Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 896

Archive 890

←

Archive 894

Archive 895

Archive 896

Archive 897

Archive 898

→

Archive 900

How or who can edit the Pope Pius IX page, because there is an error on it?

Dear Sirs,

Tuesday, January 22, 2019: I am editing my original question posted in the last seven days. In addition to the fact that Ubi Primum has at least two authors, the main subject of Ubi Primum is the office of Bishop. It would make more sense in the context of Pope Pius IX being a Marian Pope to substitute his Papal Encyclical Ineffabilis Deus for Ubi Primum in the Wikipedia article about Pope Pius IX. Ineffabilis Deus' subject is the Immaculate Conception. That is how I would edit the Pope Pius IX article: substitute Ineffabilis Deus for Ubi Primum. That makes the most sense and does not disturb the article content at all.

• • • — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FD00:51C0:CC7D:B86F:1519:1660 (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Summary: In 1824, Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Leone XII, in 1847 Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pio IX and in 1849 Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pio IX. In the Pope Pius IX article on Wikipedia and in reference to Ubi Primum there is no reference to the pre-existing Papal Encyclical written by Pope Leo XII. That was confusing to me.

References: In reading the Wikipedia article about Pope Pius IX, I discovered an error. The error is that the Papal Encyclical Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pius IX while Ubi Primum is written by Leo XII and again later by Pius IX. I have just noticed that the vatican.va lists alternatively Pio IX and Leone XII as the author here: https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xii/it/documents/enciclica-ubi-primum-5-maggio-1824.html as Leo XII ... and here: https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/enciclica-ubi-primum-2-febbraio-1849.html as Pius IX... and here: https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/enciclica-ubi-primum-17-giugno-1847.html as Pius IX.

I applied to do an edit. Because of the Kwysinski dog rapper problem, I had to wait. Still I am not allowed to edit after about 24 hours. Anyway to avoid any confusion can someone add into the Pope Pius IX article that more than one Papal Encyclical has the title Ubi Primum and that Pope Leo XII is another author?

Summary: In 1824, Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Leone XII, in 1847 Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pio IX and in 1849 Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pio IX. In the Pope Pius IX article on Wikipedia and in reference to Ubi Primum there is no reference to the pre-existing Papal Encyclical written by Pope Leo XII. That was confusing to me.

Regards, Mr. Michael Griffin p.s. The edit could say: "Ubi Primum" (note: three versions of the Papal Encyclical Ubi Primum exist including Ubi Primum authored in 1824 by Pope Leo XII). The edit could also say something like "Ubi Primum dated 1847," or "Ubi Primum dated 1847 and/or 1849." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FD00:51C0:89F2:2121:9602:E0A5 (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ask for a semi-protected edit request at Talk:Pope Pius IX. As to who can edit the page, anyone who has created an account, been active for more than a day, and made more than 10 edits may edit the page. See Wikipedia:Protection Policy#Semi-protection and Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed for more details. ^{[Username Needed]} 12:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• You should actually be able to edit it now, the protection has expired. I would still recommend creating an account though. There isn't any disadvantages to it and it doesn't request anything. ^{[Username Needed]} 13:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Liquid I.V.

Can someone please give me detailed instructions on how to request that a page be written about Liquid I.V.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthaliv (talk • contribs) 18:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Your question answered on your Talk page, and it appears you successfully created a request.David notMD (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Liquid I.V. is another`water plus electrolytes product in same general family as Gatorade, Powerade, Pedialyte, etc. Less sugar. Contains a few vitamins. The company's own website has a section called "Science," but it provides no references to clinical trials or reviews published in science journals. A hasty search could not find any mention of science for the claims that when added to water it is more hydrating that wate alone. IMO, not article-worthy. I see that on your User page, you declare a COI with this proposed topic. If you later intend to directly create an article, you should describe the nature of the COI. David notMD (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Some doubts

Hello everyone. I have some doubts that some sources present in this article (recently moved) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Ness_MacBean_Ross may not be reliable. Please check them and if possible move them to "Draft" again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:1725:9C0F:2:1:185D:FDEC (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

How to deal with COI

Earlier today, I came across and reverted a change to Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir that pushed a certain POV and was also considerably below the quality of the rest of the article. I put it on my watch list, and have now seen the same user make a change, this time removing content, but to push the same point of view. In this case, I actually believe they may be right; the content, while it has been there for a while, is ill sourced and its rationale for being in the page disputable, but the editor does have a declared conflict of interest on this page and I am hoping some here may be able to comment on whether they agree that he was right in this second case, and what I, as a neutral outsider who se knowledge of Kashmir at best amounts to being able to point to it on a map, should be doing in regards to such POV changes while under a COI -- NoCOBOL (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Block needed

At Pennsylvania Bluestone and Flagstone, User:Stevenvieczorek and 2600:1700:3260:5420:5951:c161:eab7:ea57 and most recently 99.32.61.126 have been making the same promotional edits. User:Stevenvieczorek has been cautioned twice at own talk, and also earlier this week at Teahouse. This is clearly a person who is not here to work on an encyclopedia, and has now expanded to sockpuppetry. Next step is obvious, but above my skill set. Help, please. David notMD (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: @David notMD: Would this be better suited to an admin noticeboard or WP:SPI next time? RhinosF1 (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but it's fine... just report it to the proper noticeboard next time. It's not a big deal... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the IPv6 editor for repeated disruptive editing and for edit warring on Pennsylvania Bluestone. The IPv4 user only edited once, so I'm not inclined to consider action unless disruption picks up or becomes repeated. I believe that Stevenvieczorek's edits have been problematic, but I note that this user has been trying to work with other editors on noticeboards and discussions (such as a discussion on this page) to try and learn and improve their editing. I'm not going to take action upon this account unless problematic edits continue; lets give this user a chance... Next time, you'll want to report repeated issues to either AIV or ANI. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for help. My primary concern was the edit warring. My hope is that Stevenvieczorek will come to understand that one's own expertise is not what moves Wikipedia forward. David notMD (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Rassie van der Dussen, Archie Schiler and Nortje

I created drafts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:4003:F63F:0:0:1FD4:C0A1 (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Anrich Nortje has no references. I can't see where you created any other drafts. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)