talk • contribs) 06:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Officialdapulse, welcome to Wikipedia. I removed the email address from your text, as we try to avoid broadcasting those.

The short answer is that there is no way your organisation can have a Wikipedia article, I'm afraid. First of all, everything needs sources and if there are no good sources, Wikipedia can't write about it. This is a non-negotiable core part of how Wikipedia works. We can only write about the things reliable sources have already written about elsewhere. Second, there's also the concept of notability, which means that there should be a general public interest (here codified) for us to have an article. Third, because you have a conflict of interest – between writing a neutral article and describing your own organisation – you should not write about things you have created yourself. /Julle (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

How to win an edit war?

Hi everyone!

I just got blocked for 3 days for “edit warring” on one of my favorite articles, so I’m taking another try. I’m very new to Wikipedia so I’m still catching up on all the techniques. I was just hoping a more experienced editor could share some tips that might help me win my next edit war so I don’t get blocked again? Thanks! Totemwood (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't "win" edit wars; you shouldn't participate in them at all. Adam9007 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Totemwood: - your block log is empty, so any block was not applied on this account. If you created a new account following the block, you are engaging in sockpuppetry and block evasion, both of which are serious violations of Wikipedia policy, and merit further punishment. If you are engaging in this activity, and wish to participate in editing Wikipedia in a remotely constructive fashion, declare your previous account, stop editing for the duration of the ban, learn the lesson, and avoid edit wars - you don't "win" them, and your current course of action is a shift in the wrong direction, and will result in serious sanctions and blocks if not remedied. Hope this helps, and I suggest heeding the advice offered by myself and User:Adam9007 if you are truly here to enhance Wikipedia. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Totemwood Hi, You have only 2 edits so far and both were messages to Teahouse. You must have created a new account which we would not know which article or the context of the edits you were make on the account of "edit warring" - so do provide your previous user name and article anme. However, to say that, editor is strongly discouraged to participate in edit warring, please do not participate in such activities, instead invite the involved editors to article talk page and see consensus outcome, resolving the issue there. If issues cant be resolve you could bring the issue to noticeboard. However, without knowing what is the real issue here, we cant advice you which noticeboard to go to. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: I thought the purpose of a block wasn’t to punish an editor, but to safeguard the project? Does Wikipedia have a punishment policy? Totemwood (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the block was to stop the edit warring. You need to pay attention to what others have posted here about socking. MarnetteD|Talk 00:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Totemwood: What was the article where the edit war happened? That would provide some context to let me figure out what could be done there. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I forget what the article was exactly. There was also a “SPI” thing opened up by the person who won the edit war (and I think that’s how he won actually). Totemwood (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Totemwood: - blocks are intended to safeguard the project from people seeking to undermine it. Such as yourself. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• OP blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Confusion about editing or creating a profile

Hello, As a new user, I have difficulties formatting the citations for my first addition to a page and I have done some editing which was removed because of doing that on a category which is Educator stubs. Now can anyone help me about the procedure of making edit and from where should I start? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.83.160.49 (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP user 203.83.160.49. You have only one edit so far with this IP address, have you considered creating an account? It's free and you can choose a unique user name. Editing with an IP address could quite possibly reveal your physical location. Please read: WP:Benefits. I don't know which article you're referring to regarding your edits that were reverted, but there are several pages that a big help to new users such as yourself such as: WP:CITE that help you get started with citations. Please remember to sign your posts at the Teahouse and on talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~ Coryphantha Talk 12:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

New Article

Hello, thank you for your support. I submitted my new article second times, but it was rejected. I don't know why and the reviewer said it is promotional? I didn't make promotion, and the subject is surely valuable for the wikipedia article. Please help it not deleted and submit well. the topic is 'TeRra magazine'. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomashappyday (talk • contribs) 02:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thomashappyday: "is the world premiere English magazine" is promotional language. Articles should be written in such a way that even people who hate the subject can agree with the basic facts.

If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here are the steps you should follow:

1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that at least half was copyvio explains the promotional nature of the draft. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow, really? The parts I looked at read like machine translation. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

How do I redirect an article

Hi! You can understand me for redirect an article. --🌀ARGOSBETA24🌀 17:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArgosBeta24 (talk • contribs)

Hello, ArgosBeta24. No, I'm afraid that I can't understand you. Please explain more clearly what you want to do - and it will be helpful if you tell us exactly which article this refers to: it is much easier to understand and reply to questions when they are specific rather than general. --ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi ArgosBeta24, and welcome! To redirect a page to another article, you can use #REDIRECT [[Article you want to redirect to]]. If you're using the visual editor, there's a short explanation here: Wikipedia:Redirect#Using VisualEditor. /Julle (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Black holes in space

If you drilled a hole through earth and jumped down it you would not fall out the other side but go up and down like a yoyo.There you would be surrounded by gravity pulling you apart.Similarly the atom at the center of a black hole would be torn apart resulting in an atomic chain reaction resulting in a super nova.?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.0.7 (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. The Teahouse is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Please try the Reference desks for general questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Userbox page is SUPER broken, unsure what to do!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Travel-3#Other_travel_userboxes

I was adding some userboxes today but I noticed when I go to this page, it's a lot of Template:ubsk spam. Is the page simply broken? Was a revert possible? I'm not advanced enough to figure this out.--MattBinYYC (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi MattBinYYC. The page is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. This means transclusions are not performed after the limit is reached. Pages which should have been translcuded are just linked instead. We have Wikipedia:Userboxes/Travel, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Travel-2, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Travel-3. Some of the last should probably be split to a new Wikipedia:Userboxes/Travel-4. People really love to tell where they have been. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Contesting a source - how does this work?

I am currently fixing up an article and came across this being referenced as a source and I cannot find the information anywhere else. It seems to be anonymously written with a source that has nothing to do with the info provided. Other sites list a myriad of reasons as an answer to the question but nothing to do with Jack Tar or sailing, or anything about Swansea producing sailors that were automatically hired. I feel like this should be removed as it seems the person who wrote the answer was unaware Jack was used as an identifier for the common people and thus drew false connections, but I don't know if there's some sort of process I have to go through to do this? Can I just remove it and say in the edit description why? Is there a Wikipedia court where I have to argue my reasons? Thesoftskeleton (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)TheSoftSkeleton

If the source is not compliant with our policy on reliable sources, then it can be removed without issue. In the example above, the site's answers are user-generated, so it fails as a source, and can be removed per WP:BOLD. If you are unsure, pose a question at the noticeboard to determine whether or not the source is reliable, or use the talk page to discuss this with other editors. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Aside from the good reasons given above, I notice that the source in question does NOT say that the suggested explanation is true, merely that it exists, but also that a completely different explanation also exists. It is possible that both, either or neither are actually partially or wholly true (as is common for such folk myths), but as corroboration of historical facts it's worthless. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.113 (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)