Wikipedia:Teahouse

Eman235, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Deletion log

Where would I turn should I want some edits on my user page to be struck? I once added some personal information I now realize I don't want there. Any help appreciated, Azealia911 _talk 10:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Review please

Hi - I've just completed this page. Please could you take a look and I'd be grateful for any comments and tips.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumi_Taguchi_(journalist_and_broadcaster)

Thanks

Mazda1973 (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have reviewed your page and it seems okay. I have also tidied it up a bit for you so other users can enjoy reading it as well as myself! Happy editing! Gibboboy 10:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

How do I lock my user page?

Hello,

I made a userpage but I don't want anyone to vandalise it. Is there a way I can lock the page so only I can edit it? Feedback will be appreciated.

Yours, Gibboboy 09:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You can request protection at WP:RPP, but whether it's granted or not is up to the administrator who reviews your request. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

As there has been no vandalism to that page whatsoever, and vandalism is easily reverted, it is unlikely - Arjayay (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

editing

why some sites on wikipedia can't be edit?Syed Yasir Ali Naqvi (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia pages are protected from editing. This is usually done to prevent persistent vandalism or edit-warring that cannot be dealt with through other methods. In most cases, protection is only temporary; you can look in the page logs (linked on the article's History page) to find out how long the protection has been applied for. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

How close am I now?

Thank you for the very helpful remarks yesterday. At "User:EditWikiJapan/sandbox" is the current version of my first article, entitled "Japan Chernobyl Foundation". How close am I now? When the article is OK, how do I move it to the "real" Wikipedia site? EditWikiJapan (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks reasonable to me, EditWikiJapan, though I have not looked deeply. The way to move it is by using the "Move" function (probably under "More" at the top of your page) - make sure you move it to '(Article)' space, not to 'Wikipedia' (that is a common error). An alternative is to request a more formal review, by inserting {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article. There will be a wait before somebody reviews it, but if they accept it they will move it. --ColinFine (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem when uploading to Wikimedia Commons...

I want to upload this picture (which I found on google images), and it says on the bottom right-hand corner (not on the picture) "Images may be subjected to copyright". I'm still worried that I might violate copyright laws. Is this legitimate, or should I just leave it alone? Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 03:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77 welcome to the Teahouse. You should leave it strictly alone, and if you don't it would soon enough be discovered and deleted. Images you find on the web, such as via Google search, cannot be used on Wikimedia Commons unless they very explicitly indicate that they are released under a free license, such as CC-BY (Creative Commons Attribution). Images published before 1923 are also OK, provided that you know (and say on the upload form) exactly where and when such an image was published. Otherwise, stick to imsages you have taken or created yourself, and you will be safe. (It is possible for whoever took the picture to donate it, but in that case an email must be sent to the permisisons address formally giving permission by the copyright holder, who is normally the photographer or artist.) DES ^(talk) 03:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 03:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone help by providing feedback on my wiki page ahead of submitting for review?

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Warnholz/sandbox/drtabori

Thanks Again Trecia Warnholz (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Trecia. I'm afraid that at present the article will not be accepted. There are only two references, and only one independent one; and most of the article is unreferenced. If you start from the working assumption that every single piece of information in the article should be individually cited to a reliable published source independent of the subject, you might end up being over-referenced - but probably not. --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Help updating an article

Want to update the wealth figure referenced on the Alfred Taubman page. Have cited the current Forbes figure of $3.1 billion. Can you help?

TennysoncjTennysoncj (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings and thank you for coming to the Teahouse, Tennysoncj. I took a look at your edits. I can help with referencing your statement if you tell me where you got it. Also I noticed that you have made only two edits with this account. If you have created an account for the reason to update info on this article, that is fine as long as you reveal your association on the article's talk page.

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Article draft rejected, need help with editing before re-submission

Regarding — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cónal_Creedon — The comment that reviewer Elee posted was marked "reads more like an advertisement" and "Please either remove the external links or turn them into references." I have removed all external links, and need to know if that is sufficient to resubmit? Adrienne Asher (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Adrienne Asher and welcome to the Teahouse. No, just removing the links isn't enough. The article reads like an artist's promotional profile rather than a Wikipedia article about a person. For example, the article follows the structure of Creedon's website. Write it in chronological order, putting in what he has done where it fits in with the chronology of his life. Leave out the long quotes praising his work. You aren't trying to "sell" him as a writer here. The introductory paragraphs should be a summary of the article, not things that aren't mentioned in the rest of the article. Find sources that tell more about him than just listing what he has written. This could be a very good article about a very interesting person. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

How do I edit a semi-locked page?

The LA Galaxy Wikipedia page includes FALSE information about them being the most decorated club in MLS history, since they are clearly second in overall trophies. I apparently can't edit it because it's semi-locked, but others can and have, since this error was fixed by someone yesterday and is now back to its original form of a LIE. PLEASE FIX THIS! MatiGOL85 (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

To edit a semi-protected page, you need to be an autoconfirmed User, which means you're account is over 4 days old, and you've made 10 edits. Until then, I'd recommend mentioning it at the article talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@MatiGOL85: In particular, you can place a comment on the talk page specifying exactly what you want changed, and place Template:Edit semi-protected ({{edit semi-protected}}) by your comment to indicate to other editors that you're a new user requesting the change to a protected page. Note, however, that if your request isn't backed by reliable sources, or if there is controversy or a lack of consensus for the change, it may not be implemented. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, MatiGOLO85. The claim, in the lead of LA Galaxy, is uncited, and therefore anybody is entitled to remove it. I have not removed it, because I don't know anything about football, still less US soccer, but I have marked it {{citation needed}}. You are welcome to recommend (on the talk page) that it gets removed. Note that it shouldn't be replaced by any other claim (eg second most) unless that specific claim is cited to a reliable published source. --ColinFine (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

How can I get involved?

How can I meet fellow wikipedians so that we can discuss and help contribute to articles together, with a common goal? Coderenius (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Coderenius and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to meet other Wikipedians in the flesh, have a look at WP:meetup and see if there is anything organised in your area. I have only been to a social meetup, but there are certainly editathons, where people work together on particular areas. If you're not so concerned about physically meeting people, but you want to discuss, then I suggest you find a WikiProject or two that interests you, and sign up to them. --ColinFine (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, ColinFine! Coderenius (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Coderenius: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! There are tons of ways you can work with other Wikipedians to improve the project, I'm going to list a few of my personal favorites and others can add to this list if they want.

• WP:Wikiprojects - A great way to collaborate on topics editors have similar interest in.
• Today's article for improvement - A place to work together on a wide array of articles that need improvement
• WP:Meetup - Ways to meet local Wikipedians in your area.
• Just start editing! - People come and go, just pick topics you are interested in and write or improve an article, other people will come along and help you.

Happy editing! Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys! I'm not really interested in meeting people person to person, but the other 3 options seem great! Thanks! Coderenius (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

making links from one paragraph to another.

Could you tell me how I can make links from one paragraph to another which is lower down in the same article?

Thanks Kpobi2 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kpobi2, welcome to the Teahouse. You can for example write [[#making links from one paragraph to another.|this section]] to produce this section. It doesn't matter where on the page the target is. See more at Help:Link#Section linking (anchors). PrimeHunter (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@ PrimeHunter

Thanks a lot - works fine. That allows me to link from a word to a Section.

But I've still got one problem left. I can't manage to set up a link from a phrase to a phrase. e.g. "See below" ..... linking to ..... another phrase in the article.

Is there a solution to that?

Kpobi2 (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Review my first article please?

I just finished drafting my first wikipedia article and I'd appreciate it if someone could check it out and give me some pointers before I try to create it. The page is about a fairly well known Catholic girls club called Little Flowers' Girls Club. I think I've done a good job of keeping my language neutral butI do have a conflict of interest (I work for the publisher of the program, though I'm writing this page on my own time) and have established this on my profile page so any and all help is appreciated. The page is in User:CharlotteWatk/sandbox CharlotteWatk (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, CharlotteWatk. I haven't done a full review of your sandbox, but on a quick look, the writing seems reasonable (though ideally there would be more about the organisation, how it is run, how it came to be, and so on, than about the internal details of what the girls do). You do have plenty of citations in the text: but most of these are to non-independent sources, which is a problem. There's nothing wrong with using the Little Flowers' own publications as references for uncontroversial factual data like dates and places; but they should not be used to support anything with an even slightly evaluative or speculative nature - and an article which has more non-independent than independent sources will always be suspect. You need more sources like the Catholic Courier (though some might feel that even that is not independent, and prefer some sources which are not explicitly catholic). The Sunday Dispatch link doesn't work for me.

The most glaring problem is the sentence "Following controversies surrounding Girl Scouts of the United States of America[5], many Catholic families and dioceses see Little Flowers as a conservative alternative." Please note that Wikipedia may not be used as a reference, since it is inherently not a reliable source - "Girl Scouts of the USA" should be linked as a wikilink (the way you have linked to some named people), but nothing anywhere in Wikipedia should ever refer to "controversies" without citing an independent reliable source that these controversies even exist. Then the second half of the sentence is completely unreferenced. No Wikipedia article should ever make a claim about what "many people see" something as unless it is quoting an independent reliable source. When I search for "Little Flowers Girls Club" on Google news, there seem to be quite a few articles about the controversies and the fact that LF have picked up support because of it, so I don't think you'll find it hard to locate suitable sources; but you must be careful to stick to what the sources say. If you can't find a published source for some information, don't put it in the article. Period.

Finally, the references should go in a "References" section: the "External links" section is for something different (which could include a link to the Flowers' website, if they have one). --ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

ColinFine, thanks for the pointers! I'll be sure to work on those adjustments CharlotteWatk (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Problem with new article

I wrote a new article about Morris Brown, an early African American bishop. I tried to move it from my sandbox into article space, but could not, because the name redirected to an article about a college named after him. I eliminated the redirect, but still apparently lack permission to move the new article into article space. Is it a matter of time? Or can you help?Jweaver28 (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jweaver28: Welcome to the Teahouse! You never actually removed the redirect, by the looks of it. To edit a redirect page, go to the redirect page (Morris Brown), which should redirect you to the target page. At the top of the target page, below the title, you should see "(Redirected from Morris Brown)". Clicking that link should take you back to the redirect, without redirecting you again (alternatively, just click here). You can then edit the page as you normally would, and clear the redirect. You've got two options now:

• Even if you blank the redirect, the page technically still exists. If you want to move a page to the title, you can request the redirect be deleted by an administrator with Template:Db-move. Place {{db-move|1=PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|2=REASON FOR MOVE}} at the top of the page, filling in the fields.
• Since you're the only editor to work on the draft, you can simply copy-and-paste your article when you edit the redirect. Note that the draft's history won't be preserved, but since you're the only editor it's not mandatory for attribution purposes. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It's live and working. I only hope I filled out the media form correctly (the picture's long out of copyright).Jweaver28 (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Correcting negative and incorrect information on a living person

I am a web developer and I check wikipedia pages about various clients as I post information to websites. I noticed that Peter Schiff's content seems to be dominated by contributors who seem to have a negative personal agenda (they do not like Mr Schiff) and are either not representing the facts accurately or are narrowly slanting the truth to push a negative impression of this person. I just want to fix the errors, correctly cited, so that the fixes will stick. I am new at Wikipedia editing, so I would appreciate someone to suggest a workflow (first do this, then to this) that will allow me to accomplish these fixes without getting into a content war with those who are promoting an agenda rather than expressing facts. Again, Mr. Schiff is a living person and I believe the practice of some of these contributors to be against the stated rules of Wikipedia:

"This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard..." Conservativeacct (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Conservativeacct and welcome to the Teahouse. The article Peter Schiff seems to be well cited to reliable sources, on a very quick glance. If you think that unsupported negative content is present, or that even suported neagative content is being given an undue weight, you should post at Talk:Peter Schiff, describing in detail the issues as you see them, and citing sources. Other editors should react to your comments, and consensus should emerge. (It may not, but it should.) DES ^(talk) 13:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Also you mention that you "check wikipedia pages about various clients". If you are making Wikipedia edits for pay, or as part of a paid job, you have a Conflict of interest. YTou need to disclose this openly, See WP:PAY. In particlular the terms of use here require that " ... you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." Please be careful about this, Conservativeacct. I hope that helps. DES ^(talk) 13:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Conservativeacct I haven't checked the whole article to see if there are any dubious unsourced items, but I did look at the edits you were making to see if you were running into "contributors who seem to have a negative personal agenda" or other issues. Your first edit here was to remove something that I agree many would consider negative about him, but it is sourced and with a quick google I found the audio clip of the actual interview, and you gave no reason for the removal. Your next set of edits re-removed this again plus changed a section changing numbers without a source and swapping the reference to one that only had 3 views when I hit it. Also note that apart from when adding his mothers name you left no edit summaries to explain your edits. As to your question on "workflow" help, making sure you have good edit summaries and your sources meet Wikipedia:Verifiability helps a lot. Uninvolved editors who do not know the subject will use these to determine what looks correct. Removing cited material without a stated reason will likely always be reverted, not because the other editors "are promoting an agenda" but because it would look like you have the agenda. Also try discussing on the article talk page and/or directly with the user that reverts. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Help creating a sports kit

I am needing help creating my teams kit on our wiki page. Can you help? I have searched and just can't seem to understand how to do it.

There is a 'CorenSearchBot has performed a web search...' message saying this page needs checked. What I done was I created a new page SOUTH SHIELDS RFC as I could not find how to delete our old page SOUTH TYNESIDE COLLEGE RUFC. Our club was recently had the name change. How do I get this message off?

Thanks Dan SOUTH SHIELDS RFC (was SOUTH TYNESIDE COLLEGE RUFC) Team Manager87.83.10.243 (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dan. What you should have done to change the name was to have logged in and moved South Tyneside College RUFC to South Shields RFC. Since you did a copy and paste move, an admin needs to move the history from the old article to the new, which is much more difficult. —teb728 t c 09:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Is that what you were asking about, or did you mean something different when you ask about a "kit"? —teb728 t c 09:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Dan. I've done the history merge that your copy and paste move required. As teb728 indicated, please don't move a page like that again in the future. It looks to me like you've successfully changed the colours in the article's Infobox to show a new first and second kit. If you're still having a problem, please describe specifically what it is you want to do and have tried. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Article marked as promotional

Hi, recently i did a research for my college assignment where i had to survey some big companies in Indian used vehicle segment. I did research on Shriram Automall and would like to submit this research on wiki, but, unfortunately Wikipedia is consider it as promotional article what to do? here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shriram_Automall_India_Limited_%28SAMIL%29&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyotiwalia83 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jyotiwalia83, and Welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry to have to tell you that the article you drafted was deleted as promotional because, by Wikipedia's standars, it was promotional. For example, a sentance such as "Slowly but steadily, SAMIL has removed every layer of this opaque system & presented industry with a process that is 100% transparent with its roots grounded to our core values & authenticity." conveys a clear value judgement (a positive one) about the subject. Wikipedia articles should be neutral. Any value judgements or opnions must be attributed to a named person or organization, and must be supported by citations that show that that person has expressed that view. The article should be directly based on what has been published by reliable sources and most of these should be independant of the subject. Also the articvle should clearly establish the notability of the subject. See our guideline on notability of companies. DES ^(talk) 13:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

How do I format things correctly?

I read that this is "a friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia." Great!

In my "EditWikiJapan/sandbox", I have put the rough working version of my first article. The article title is "Japan Chernobyl Foundation". I have references, but I'm not sure that I'm entering things properly, so the citations are only half completed.

I'd appreciate some constructive feedback.

EditWikiJapan (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, EditWikiJapan, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are actually not doing badly. Here are some things you should change:

• First of all, your draft is now at User talk:EditWikiJapan/sandbox, but it should be at User:EditWikiJapan/sandbox. I will move it for you after I finish this post.
• Secondly, citations (uses of the <ref> tag) should be on the same line as the facts they support, not on a separate line

  Like this

  Smith was known to sleep late on Mondays.

  Not like this

  Smith was known to sleep late on Mondays.

• Thirdly, you should have a Notes or References section, near the bottom, and in it place {{reflist}}. This will properly display the citatiosn created with the ref tags.
• Fourthly, section headers should be surrounded by paired equals signs (==History and activities==). They should be on separate lines, and should use sentance case, not title case (only the first word and any proper names should have capital letters).
• Fifthly an article, even a draft article, should not be signed. The edit history shows who wrote what.

I hope those suggestions help. DES ^(talk) 04:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Evans Waterless Coolant

I just added two references to my article. Could you please let me know if those are good enough? Thank you. Emilia12 (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Emilia12, I'll check soon and I'll let you know if there is a problem, please keep in mind though the article isn't yours, although you can list it somewhere as an article you created, it isn't your article, as per WP:OWN. Thanks and happy editing. TeaLover1996 (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed your references, but whilst on your talkpage, notifying you that your question at the Teahouse had been answered, you had a message saying the article had been reviewed at Articles for Creation, but wasn't accepted because This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Try looking for reliable sources then submit your article for review again, the more reliable sources the more credible the article will be. Thanks TeaLover1996 (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Help with references

Hello, can someone please help me with my article? Looks like I need references, but I am not sure how to get them. Thank you. Emilia12 (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Emelia, welcome to Wikipedia. I assume you are talking about Evans Waterless Coolant.

Yes you need some references and unfortunately a fair bit more. But start with references. They can be a little tricky but we have a good resource at: Help:Referencing for beginners. That should help you see how to create references. It is understandable that you will have a reference to the site associated with the subject of the article but you will need some references from independent sources as well.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion

How can i delete the previous(s) revision of some file? Do i have to be an Administrator (I'm not an Administrator)?Keroncongan (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Keroncongan: Welcome to the Teahouse! Just like pages, only administrators may delete files and previous versions of files. You're correct that you're not an administrator - administrators are nominated and approved through a strenuous process (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship), and there are currently 850 admins on the English Wikipedia.

Is there a particular reason you'd like the previous version of a file deleted? It's not too commonly done. One of the most common reasons to delete previous versions of files on the English Wikipedia is to rid of orphaned fair use images (in other words, copyrighted versions of files that are no longer used). If the file is hosted Commons, they have their own deletion processes. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Keroncongan, welcome to the Teahouse. Old file versions can only be deleted by administrators. For files hosted at Commons it has to be a Commons administrator. Do you have a specific file in mind? Please remove Category: Wikipedia administrators from User:Keroncongan. It misrepresents your account. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

As others have noted, deleting old versions doesn't happen all that often, (but probably should happen more often than it does). It does require an administrator. If you identify the file and the reason I may be able to help.S Philbrick(Talk) 19:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! everyone, thanks for the answers and i guess this is really help me. Thanks again!. Mr. Sphilbrick, i have a few page/file that have given the tag Orphaned non-free revision, but there are no Administrator delete the previous revision(s) of the file (for example: File:Yanniincelebrationoflifefront.jpg). Would you like to help fixing this problem? Thanks a lot. (Sorry for the wrong words, i'm Indonesian).

find articles that need to be created?

Is there a way to search for articles that need to be created (the red link titles)? I created an article and it was already accepted and I would enjoy writing more. I simply happened upon the red link. I would like to know if there is a way to search for these in a specific category that matches my interests? Thank you Wikipeople! Alec Station (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I recommend trawling the list of requested articles - it's organised by topic, so you can easily find what's missing from your own area of interest. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome Alec Station. In addition to the good advice given above, I trust you notice that several teammates of Lisa Casagrande are also red links, that so that's a good place to start.S Philbrick(Talk) 19:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

my article

Can someone have a look at my article for me ....Exec2Music Exec2music (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Exec2music. I guess you are asking about Draft:Aoife Scott. Unfortunately, that has been deleted as a copyright violation. --ColinFine (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I need help

I need your help I want to delete a page I made but I don't know how. Please help. 11:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)11:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeahv (talk • contribs)

@Romeahv: I could not find which page you have created, but here, WP:DELETE you can find criteria. And at WP:SPEEDY you can the suitable template for speedy deletion.
117.207.24.146 (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The page was Romeah, and has already been deleted. Please don't do that again. You can find out how to create constructive articles on Wikipedia by taking the tutorial. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a better tag than {{inuse}} for stubs created for classroom exercise?

I am running two Wikipedia edit training sessions this week and early next week. As part of that I am creating stubs for needed articles for Members of the Queensland Legislative Assembly. I have put the inuse tag on them to try to prevent other people from developing the article. However, an editor is busy tagging them as having multiple problems and speedy deleting them. I am sure there used to be a tag specifically for this training purpose but I can no longer find it . What do I need to do to protect these stubs from interference before the class? I thought inuse would work but evidently not (yes, I have written on the user's talk page to ask them to stop this behaviour and it has now stopped) but there must be a better way to flag such stubs. Kerry (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kerry. I'm sure there must be guidance for this somewhere in WP:school and university projects, but my suggestion would be to get the students to work in draft space rather than article space (so the article is Draft:Fred Bloggs rather than Fred Bloggs). It is unlikely that anybody will interfere with it there (unless it is a copyright violation) and they can develop it in peace. When you think it is complete, you can either move it to article space, or request a review by inserting {{subst:submit}} at the top: if the review is successful, the reviewer will move it to article space. --ColinFine (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kerry, I'd like to strongly echo the advice given above. The in use template is intended more for an established article that already meets notability guidelines but needs to go through some significant editing that may not easily be done in a single edit. That template also refers to another template "under construction" but I do not recommend that in your circumstance. There was a time when it was considered acceptable to put up a half written article and expect some time to get it up to snuff, but that is no longer viewed as acceptable. Especially, now that we have the draft workspace there is no reason to create stubs in progress in article space.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

WB and WP

Can anyone please tell me what is the relation of Wikiboks and Wikipedia? Like if the contents are just copied from Wikipedia? Or we can have a personal book? Or it must not have links et cetera. Please provide me some basic knowledge of copyediting from WP to WB. Thank you!
117.207.31.137 (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Wikibooks is a separate project from Wikipedia. Both are managed and provided by the Wikimedia foundation, but have very different purposes. Wikibooks is for creating original free textbooks. It is possible that content may be copied from Wikipedia (with suitable attribution), but generally the writing style of an encyclopaedia is different from that of a textbook. (It is unlikely that much will get copied the other way, both for reasons of style and for reasons of verifiability).

If you are creating a textbook in Wikibooks, and think some content in Wikipedia is appropriate, you may copy and paste it, but you must attribute it, usually by giving a link to the source Wikipedia page in the edit summary. This applies even if you are then going to go on to edit the text in Wikibooks, as it will then be a derivative work (which is permitted, but must be attributed).

If you just want to put together a personal book of certain Wikipedia articles, you may be interested in Books within Wikipedia, which are quite a different thing from Wikibooks. --ColinFine (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

how to verify my page is not same as another wikipedia page that has the same name?

My page is not yet approved, and it says 'Warning: The page already exists. Please verify that it is not a copy of this submission and that this page does not need to be moved to a different title' but it doesn't say how. So, how? Ghm33 (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ghm33: If you simply type the name of the page into the search bar, it will open the page if that page exists. (Alternately, you could open another article, then replace the name of that article with the article you want to check in the address bar.) In this case, it's a redirect: Epal redirects to Enterprise Privacy Authorization Language currently. You've submitted your draft already, so you don't need to do anything else for the moment. If your draft is positively reviewed and ready to become an article, you can address it at that time. Most likely, the redirect would be replaced with the new page, and a hatnote would be added to the top, with text along the lines of "This article is about X. For Y, see Z." dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 07:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dalahäst: Thank you Dalahäst yes I had seen that page and I meant to add a link to it after it was approved. I thought that maybe there was something to click or whatever to indicate I recognize there was a similarly named article. I suspected I didn't need to do anything like you mentioned, I suppose the instructions should be improved into saying what you just said, that there will be a hatnote added to the top with text, etc. Thanks again.

Deletion tag

If the image file is marked with deletion tag,{{delete|reason=}} and it is on "Commons:Deletion requests" Who will remove the tag or delete the file permanently? 182.185.67.18 (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The Teahouse answers questions about editing the English Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons is a separate project with different goals and with its own policies and guidelines. The decision will be made by an administrator there, and we have no influence over the matter here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

How to edit an article on a notable architect?

I have been writing an article on a notable architect (accepted as such by the editors) which has eventually been declined as reading too much like an advertisement, despite having a huge number of external references which support his notability. As the architect in question has been in practice for four decades and is the most decorated in his domain I have tried to edit the list of his notable works and the long list of his awards to focus on the most prominent. I have also included a list of his publications and articles about him in other journals. If Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, why would I want to provide less than a comprehensive article on this person? I am at a loss to know how to do a better job. I would be happy to point an experienced editor to the article in question to get some more precise guidance. Thanks.Orbitzoll (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Orbitzoll, I suppose this would be Draft:Robert Morris-Nunn. It is as much a matter of tone ans anything else. Phrases such as: "He uses architecture to tell stories about place and to inspire consideration of the social and environmental impacts of the buildings he designs" and "Morris-Nunn’s collaborative approach has led to his working with many other creative Tasmanians[5], including Man Booker Prize winning author, Richard Flanagan, eminent structural engineer, Jim Gandy [6]and Master of Australian Craft and furniture maker, Kevin Perkins" may be sourced, but the the WP:PUFFERY in the adjectives is not acceptable, unless it is the opnion of the source, in whoch case it must be quoted and explicitly attributed. The lists of awards and publications are much too long, in my opnion. Only the most significant ones should be included, perhaps with a link to a page (external?) that does have a complete list. The comments from the previous reviewers should be taken seeriously. I hope that helps a bit. DES ^(talk) 02:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Orbitzoll. You include a big long list of completed projects, including words of praise for the various projects. The majority of the references in that list are to the architect's own website. It is not appropriate to use a person's own website to determine which projects are notable. It is even less appropriate to cite praise of their work to their own website. A Wikipedia article must be based primarily on what independent reliable sources say about the topic. The subject's own website is not an acceptable source for praise or evaluation of importance or significance. This encyclopedia is based on the neutral point of view, and what people say about themselves is never neutral. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Images of school logos

I'm very new here and I'm sure this question has been asked a numerous amount of times (but I'm not sure how to navigate this page). How exactly do I place an image on a wikipedia page? I want a school logo and have an image in mind but the html does not seem to coordinate (it does not show up when I simply insert the url. Pretty sure that's a bad place to start. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated :)

Peacekeepurwar (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Peacekeepurwar. You cannot hotlink to images. Instead any image used here has to be uploaded – either to the Wikimedia Commons (only for free media) or here. For a school's logo, that would likely be non-free copyrighted - if it passes threshold of originality. If it's not much more than lettering, you can upload it to the Commons. See e.g. File:Sony logo.svg to emulate if this is applicable.

If non-free on the other hand (highly likely), then it would have to be uploaded locally and could only be used in the article on the school it is the logo of (nowhere else), under a claim of fair use in that specific article. For some of the nitty-gritty, see Wikipedia:Non-free content.

If this is applicable, you would start by uploading it at Special:Upload (there is a file upload wizard, but it is in my view way overcomplicated, especially if you've been given advice about what the page must contain, which I will get to right now). The upload must include a copyright license template and a fair use rationale, and the image itself must be at relatively low resolution (there is no exact formula but think about 200 to 300 pixels × 200 to 300 pixels). For a file you might emulate, see File:Oberlin College Seal.png – click edit at the top of that file's page and see the code inside; that's what you'd be cribbing from. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Fuhghettaboutit

Userpage problem

On my userpage in this section I am unable to type that I have recently begun working on NPOV disputes and I genuinely have no idea why. When I try it reads 'I have recently begun working on.' Thanks, Rubbish computer 18:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done When linking to a category, you must use [[:Category:NPOV disputes|NPOV disputes]] rather than [[Category:NPOV disputes|NPOV disputes]]. Without the leading colon, you put your user page into Category:NPOV disputes rather than linking to the category. You can also use {{cat}} to link to categories, it avoids this error. DES ^(talk) 18:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Thank you. Rubbish computer 09:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

profile page

Hello, how do I put the boxes and stylish information on my page? Are there templates available? Thank you. Alec Station (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You are probably looking for an Infobox, and you can add it on your profile.The best way to do this is to look at Help:Infobox, and from there you can get what you are probably asking for. Your welcome if this helped! Pezminer12 (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Alec Station. Your question is rather unclear. I guess you are talking about User:Alec Station/Lisa Casagrande: if so, Pezminer12's reply is spot on - but please bear in mind that it is not "your page", and that what you are creating is not a "profile" but an "article". On the other hand, if you are talking about your user page (which is the only thing on Wikipedia which is even close to either a "profile" or "my page"), then you need to look at Help:Userbox. --ColinFine (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alec Station: Hi, although your user page is yours to edit and others shouldn't edit it unless there is something there that shouldn't be like vandalism, typos amongst other things, you may want to read the article WP:OWN, which states that no editor owns an article, others can make changes and you cannot prevent them from doing so. Thanks and happy editing. TeaLover1996 (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: @ColinFine: I'm sorry for the confusion. I am referring to the boxes that state what languages and preferences and memberships at Wikipedia. For example [1] I tried to copy a very colourful one I saw but I could not get it to look decent as everything was all over the place! Alec Station (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup, those are userboxes, Alec Station. The link I provided gives information about what is available, and how to lay them out. The User page design center might help as well. --ColinFine (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

India area articles

For this particular part of the world and articles in WP, while editing misspellings I have come across articles that need some clean up in regards to punctuation, capitalization, expression choice and links probably due to English/American not being the primary language of the writer. I would like to find more of these articles because it gives me an opportunity to work on articles that ordinarily are not worked on by others and seems a waste that people may not be able to access them while in search because of the inconsistencies. Is there a way to zero in on articles from this area of the world and possibly the less developed or reviewed articles. This would be minus the cinema related articles as they seem to have a life of their own. I think that not being from that part of the world but wanting to learn more about it gives me a perspective especially about linking for those characteristic that the native-born may not think significant enough since they grew up with it verses the lay-person from a different experience/situation in the world. Is there an India area of the world list of articles needing attention?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Srednuas Lenoroc. You could try a Catscan search with the following settings:

Categories

India;

Depth

4;

Has any of these templates:

copyedit
copy edit

Using that I found 249 pages. A depth of 5 would likely find more but when I tried it timed out. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

What does depth mean? Thank you. Alec Station (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alec Station: Depth means how many levels of subcategories to include. For example, depth 2 means to include subcategories of subcategories. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Editing

Hello. I am needing to edit a page and am completely lost on how to do it! What do I do about dead links? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tari327 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tari327: Dead external links (to other websites, like in references and "External links" sections), or dead wikilinks (links to other Wikipedia pages)? In the first case, you can try to find where the page has moved to, assuming it hasn't just been deleted entirely. Websites get reorganized sometimes and pages move around, so the page may still be there at a different URL. If it looks like the page doesn't exist anymore, you can just remove the link. If you're talking about red wikilinks, it's fine to leave some in the page if they could reasonably become articles, and you could even create them yourself, if you like. If there are excessive red links, feel free to at least delink some of the less relevant ones, by removing the brackets in the wiki markup so the link becomes normal text. Wikilinks to things that obviously do not need pages of their own can be removed, of course. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 09:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You can use the {{dead link}} template to mark it as something that needs attention. if it was being used as a reference, you should be very careful about removing it, unless it would not have been an appropriate source, anyway. You can find a different source that validates the claim and replace the dead link. You can search the Wayback Machine to see if a version has been stored in its archive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the documentqation for {{dead link}} suggests leaving it up for 2 years if the link is not fixed, allowing tome for archives to process their crawl results and update their pages, and for editors to find and supply a valid replacement link, or archive link if possible. DES ^(talk) 18:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This may be a good piggy back question. I sometimes read that you have to have caution about dead links since the situation may be just that the host network is down. So how do you tell if a network is down/under maintenance instead of link void?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Srednuas Lenoroc: Coming from the public internet, that is a distinction you usually cannot make. If you are really keen on knowing, you could contact the owner of the domain accessible via a WHOIS service. For instance, looking at a recent edit from my watch list, I see the external link http://www.hospitalsafetyscore.org/h/kalispell-regional-medical-center?findBy=city&city=Kalispell&state_prov=MT&agree=agree&rPos=285&rSort=distance mentioned. You can find WHOIS lookups via web searches with "WHOIS" as the search term. Using one, I see that there are email addresses for both the registrant, admin and tech for hospitalsafetyscore.org ... all the same contact information for the same person. If I had questions about whether the domain were live or not, I could use this contact information to place an inquiry. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

AS a practical matter, if you find a link down, wait several days and try again. If it was maintence, or a temporary problem, ther is a good chance it will be back up. If it is still down, the odds that it is a long-term or permenant outage are much higher. DES ^(talk) 03:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the WP standard about adding a contact of a web link say if the original access was more than 5 years ago? Sometimes, the original link was made years ago and if an internet link was active in say 2005 and then again in 2015 it might be a good idea to show that the link has longevity and thus it might be a technical issue rather than a web site content issue?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Srednuas Lenoroc, if a link is active today and goes to the relevant content, and if it seems reasonably likely to be stable, it may be added today. We don't ask for, and editors usually don't have, any history of how long it has been live. I(n fact, I don't think we even have any standard place to record such information. when using a url in a cite XX template, the "accessdate" parameter should show the most recent date on which the link was accessed and the content was checked to support the citation. If the link should later go dead, acccessdate may be used to help detrmine which archived vrsions to check, if using internetarchive.org or another archive that periodically caches versions of a site. DES ^(talk) 12:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

what do you do when a page is a trainwreck

I've been working on cleaning up pages about gangs & organized crime in canada. I ran into this page, and have no idea what to do...the sources aren't reliable (or are non-existent) and the whole thing doesn't seem very encyclopedic. I don't know where to start or what approach to take?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Canadian_organized_crime

Cycloth (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cycloth You have two choices, If there are sufficient acceptable sources for an article about the topic (even if it won't look anything like the current one) you blow it up with WP:TNT and start over. The other choice applies if there simply aren't adequate sources to support even a brief stub article, then you nominate it for deletion. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• First of all, why is this article seemingly duplicated? If it is (a simple and exact dupe), just delete the duplication - the longer it's left, the harder it gets to clean up.

There's an essay WP:JUNK which says that in such a case, sometimes the best thing is to delete the lot and start again. It doesn't get much support and in a case of pathological listcruft (which is what seems like the problem here) then I wouldn't go that way either.

Are you connected with 64.180.223.203 (talk · contribs) who has already deleted bunches of this (and been reverted)?

Like most things on WP, it's mostly about tribal politics - I mean WP tribes, not article subjects. How did this article get to be how it is and who is interested in either fixing it or keeping it how it is? You may need to get agreement through the talk: page before anything useful happens to the article, otherwise it's just going to be edit-war tennis.

Is this article topic notable? For this "notable topic", define that topic and its scope. How does that compare to the scope of this article?

At present, I'm seeing this as a notable topic that's probably easily sourced at the top level. Breaking it down by cities, business sectors and notable gangs is useful, but harder to source. The list of deaths though is not part of "an encyclopedia article" on the topic. If it was to become List of deaths related to Indo-Canadian organized crime that should be a separate article AND SOURCED. So one easy edit ASAP would be to delete all those sections and make a visible note of that on the talk: page, with a linked diff. If anyone wants to recover it for a list article later on, that's easy.

I don't think this is too hard to "fix" and fix quickly. But that quick fix is a much smaller article, and I think that's an OK place to be. Then don't let it expand again unless everything added is sourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Couple of style points too. Proper nouns should probably be linked. So names of major people in the body text, cities and regions, terms like "Jatt community". If they're important enough to list, they're important enough to explain. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I think you're right about it leading to edit-war tennis if I just try to edit it, because I've seen this user revert my changes (by adding back unverifiable content) before, on a different pages about gangs. I'll try to get agreement through the talk page. incidentally, how do I "ping" this user if I need to, so that they notice I'm trying to talk to them? (I haven't seen them use a talk page before.) Cycloth (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

(oh, I should add that I'm not connected with 64.180.223.203 (talk · contribs).) Cycloth (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• The easiest thing is to not get reverted in the first place. If you explain what you're doing, there's far less chance of this. In particular around admins like MaterialScientist (who reverted the IP) and who is a busy admin / editor at reverting simple vandalism. They're also one of the better admins for judging content issues. Yet if you pop up as an IP with no past editing history and perform a number of multi-k deletions with no explanation, that's going to look too much like vandalism and will get reverted, even if it's what the article most needed. So raise it at talk: first and use edit summaries to explain, especially when pointing at the talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, not being reverted is the best path so make a change that cannot without doubt be acceptable and then in the edit sum include that the article needs extensive rewrite/verification and also apply, if it is absent, the WP template appropriate for what needs to be done with that article. If that gets reverted then ask a question of the person that reverted since some seem to be more trigger happy than others and you just might get another senior editor that can by returning the edit(s) and thus giving your efforts some credibility especially with use of an IP. Do not let the "IP scrutiny" get you down. Just use the system of developing credibility a bit at a time at the start then it will be less likely your IP edits are reverted by those editors that concentrate on IP edits.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Joseph, could you please tell me how to link to the Autoblog Wikipedia page from the following sentence within https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL#Content "The separate AOL Brand Group, led by Luke Beatty, is a diverse network of sites including Moviefone, Engadget, Autoblog, TechCrunch, Cambio" The moment the user clicks on Moviefone, Engadget, TechCrunch, or Cambio, they are brought to the associated Wikipedia page, but because the way the Autoblog Wikipedia page is currently configured, they are not brought to the Autoblog Wikipedia page. Would it be possible for the user to click on Autoblog within the sentence and be brought to the Autoblog Wikipedia page? Our hope for the Autoblog Wikipedia page is that it will link the same way that Moviefone, Engadget, TechCrunch, and Cambio do. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auto Aficionado 15 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit Wikipedia Page Title

Hello Joseph, could you please tell me how to link to the Autoblog Wikipedia page from the following sentence within https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL#Content "The separate AOL Brand Group, led by Luke Beatty, is a diverse network of sites including Moviefone, Engadget, Autoblog, TechCrunch, Cambio" The moment the user clicks on Moviefone, Engadget, TechCrunch, or Cambio, they are brought to the associated Wikipedia page, but because the way the Autoblog Wikipedia page is currently configured, they are not brought to the Autoblog Wikipedia page. Would it be possible for the user to click on Autoblog within the sentence and be brought to the Autoblog Wikipedia page? Our hope for the Autoblog Wikipedia page is that it will link the same way that Moviefone, Engadget, TechCrunch, and Cambio do. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auto Aficionado 15 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, the Editor in Chief at Autoblog.com, Michael Austin, has asked that the Wikipedia Page Title be changed to Autoblog from Autoblog.com. Could someone please tell me the proper way to change the title? When I used the Move function I was told I am not authorized. Thank you. Auto Aficionado 15 (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Auto Aficionado 15: The correct way would be to move the page,see Wikipedia:Moving a page. However, thispage already exists (wrongly according to Wikipedia standards) at Autoblog.com. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

As a result, I've moved the page to Autoblog (website), which is the correct name under Wikipedia standards. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joseph, thank you for the edit, but would it be possible for the URL to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoblog ? For example, other websites under AOL read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechCrunch and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engadget If possible, we would like the title of the page to be Autoblog and not Autoblog (website) Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auto Aficionado 15 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No, because Autoblog, which has the address "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoblog" is a disambiguation page, see WP:DISAMBIGUATION- it links to all the pages on Wikipedia about topics involving autoblogs, and Talk:Autoblog suggests there's already been multiple discussions about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit Wars

Prior discussion: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 240#Accurate vs. Concise

Several months ago, I had a question on balancing accuracy and being concise (unfortunately, I do not know how to link to my question for reference).

As background to my initial question, Person 1 made edits to tv episodes summaries that greatly improved their accuracy but greatly exceeded the word limit.

Person 2 undid the edits in order to have the summaries fit a word limit but reverted the edits and, thus, reverted the summaries to their inaccurate state.

Person 3 redid all the edits, arguing for accuracy.

Person 2 re-undid all the edits, arguing for conciseness.

Eventually, I came along and increased the accuracy and reduced the words in each of the summaries in order to make everyone happy. I also asked a question on here asking whether accuracy or conciseness was greater.

The individual answering my question said that accuracy was more important. However, the individual also said that Person 1 was responsible for starting an edit war, whereas I assumed that Person 2 started it.

Is this person right?

Also, if Person 1 actually is responsible and he just edited the page (rather than initiate or propagate the edit war), then how can we be proactive about preventing edit wars? Coulson Lives (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Coulson Lives! You might not like this answer but it depends. You'll find that portions of an article like plot or episode summary vary quite a bit from article to article. You'll find some articles with several paragraphs outlining what happened in a story while different articles will just have one sentence summing up the plot.

The "official" guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries (and several links in that section as well) but within this guideline what is next in importance is editor consensus. Editors that focus on editing this particular series should discuss this the format of plot summaries on the article talk page and come to some agreement so that there won't be lot of reverting back and forth. I encourage you to initiate this discussion if it isn't already happening. It sounds like there is currently some disagreement so there will probably be a variety of arguments put forth. But since often the same editors work on articles pertaining to a specific TV show, it's important that you come to a resolution you can all live with. If not, dispute resolution is that a way. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Coulson Lives please clarify what you mean by "word limit". How/who/when/where was it decided that there should be a word limit? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Roger (Dodger67) Person 2 was the first to mention the word limit once he reverted the edits made by Person 1. When I chatted with him about the word limit (so that I could satisfy Persons 1,2,3) he claimed that the word limit was 200 words and referenced a page on Wikipedia. However, I do not know where the page is. Coulson Lives (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Coulson Lives, It seems thsat the reference was to WP:FILMPLOT or a related page. But note that that guideline page says, in part: "The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction‍ '​s non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)" Which makes it clear that this is not a rule set in stone. See also MOS:PLOT. DES ^(talk) 20:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of edit wars and responsibility for them, my feeling would be that if Person 1 only made the one edit, they did not edit war by any stretch. However, they may have been disruptive in another way. If there is an ongoing debate or recent tenuous concensus, editing too boldly can be disruptive. It is better to discuss or go for dispute resolution. Furthermore, if some of the reverts were carried out by editors who are known to regularly back up Person 1, that can be tag teaming. However, I seriously doubt Person 1 could be succesfully accused of actual edit warring in particular.

To avoid accidentally opening a can of worms, my first step when coming to a new article is to quickly scan the talk page and edit history. That way I can try to gauge how controversial my edits will be, and what concerns I should keep in mind. In really contentious articles, I tend to get involved on the talk page first. Good edit summaries are also good for avoiding knee-jerk reversion. I also try to avoid reverting edits with salvageable content. If I do, I leave a clear edit summary and often a message to the editor I have reverted. Politeness and communication can help prevent edit wars. That being said, please don't let the fear stop you from making informed, good faith bold edits. Just know that you may be called upon to justify and discuss those edits. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

In regards to activity with the edits of an article, if there are particular contributors involved over a time period you may approach them with a message on their talk page about what you would like to do. If they disagree then ask them why. If there is a continued conflict then take it to the article talk page. If there is no conflict then try an edit. If it proceeds to a 3revert then take it to the attention of the appropriate WP hierarchy for consensus arbitration. Despite the guidelines, plots can be a bucket of ants when it comes to what stays although more concise AND fulfilling plots can be developed. What some secondary editors look for is consensus building activity rather than contention. The added effort at the beginning clearly can show that you are being conscientious and following the WP ways.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

What constitutes a Credible Source?

First, let me apologize for being so new to Wikipedia as a contributor (just 3 days). John from Indegon has threaten to ban from here, but I trying my best. Apparently I don't have appropriate sources. At least that appears to be my biggest of many problems.

I am trying to put together a nice page for my High School, where I graduated from in 1971. I used the school's website as a source and that was rejected. I also used the Michigan High School Athletic Association as a source for various state championship won by the school's athletic teams and they were rejected as well. Can anyone help me out? Thanks so much!

donnerpassDonerpass (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

John explained in one of his messages that you need independent sources. While a few sources from the school can be fine, using nothing but sources isn't (one might as well just visit the school's website at that point). This was obviously inappropriate, which is why the warnings have started off so severely. Normally, they would have started off far more gently.

You might want to check our reliable sourcing standards as well. The best sources are academic sources (for example, books by historians), followed by high-quality journalism. Random sports websites are less likely to be accepted. You might also want to read WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTPROMO -- just because sources are reliable doesn't mean that they deserve attention. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Great input. Thank you Ian. I hate being the new kid on the block.

Thanks again. donnerpass2602:306:33CA:4550:AC79:B33F:776C:BA17 (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Donnerpass. Guess I finally got your attention. I am glad. We all were the new kid on the block once. Just to clarify to you, MHSAA is probably the best source available for state championships in Michigan. Your edits were reverted because you were capitalizing them incorrectly. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to have just fixed them for you, but when my initial attempt at collaboratively assisting you was met with what happened at the link above.....I think you get my point.

Some things to keep in mind. The entries here on Wikipedia are not "pages", they are encyclopedia articles. They are not created "for" the school and its community, in fact, that is the one group they are not created for. The target audience for any Wikipedia article is the entire English speaking world. The local community has other resources to learn about the school. Stuff added to a Wikipedia article is not to be slanted in any way. Most adjectives are your enemy when writing an encyclopedia article. There are guidelines for content for school articles. They can be found at WP:SCH/AG.

Again, I will be more than happy to help you in any way I can. Although Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it takes some skills to edit it well. Any help I can give I am happy to do so. Just drop me a note on my talk page, or come here and ask. happy editing. John from Idegon (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This brings up an interesting conundrum about such things as sports and other activities at any level of school, especially with the long standing institutions that have as their source material school newspapers as local papers may have been merged over the years and the original titles were not maintained by the newspaper or the area library collections. There are university articles with tables and text of such information without stating a source. How does WP handle this type of occurrence? I imagine it can be created by searching credible newspapers of the area but probably for expediency school newspapers and almanacs are used. As for any "threat" about banning, I wish that someone would revamp the templates commonly used probably solely for expediency rather than degree of content misapplication since they do seem to be rather harsh especially for recent arrivals. This be "nice and respectful" of others seems to get lost. Use the harsh sounding templates on those that egregiously have shown a disregard for the article with a real content intent on vandalism rather than what appears to be an attempt at contributing and is merely in arrears on policy about sources. Concentrate the use of calling something vandalism when it is apparent instead of a violation of a policy a newbie may not totally comprehend based on their experience to date.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Srednuas Lenoroc, School newspapers are often considered low-quality sources, and many editors prefer to avoid them in favor of other sources. But there is no absolute rule against them. Many newspapers, not only school papers, change names or are discontinued. But old editions can often be found in libraries. If they can, such old editions can be used as sources, sources need not be online, as long as they are available to the public. In such a case, iuf using citation templates |quote= allows the editor to specify the exact source text that supports the citation, provided it is not excessivly long.

as to warnign tempaltes, i don't know which one you refer to or in exactly what circumstancs it as used. For most issues there is a seeries of four templates, growing gradualy more "stern" from 1 to 4. Some issues have only a single tempalted message. And an editor can always alter the standard tempalted messsage if it doesn't quite fit the situation, or choose to leave an individualized message instead. Most of the relevant tempaltes are listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. DES ^(talk) 13:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I hope this is not a situation of semantics but listen to that has been said, "First, let me apologize for being so new to Wikipedia as a contributor (just 3 days). John from Indegon has threaten to ban from here....." This is the impression made by the template sent "them". They felt threatened. I have never received that particular template but I have read other people's talk pages where it has been sent. You use the word stern. Well, maybe it is a situation of the anonymity of the internet. If I were in a situation of face-to-face I would be VERY CAUTIOUS about saying as much to someone. If I were in someone's personal space and said to as much for whatever infraction caused I would consider that behavior rude especially if it is from someone that I have had absolutely no previous interaction. That impression I can clearly understand that "Donerpass" has from the experience. I do not know much about California but I do know about the Donner Party and that the pass is in the mountains. Where I live the mountains are not populated by the masses as are the flatlands. When you communicate with others it does take reasonable amount of finesse in how you communicate with others in an area that you have more to loose than gain by being so "stern". If that is the impression made to a newbie then it has to be recognized. As for the use of such a stern message I have seen following some of the edits I have made to articles the changes that can only be characterized as vandalism because the content had absolutely nothing to do with the article. The latter I would deem appropriate for such a stern message but for a newbie that has trespassed on sources it seems a bit too far. If the impression made to a newbie is "threaten" then the implications of such a template possibly can cause a more defensive stance than conciliatory by the presumed offenders. Again, if this is a template of first warning that gives the impression of threat then the implications of that template seriously need to be reviewed and used in more appropriate situations than what was experienced by this particular contributor. Of any one, a more experienced contributor should know the implications of how they present themselves. Again, you have a newbie that felt threatened. That is the impression that they have come away with during this experience. Is that a good impression? The only thing I can surmise from the situation is that they could be words of someone wanting to pick a fight. I do not expect for any one to understand that because we all have different experiences and conditions in our lives but for an "isolated" person from the mountains that impression can be a result.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

deleting wiki acct

how to delete my wikipedia account? Gladys Haiti Alley (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You cannot delete it. You can just stop editing and not use your account any more. You can also read WP:VANISH and see if it applies to what you want to do. RudolfRed (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. I wonder if I just deleted my content whether that would render my page blank? Or would wikipedia restore the content? Gladys Haiti Alley (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gladys Haiti Alley. You can blank your own user page and/or your user talk page if you wish, or you can add a "retired" banner if you want. But you cannot delete any useful encyclopedia article content that you have created. You donated that irrevocably. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply, Cullen328. It's just the answer I needed because I only wanted to blank my user page and user talk page, since my article was deleted or moved to my user page. Thanks, again. Gladys Haiti Alley (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gladys Haiti Alley: You can also request your userpage to be deleted by placing {{Db-u1}} at the top of it, if you'd like to rid of it completely (since right now, the page's history is still accessible). Note that you can't request that your user talk page be deleted. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question in the sense that there is a rising tide supporting the "right to disappear" (which does not have an article here or even very many mention). My thinking is that there might be some work to be done on this matter in cases where people have used their real name (or a version of it) as their username ... as I have myself. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine, I have sent the permission from the owner through the ticket number that was issued. If it was not received I can send it again. Thanks.Omogbe (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine, I have sent the permission given to me by the owner through the ticket number that was issued to me. If it was not received I can send it again. thanks. Omogbe (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding images

I would like to add some images from the Bertha von Suttner project to Wikipedia. These images are all 19th century; are there any potential copyright problems ?

Additionally, how would I actually go about doing this ? The embed file option doesn't seem to have an option to go from an external site.

Also, I tried asking this question several times via the "ask a question" form and it did not work for some reason. Thank you, Stan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.32 (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Stan. Images from the 19th century are probably public domain. I've had a quick look at http://www.berthavonsuttner.com to see if it claimed copyright on anything, but it doesn't as far as I can see. (For more recent images, the default assumption is that material is copyright, but for pre-1923, the default is that it is not).

The Mediawiki software will never display images from an external site: they must always be uploaded first, to Wikipedia, or preferably to Wikimedia commons. Please see WP:UPLOAD. --ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have the same question, I have already uploaded to wikimedia and gotten my permission/copyright clearance, I replaced the article with an updated one and then forgot how the bring in the photo. Can you help please. Omogbe (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe the link is File:Tony ezekiel.jpeg I know it more than that, but can't remember what else. Omogbe (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Omogbe. The picture is File:Tony Ezekiel.jpg (case is significant). However, it says that the permission has not been received, and it will be deleted on 24th. You say "The copyright holder sent me the photo and the right to use", but this is not enough: you need to get the copyright holder to follow the procedure in donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine. I have already requested permission through this ticket number [Ticket#2015061710008341] Permission/Copyright that was issued to me. Righ now I am confused. Omogbe (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see, Omogbe. The trouble is that almost all the people who look at and edit Wikipedia (and even most administrators) do not see those tickets, and have no way of knowing that you have submitted one. What you need to do, as it says on the page I linked to above, is to edit the Commons description page and insert the template {{OTRS pending}}, which gives people notice that you have submitted a request. --ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)