Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, 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

Explicit images in personal user page

Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia, and noticed two explicit images in my personal user page last night. I have since removed them, at firs thinking it might be something that happens a lot with people trolling on Wikipedia, but I am wondering if anyone has any insight into what this might be or how this happened? I can't see any edit history in my page. Any help would be much appreciated!Mprofio (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

children

can children use Wikipedia Rushiv123 (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Guidance is available at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and Wikipedia:Advice for parents. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding infoboxes to Wikipedia entries

I am attempting to add an infobox to a Wikipedia incubator entry - (full page address: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kbp/Moli%C3%A8re_Jean_Baptiste_Poquelin) - that I am editing, however when I preview the changes, I simply get the link and message:

Template:Infobox Écrivain and no more... Clicking on the link gives an error screen with the message:

Template:Infobox Écrivain Error: This page is unprefixed.

There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, or search the related logs.

The code for the infobox is as follows:

Teahouse
Genre	comédie, comédie-ballet

I can personally see nothing wrong with this code, although I am not very experienced in creating Wikipedia entries. This code has been compared with that in another page with an infobox and there seems to be no significant differences.

I would be grateful for any help or input.

--SFLord (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi SFLord
You appear to be trying to use a French template on the English Wikipedia - try using Template:Infobox writer instead - Arjayay (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Arajay for your reply and suggestion - unfortunately it is not as simple as that. The eventual page will be in a language named Kabiye, however the trade language in that area is French. The following code is for a different page with some keywords in Kabiye and others in English - these will eventually be translated into Kabiye...

You can find that page at: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kbp/Cam%C3%A9roune

Since there are 2 different infoboxes in use - one of which is not working - I am beginning to suspect that the Écrivain infobox has been deleted. --SFLord (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The OP has changed the wording of his question since you answered it, Arjayay. It now appears that his question applies not to the English Wikipedia but to the Wikimedia incubator in the Kabye language. You need to realise, SFLord, that this Teahouse is for questions regarding the English Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi SFLord
Please don't refactor (re-write) your question after it has been answered as it makes it difficult for people to follow
You appear to be writing an article for the Kabye Wikipedia - Unless there is an equivalent template on the Kabye Wikipedia, I suspect you cannot use any template - Arjayay (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

David and Arajay - thanks for your help, it now seems clear that the template in use does not work and we will have to create a new one... (which does!) or alternatively the Écrivain template has been deleted (which will undoubtedly cause some confusion!). I have placed an identical question on the Incubator Community Portal - as per your advice.

--SFLord (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. You would need to transfer the template - and any templates and modules that it depends on - to the Kabyle Wikipedia first. As far as I know, templates cannot be shared among Wikipedias. --ColinFine (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@SFLord: Code of form {{X|...}} is calling a template called X. See Help:A quick guide to templates. The template must be defined at the wiki where the code is used. Each wiki has different templates. The French Wikipedia is at https://fr.wikipedia.org. The template at fr:Modèle:Infobox Écrivain can only be used at the French Wikipedia. Incubator does not have a template with that name so you see a red link when you try to use the same name there. incubator:Wp/kbp/Caméroune has code of form {{Wp/kbp/Ɛjaɖɛ|...}}. The code works because there is a template at incubator:Template:Wp/kbp/Ɛjaɖɛ The same code fails here at the English Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org because we have no template of that name. There are three potential solutions: 1) Find another useful template which does exist at Incubator (there may not be any). 2) Create a template yourself (this can be difficult). 3) Don't use a template. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

internal links

Hello Teahouse I am trying to add an internal link on a sandbox page for a name that has many entries on wikipedia. The specific name i need to refernce is not the one in the insert link box and when i add the correct url in 'target page or url' it tells me that it is an invalid title. What should i do? TIA Greensaulberg (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you problem was with the link to William G Tucker, you perhaps intended William G. Tucker? If your problem is with the various links you have to disambiguation pages, you should replace those links with the article title as given at the top of the relevant article (not a url). --David Biddulph (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I have made 3 edits to reflect what I think you intended. You are, of course, welcome to revert any or all of them if I got it wrong. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi David and thanks for helping.

The name i was trying to link to is Philip King (artist) There are many Philip king's on Wikipedia and this one is very hard to find! I have used the article title as suggested. Thanks again! Greensaulberg (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

As you've probably realised, the choice of titles for disambiguated articles may not be entirely consistent. Some of those linked from your page are ...(sculptor) whereas this one is ...(artist). Note that he is Phillip King (artist) with a double-l, but there is a link from the disambiguation page Philip King to the other disambiguation page Phillip King. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

How is this not neutral?

I created a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chris_Finley and it was removed because it was not reading like a neutral encyclopedia. Can someone please give me more substantial pointers on what I need to go better?

Stayhomegal (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stayhomegal. First, I recommend that you read our notability guideline for scholars, which is located at WP:ACADEMIC. It would be very unusual for a PhD candidate to meet that guideline. Your draft refers to her as "Dr." but indicates she is not yet a PhD. Why is that? Since she wrote a book, you may also want to read WP:AUTHOR.

Your draft lacks a range of standard biographical details about the person, except for her tribal affiliation. If this person is actually notable as Wikipedia defines that term, then that information should be readily available. It is up to you to show that she is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, the draft Draft:Chris Finley has not been removed, but the submission that it be published as a Wikipedia article has been declined, for the reasons explained in the previous answer. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a minor comment, Stayhomegal, but you have written that Finley is a co-author of this book, but in fact she is a co-editor. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

ExtendedConfirmed Right

I looked at the user rights log, and lots of people have been promoted to ExtendedConfirmed. What is that? Peter Sam Fan 23:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter SamFan. Wikipedia:Extendedconfirmed says: "The 'extendedconfirmed' user access level is granted automatically to registered editors with 30 days tenure and 500 edits. This user access right allows editors to edit pages with Arbitration 30/500 protection." This was also brought up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Strange burst of activity at Special:Log/rights. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I have more than 30 days and 500 edits but am not in that group. Maybe it's not automatic? RudolfRed (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: You joined the group the moment you made this edit. The group was introduced a few hours ago and is automatically assigned the first time a qualifying user makes an edit after that time. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The user rights log [1] shows it started being assigned 23:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC). User:Jack Gaines was the first. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Have learned A LOT today! ...but still more questions..

Well, I now know how to post on talk pages, and that I need to seriously work on my Wiki-skills! I previously agreed to help another person by posting a page, but after today, I am wondering if there is a way to write a completely neutral, integral article? I am a full-time student and mom, and I am not making much but I would be given a small honorarium for writing that frankly, I need. I am positive that the subject's of the articles would also want an unbiased tone, and I am basically being paid for my time. I realize that I am putting it all out there, here but I would rather be honest. I would love any tips for writing neutral, unbiased articles.

I plan on doing some serious reading about this, but again, I do have learning disabilities that make reading the intense, Wikipedia 'how to' articles overwhelming for me and comments help me to absorb them.

Thank you!!! MelissBelle (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh! and I forgot to ask for anyone who is willing to help make my current (and only) article more neutral.

MelissBelle (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi MelissBelle. My suggestion to you is to carefully read WP:NOPAY and WP:PAID. Getting paid to write an article might sound like a great chance to make some easy money to you, but unfortunately Wikipedia does not see it the same way and such at attempt is likely going to be highly scrutinized and opposed by other editors. If you feel that the person who wants you to write the article is truly notable per WP:GNG, then try asking for help at Wikipedia:Requested articles. If there's really enough for to be written, someone there will eventually write one. You should understand that doing it yourself is going to be really hard and there's absolutely no guarantee that whatever you come up with will be approved or survive a deletion duscussion. The other person should also be made aware of WP:OWN and WP:LUC because having a Wikipedia article written about you does have a possible downside. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be lots of things so it' important that you and the other person understand that before you start to save time, effort and money. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@marchjuly

Thank you so much for this! I did not even know about the requested articles option. I will try that. I have to say though, this has been ANYTHING but EASY money! At this point, after all of the time Iv'e put in, I'm losing money.

Is there anyway to ensure that my article isn't deleted?

MelissBelle (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me answer your question with a maybe. Any editor can nominate any article for deletion at any time. An article may be nominated for speedy deletion if certain criteria are satisfied. An article with less serious issues may be prodded for deletion when it's believed that the consensus of any deletion discussion about the article would clearly be to delete. Finally, less clear cases are discussed at AfD. AfD discussions only focus is to determine on whether the subject an article satisfies Wikipedia:Notability. So, the best way to help an article survive on Wikipedia is to ensure that it does not fall under any of the criteria for speedy deletion and that it does satisfy WP:GNG. Try to understand that "notability" (as defined here on Wikipedia) is not determined by how well or how poorly an article is written. In other words, editors are encouraged to fix things they can fix before nominating an article for deletion, but notability (or the lack thereof) is not something we can improve/increase through our editing per WP:ARTN. Many well-written articles have been deleted simply because the subject was deemed to be not notable for an article. Similarly, many poorly written articles have been kept because the notability of the subject was well established. All that needs to be shown per WP:NEXIST is that suitable sources which can be used to establish notability do exist. Finally, the main reason I say "maybe" is because Wikipedia guidelines and policies are constantly changing, so there is no 100% guarantee that what is considered acceptable today will also be considered acceptable in the future. The best you can do is to try and comply with the current notability guideline. If you do that, the article has a good chance of surviving any challenge to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Status of scanned newspaper pictures

I have some very old newspapers - pre 1940. I would like to add picture scans from them into an article I am preparing. The scans are of pictures of sporting events. Is it permissible to add these and if so, how should I proceed? George . . . GDMorgan (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @GDMorgan: and welcome to the Teahouse. The copyright status of such images depends on the country, and the exact year of the newspapers. If it's in relation to Old Belvedere Cricket Club, then Copyright law of Ireland suggests that "Protection expires 70 years after the death of the author/creator." Which means the images are possibly still under copyright law. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that. This is a new article I am planning - not yet published. In the case of a now defunct newspaper, how might I establish the copyright? If the photographer was an employee of the newspaper, then can I assume the copyright is owned by the newspaper? If the paper folds, then after 70 years (in Ireland) the image is free. But if the photographer owned the copyright, then it is only free 70 years after his death? Am I correct? Is there any sense in which using the photo could be deemed 'fair use'? George . . . GDMorgan (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

George, Irish copyright law, as mentioned above, is normally 70 years after either the death of the author or, if the author is unknown or pseudonymous, the date of publication but for uploads to the commons they must also be in the public domain in the US. If you don't know the author and you don't know if an image was "made available to the public, i.e, published, as it appears for most of your Belvedere images, your are out of luck because the copyright status remains uncertain. Defunct newspapers may have been absorbed by another newspaper who may still own the copyright, so some investigation needs to be done but in general the 70 year rule applies. It appear that many of the images for Old Belvedere Cricket Club that were uploaded to the commons were deleted and I noticed that some of the older images have the author as "Sean Murphy ( -1945)" which seemed like a highly convenient 70 year old death date and wonder what research has been done to verify that date. Many of the other images are from 1950 or newer and just don't make the 70 year mark. In fact the whole article appears to have only been expanded to include mostly names of offices, including minor ones, of the club and a gallery of random club photos which is not encyclopaedic but that's another issue. In my opinion this article needs to be reevaluated completely because all the existing images plus a load of others you want to add are just decoration and don't really contribute to the reader's understanding of the club. I suggest you read WP:NOT especially WP:NOTGALLERY. To answer your other question, our non-free policy is far stricter than the usual understanding of fair-use and any such use MUST comply with all 10 non-free policy criteria but from what I saw of the article they fail #8 and probably 1 or 2 other criteria. ww2censor (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my question here about old newspaper photos has nothing whatever to do with my article on the Old Belvedere Cricket Club. It relates to another article which I am planning about another sport.
I take on board all you say about my article on the cricket club. It is a work in progress and I am already being guided by another administrator on what is not appropriate for the article. I have taken down several of the images which he says are inadmissible. I am new to this and learning on the job. Thank you for your advice and interest.
George . . . GDMorgan (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

How to change the main title

Hello! I am an intern for the free port of Ventspils and they suggested I could improve the Wiki page about Free port of Ventspils. Basically the story goes around the port in general and it would be more accurate to name the page - port of Ventspils. The free port organization is just a part of the port. We made the change in Latvian and were hoping we could also do this in English. Hoping for an answer,

Ventspils brīvostas pārvalde (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Ventspils brīvostas pārvalde: and welcome to the Teahouse. I've started a move discussion at Talk:Free port of Ventspils about moving the page. Anyone is free to contribute to the discussion, and once a consensus is reached, it will either be moved/not moved. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Need more help..

Hello,

I am new and am being paid to write/post articles by friends of friends who are busy! ;)

I had no idea that this was a potential COI, but have had it brought to my attention.

I have read policies about this, but as I have said in a previous post, I have some learning disabilities that make it very difficult to process all the info in front of me.

I can't even figure out how to post or reply to my own talk page.

Is there anyone who might be willing to walk me through what I need to do to disclose my being paid?

Thank you!!!

MelissBelle (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @MelissBelle: The simplest way to disclose your paid editing status is to put a note on your userpage along the lines of "I've been paid by X to create article Y".

Also, you are highly recommended to submit any paid articles via articles for creation, which is the process you used for Julia Flynn Siler. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@josep2302 Thank you, again!

MelissBelle (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

improving content

Hello today I tried adding content to a stub-level article about Tara Hunt. Later the editor, Redune, reverted the article to the original with the message that the content I added was about the Whuffie Factor, not the living person described in the particle. Here is the link to the edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tara_Hunt&oldid=prev&diff=713703537

Redune was right of course and I thanked him/her, but am now unclear about how to improve an article about a person if I cannot refer to their work. e.g. could I add a section like 'Social Media Advisor' and then describe her application of the Whuffie concept to online reputation building?

As an aside I don't have any connection to Tara - although I did refer to her social credit-buidling ideas in one of my own books. She thanked me and I then looked at her Wikipedia article. Caboc333 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't get an image to upload..

Hi there,

I am really new to Wikipedia, but offered to help an author friend create a page for her. It is live, and have been sent comments, but I don't understand all of the jargon, and can't figure out how to reply to them!

I am most confounded by my inability to upload the image she sent me to add to her page. Could anyone help with this, or upload it on my behalf?

I am so green, and unfortunately have some learning disabilities that make absorbing Wikipedia's meaty guidelines overwhelming..would be grateful for any assistance!

Thank you!!!

192.235.5.91 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please log in and tell us the article name. Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I logged in and the name of the article is Julia Flynn Siler.

Thank you!!

MelissBelle (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi again MelissBelle. The reason you were unable to add the photo to the file is that only files that have been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons can be added to articles. It appears that you were trying to add a photo located on an external website (not the Wikipedia servers) which is something that you cannot do. You can find out more information about this at Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1. One very important thing to understand about images is that not everything you find the Internet is suitable for upload to either Wikipedia or Commoms. Commons only accepts images which are freely licensed or in the public domain (see c:Commons:Licensing for more details). You should try and verify the copyright status of the photo your friend sent you before trying to upload it. If your friend took the photo herself or is the original copyright holder of the photo, then she should consider donating the image to Wikipedia per WP:DCM. If she's not the copyright holder (the photographer generally holds the copyright, not the subject of the photo), then you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holder and their explicit consent in writing to freely license the image for any use by anyone anywhere in the world for any purpose (including commercial) per WP:CONSENT.

Wikipedia does allow certain copyright-protected images to be uploaded as non-free content, but there are restrictions placed on how they may be used. Unfortunately, one of these is that images of living people generally do not satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content policy because in most cases it's possible for a freely licensed photo which is capable of serving the same encyclopedic purpose to be taken and uploaded, which would apply in this particular case.

Finally, please try to explain to your friend that the article may be written about her, but it is not "her" article as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Subjects of article are not granted any sort of final editorial control over how the article is edited, but they do have some recourse to resolve issues as explained in WP:BLPCOMPLAINT. Images are no different than textual context in that adding/removing them is often decide through consensus in the absence of serious policy concerns. All images must comply with Wikipedia:Image use policy and those that do not can be removed by any editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Citations

I've been rewriting an article in which the many citations for sources that are magazine and newspaper articles don't include the titles of the articles as they should (the articles with online links also have the entire citation hyperlinked rather than just the title as it should be). I've looked into a couple of bots, but I can't determine if any of them could add the article titles and fix the linking issue. Is there a bot that will do the trick, or must I fix all 117 citations manually? WikiEditorial101 (talk)

From what I understand you can use refill or its equivalent. If you have any more questions feel free to {{P|Zppix}} me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zppix (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 April 2016‎ (UTC)

I think you might need to explain that in more detail, Zppix, as editors asking questions at the Teahouse are unlikely to know what "refill or its equivalent" is. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Good point what I am talking about can be found here reFill by Zhaofeng. (Also don't be me and forget to sign :D ) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Trying to Update Intro for American Actor/Comedian Steve Rannazzisi

I would like to update the page of American comedian/actor Steve Rannazzisi. A major aspect of his public persona is omitted from the introduction and the entry is incomplete as a result.

Rannazzisi built his career saying he escaped the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11. He didn't. This is something that defines his public persona and should not be buried in the text as it is now.

Rannazzisi's career is inexorably linked to his 9/11 story. He began telling it to comedians immediately after moving to Los Angeles days after the attack. He began telling elaborate versions of the lie publicly starting in 2009.He shared detailed accounts on multiple comedy podcasts and interviews. The New York Times was going to out his false narrative in September 2015, but Rannazzisi admitted it publicly hours before the story ran.

Typing "Steve Rannazzisi" into google returns 172,000 hits, with mulitple mentions of the lie on the first page. "Steve Rannazzisi 9/11" returns nearly 60,000 hits on google. So more than a third of his presence on the internet is tied to the falsehood. Type in "Steve Rannazzisi" and click the "News" feed in google and you'll see scores of articles on the subject.

It is absolutely integral that his connection to a lie he told for 14 years be mentioned prominently in his bio. It belongs in the first paragraph, if not part of the first sentence.

References

187Journalist (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I would have helped if you had provided the article link, which is Stephen Rannazzisi. The article as written, and it has not been updated since Friday, does state that his claim is not true. However, from the wording of your entire post, it appears that you are here to Right a Great Wrong, rather than to facilitate the Wikipeida policies of neutral point of view and biographies of living persons. Read the policies and read your post above and consider how best to implement those policies. The article does state that he did not escape from the World Trade Center. What, if anything more, do you think is necessary? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Robert,

Thank you for getting back to me. Sorry for all the links I dumped on you, the one for Mr. Rannazzisi's Wikipedia page should be toward the top.

I'm suggesting an update Mr. Rannazzisi's biography intro because it omits something he's well-known for. His prolific lie became national news and to this day people remark about the scandal on his social media accounts.

I have no intention nor desire to subvert Wikipedia. Requesting this update is all about accuracy. A significant percentage of online stories and web mentions about Mr. Rannazzisi demonstrate this one of the two things he is known for. He was on the League and he lied about escaping from the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Updating the intro paragraph of his Wikipedia biography won't right a great wrong or inject opinion into the content. It merely includes a significant chapter of his career.

My suggestion is to tack on a quick sentence to the bio portion. For example:

Stephen Rannazzisi (born July 4, 1978) is an American actor and stand-up comedian who co-starred as fantasy football league player Kevin MacArthur in the FXX comedy series The League . In September 2015, Rannazzisi admitted to lying for 14 years about escaping the South Tower of the World Trade Center during the September 11, 2001 attacks.

References

187Journalist (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi 187Journalist. The Teahouse is typically a place for editors to come and ask general questions about editing, etc. Detailed discussions about article content such as this are more suited for the relevant article talk page. This makes it much easier for other editors watching the article to be made aware of your concerns and comment as they see fit. Since Rannazzisi is still living, the article about him is subject to WP:BLP; therefore, care needs to be taken regarding adding anything which might be seen as contentious per WP:UNDUE. I also see you have discussed this on your user talk page as well and your edit requests have been declined by very experienced editors. Please be advised that forum shopping in the hope you'll eventually find someone to agree with you is not really considered to be appropriate and might even be seen as disruptive to some. My suggestion is that you take your concerns to the article's talk page to see if there is a consensus for the change your proposing. You can be bold if you wish, but something such as this is likely to be reverted by another editor which means you'll end up on the article's talk page anyway; so, I think it's best to be a bit cautious here. If nobody responds to your post after a fair amount of time, then you might claim you have achieved a silent consensus and make the change. If you're subsequently reverted, follow the steps in WP:DR. For more specific advice regarding this, try asking for assistance at WP:BLPN, but makes sure you carefully read the instructions at the top of the page before posting. Good luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Username change

Hi. I want to know if my username could be changed please?

I am new and did not know it would be such a big deal to change something like that when I signed up. I am currently using my fullname and surname and that is not ideal for extended reasons.

Can it be changed to: Lielies

And if it is changed will everything stay the same or am I going to lose things like my userpage and contributions etc.?

We have been given a Multimedia Honours degree assignment that stretches over the the whole year and would not want to lose everything I have already done and fail the course as everything counts towards your final mark.

Thanks

LlewellynDeJager (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The process is described at Wikipedia:Changing username. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Drafted an article & want to edit it but have some issues

Dears,

I have drafted an article titled "Tehreek-e-Dastak Pakistan", and copied some text from article titled "Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, now I want to change the text, as per the requirement of the article & want to remove the non- related text but I received the message below from Laberkiste.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Tehreek-e-Dastak Pakistan with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Laber□T 13:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Can someone help me please?

RegardsMzl azakheli (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mzl azakheli. Are you saying that you initially copied the whole of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf to Tehreek-e-Dastak Pakistan, and then set about changing the content to refer to a different party? That's really not an advisable way to do things, because it means that for several days there was an article which you had knowingly created with wrong information. (It would be OK to copy it to your user space, eg User:Mzl azahkeli/Tehreek-e-Dastak Pakistan and work on it there.

It looks to me as if Laberkiste saw you deleting large chunks of the article, and that looked like vandalism to them, because they didn't realise how you had created it: that is the other reason why you shouldn't do things like this in main space.

In any case, the thing to do now is to have a discussion with Laberkiste on the article's talk page, and agree what needs to be done. If my interpretation above is correct, you shouldn't have any difficult reaching agreement. --ColinFine (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Note also that rules for attribution and copyright apply to copying within Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

My short contribution/edit went under a wrong heading.

Wikipedia Page: Development Communication >>> Development Communication Policy Science.

My short write-up should have been a new section "9.9 Development Communication and Gender Equality" under "9. Development Communication Policy Science," but instead my write up was inserted under the heading "9.8 Development Communication in the Information Age." Can you please put my short write-up under the appropriate/correct heading? Thanks much. Potsko101 (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You hadn't marked the heading for the new section. I have now done so in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft page

Hello, i am attempting to make a page for a sculptor named Michael Bolus. I have only started today so it is very basic work in progress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelBolusStudio/sandbox I would appreciate any comments as to whether the subject may be passed for publication, with further citations etc and i have a technical question At the moment the page is headed by my user name, how do i make it the subjects name? TIA MichaelBolusStudio (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, MichaelBolusStudio, and welcome to the Teahouse. The thing to remember is that Wikipedia articles should be written almost 100% based on what independent sources have published about the subject, and those sources should be cited explicitly (but not quoted, except for short, explicit quotes: the articles should summary what the sources say in new words, not repeat it). If you know something, but it has not been published, don't put it in. Ever.

It follows that the very first step in creating an article (after making sure it does not already exist) is to find several reliable published sources that discuss the subject at some length, but are completely independent of the subject - not just published by somebody else, but written indepedently (so not based on interviews or press releases). If you cannot find several such sources, then give up: the subject does not at present meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If you can find some, then you can start writing an article, based only on what the sources say. This is all summarised in Your first article, which I encourage you to read straight away.

It's a good move to start it in your sandbox, because if you start writing it in the main article space, it would immediately be subject to scrutiny, and do deletion if it fell short. This way, you can develop it in peace, and when you think it is ready for release, pick the "Submit your draft for review" at the top, and if the reviewer accepts it, they will look after moving it out of your user space to the right name. It is not ready at present, mostly because you have no references at all: please see referencing for beginners.

However, there are a couple of administrative problems that you need to be aware of. First, your user name is not acceptable: user names may not be used by multiple people, or suggest that they are editing on behalf of an organisation. Accounts must be personal to individuals: you don't have to use your real name (I do, but plenty of people use pseudonyms), but it must be your own personal account. See User names. Secondly, if you are connected with Bolus, then you have a Conflict of interest. This doesn't forbid you from writing the article, but you are discouraged from doing so because you may find it hard to be sufficiently neutral (though the text you have written so far is not particularly promotional, so well done). But you should disclose your conflict of interest if you have a connection; and if you are in any way paid for doing this (eg if you are an employee of Bolus), then you must disclose this under Wikipedia's terms of service: see PAID.

My personal advice is that, as well as reading all the pages I've linked to above, you put this to one side for a while, and get some experience of how Wikipedia works by finding existing articles which need improvement, and working on them: writing a new article is hard. --ColinFine (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

draft declined question

Hello,

i was editing this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Easirent and it was declined twice. I tried and entered as much reputable sources as possible but i wonder if i should also include other websites or blog articles. Please help me to understand if the problem is with the referencing of the text or the references. Thank you! Kchatzia (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, Kchatzia. The issue with Draft:Easirent is that the two references cited don't sufficiently demonstrate the notability of the subject. On Wikipedia, notability is established if there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. A couple of regional newspaper reports (even if the newspaper is a well-known one such as the Echo) aren't really enough to constitute "significant coverage". Ideally, you need to add more sources to the article. Coverage in national newspapers would go a long way towards establishing notability. I would avoid citing blogs, as they are not generally considered reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

what would this be considered

i wrote some info about Zentangles. Could I put Zentangle on the doodle article? Clairem05 (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Clairem05. If you complete your sandbox draft, and it is accepted as an encyclopedia article, then you could add a link to it in the "See also" section of Doodle. Please wait until then. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I wonder whether Clairem05 intended it to be a standalone article, though, or rather a section of the article on doodles? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Pay

How can I get paid to update sports teams statistics, recruiting, records, etc? Lschapk (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lschapk. If this question is about getting paid to update that information at Wikipedia, we have no such facility; articles are edited and updated by volunteers donating their time, and we view any type of paid editing as very bad form. If this question was more general – not about Wikipedia – then you might try asking at the miscellaneous section of the reference desk. This page is only for questions about Wikipedia itself. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Perm address to my article

I have an article ready to be published but I can't seem to publish it officially. It continues to show as a draft. How can I publish it and obtain a perm URL? Ramirezp (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ramirezp. The best way is to submit if for review, by inserting the template {{subst:submit}} at the top (exactly like that, with the double curly brackets). When somebody reviews it (which may take a week or two) they will either accept it, and transfer it to mainspace for you, or else give you feedback about what in there opinion needs to be improved. --ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ramirezp. Can you specify exactly which draft you wish to add to the mainspace? I looked at your edit history and it looks like you are currently working on Draft:Xochitl Chávez and Draft:Olivia Cadaval. This is just my opinion, but I feel that both drafts are still not ready to be added as articles. I suggest you continue to submit them via Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follow the suggestions left by reviewers such as Robert McClenon. AfC reviewers tend to be very experienced editors who are well-versed in Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines and their suggestions for improving drafts are meant to help you improve yours. I don't advise you try to move these drafts directly to the mainspace yourself as some editors sometimes try to do because such articles are usually quickly nominated for deletion for one reason or another which can be quite the shock when it happens to you. Finally, please be advised that we as editors do not own the articles, etc. we create or edit. Most experienced editors will refrain from editing the draft of another editor out of consideration unless there are some serious policy issues (e.g., copyright violations or BLP violations, etc.) which require immediate attention; however, once a draft is added to the mainspace it is there for anyone to edit at anytime and concerns about the encyclopedic quality of the article generally take precedence over other things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC) ‎

Ramirezp, a few comments:

• I've looked at Draft:Xochitl Chávez, and removed a good deal of it as it appeared to have been copied more or less directly from sources on the internet. Everything you write in Wikipedia must (with a few rare exceptions) be entirely in your own words.
• You've very properly declared your conflict of interest on your user page – thank you! It might be helpful if you were to add the name of the institution to that declaration. I believe you should also add a declaration to the talk page if you edit any article, draft or talk page connected with that institution.
• Draft:Xochitl Chávez needs a good deal of work. As a first step, I suggest stripping out the remaining weblinks in the body text (not the references, but things like Smithsonian Latino Virtual Museum Art and Culture Podcast), as we don't do that; and removing all references that are connected to the subject of the article, such as those from the Smithsonian Latino Center and Smithsonian Latino Virtual Museum. If after that there are enough independent reliable sources to establish that Ms Chávez is notable by our standards, the page has a chance of being accepted. WP:PROF gives the notability criteria for academics.
• Please remember that Wikipedia does not allow promotion of any kind, in any space including Draft space.

Good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit capitalization of page title

I have created a page for the author Clara Bingham, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to capitalize her last name in the page title. Kristophermonroe (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the page. -- GB fan 17:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

Kristophermonroe (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sanbox

Help, i am trying to work several articles on an upcoming story, but i cannot find the option to add more pages to my sandbox. By accident two test articles went live. Anyone know what to do? Arcmind (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Arcmind. You can create pages in your userspace with any name you want, such as User:Arcmind/Sandbox, User:Arcmind/Sandbox2, etc. You seem to have created User:Arcmind/Vekrion, which works too. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

But that is just the thing, i did not create it, a nice person who knew about this stuff did. what i mean is how do i open a new subpage from the start? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcmind (talk • contribs) 16:36, 4 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Yes, I just came back here to comment again having noticed that AddWittyNameHere moved the page for you. You can created them by typing "User:Arcmind/Example name" into the search box. The software will tell you that no such page exists, and give you the option to create one. You could also just type the desired URL into your browser's address bar and the same thing will happen. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have got the hang of it with User:Arcmind/sandbox Solar System, Arcmind. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay, that sounds pretty easy, thanks!

Sandbox

I just want to know for what purpose are the sandboxes used for? I am not still cleared even after reading the article.(SmrutiakaMemories (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

There are various sandboxes such as the main sandbox which are used for practicing editing (e.g. getting used to how to use wikipedia's markup language), and are periodically reverted to their initial state. There is also the user sandbox, which is used similarly but which other people do not edit; you can also use that for keeping notes or drafts that you are working on. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphan?

Why does wikipedia say my site is an orphan page when i clearly have links from other wiki site pages to it. Sporting Markets (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Tags such as the orphan tag are added and removed manually. As the article is no longer an orphan I have removed the tag. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

And I've blanked and listed Professional Football Scouts Association because of foundational copyright violations. In any case, it doesn't seem to me that this organisation is notable by our standards. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please help me! :)

Hello Team,

Can you please help me with a article I created a few hours ago? My page was denied and I don't know how I can fix the issue. Please help me.

The page I worked on is titled "Tony Rose (Author).

Thx

) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WHSnow (talk • contribs) 14:23, 4 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Hi WHSnow, you can start by replacing all the Youtube references in Draft:Tony Rose (author) with references from reputable publications such as mainstream newspapers, magazines, or websites with a responsible editorial reputation - so no blogs or social media. If they exist, academic sources are the most valued. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

how best to define terminology...glossary? footnotes?

Hello again, this is regarding the draft, AEDP... One editor suggested the level of vocabulary and terminology may over-reach the average reader. I'm wondering if it will help to add a glossary, or footnotes in orderbto clarify a term (which may seem like jargon, but these are actually non-replicable terms for specific concepts). Also, I plan to submit the lead paragraph and its references before the body of the article. The article itself breaks down the meaning of the lead paragraph point-by-point. How can I give a heads up to the editors that while the lead paragraph could stand on its own, the concepts will be clarified in the body of at the article. I am worried it will be declined for the reasons of jargon and readability as an editor in this teahouse suggested (sorry, I can't remember the name).Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I strongly recommend creating it as a draft, and only moving it to article space once it is acceptable as an article. If you don't, it is likely to get deleted for the reasons you mention (and possibly others too). Maproom (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

To add to the above - a lead paragraph cannot "stand on its own", as it must be a summary of the rest of the article, supported by the references therein. Maproom (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

how to access my references to add URL

Hello, I have been asked to add URL's to my references. I can't figure out how to review my references for editing so that I can add the url.Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, using the regular editing window, go to the citation template (the thing of the form <ref>{{cite book|first=foo|last=bar|title=something|some_other_fields=something else}}</ref>) and add the url like so <ref>{{cite book|first=foo|last=bar|title=something|url=www.thatwebsitewhereifoundit.edu|some_other_fields=something else}}</ref> Basically, you add a new field called URL and give it the desired value.

Another option is to use visual editor. Click on the pen at the top right of the editing window. Select the option to discard changes (those are just the changes from this editing session). Wait for the interface to load. Then click a reference, press edit on the tag that appears, press add more information and add the url from there. Happy editing! Happy Squirrel (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

thank you happy squirrel Carrieruggieri (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia page not made correctly

I made my Wikipedia page as I'm an actor and I'm being told that it will be taken down.Junior Paul Chiedozie (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia strongly discourages anyone from creating or editing articles that they are the subject of -- see WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO.

All articles must meet our notability guidelines (see WP:GNG). Basically, an article needs multiple professionally published, mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject but not affiliated with the subject. Of the sources currently in the article about you, the Voice Online article is the only one that meets our reliable sourcing standards, and that only mentions you in passing. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Junior Paul Chiedozie. I appreciate that it is hard to make a career as an actor, and you are looking for every opportunity to publicise yourself. But Wikipedia may not be used for promotion, no matter who you are. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of a company is a staff member

Hi there. What can be done, if a company decides to get their company un wikipedia. First it`s company page read like an advertisment, the main contributer is working with the company. The Wikipedia page is called Internatonal Volunteer HQ as well as Daniel John Radcliffe.

Thanks (Responsible volunteering (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I had a look at International Volunteer HQ (IVHQ). It wasn't as blatant as other stuff I've seen (long lists of offered services, complete with a link to order), but clearly needed a realignment to become an encyclopedia article. The topic is maybe notable as it appears their organisation has some media coverage and has won a prize, so I didn't feel comfortable nominating for deletion. Opinions vary, but the solution I prefer (and have used) in these cases is just to go ahead and chop out anything irrelevant or improperly sourced. Then I watchlist the page to keep an eye on how the article progresses. Other editors may have other approaches.

In general, many issues of this type also run afoul of copyright and speedy deletion can be requested by placing {{Db-copyvio|url=source URL}} at the top of the article (fill in the url field). For absolutely outrageous blatant promotion, you can request speedy deletion using {{Db-promo}}. Thank you for bringing this issue up. Happy editing! Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Correcting links when no link information appears on the editing page

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highs_in_the_Mid-Sixties,_Volume_18, two of the names of tracks appear incorrectly as links. "The Poor" points to a band by that name in Australia, not Colorado. "The Doppler Effect" points to the page for the physical phenomenon by that name, not a band at all. When I go to edit them, though, I do not see anything I can remove. There are a couple bot actions in this page's history. Were these links added by bots, and that's why I can't see them? How can I fix this? Dgndenver (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Just remove the square brackets to unlink. Possibly you might be able to find an appropriate link, but, if not, just leave the text unlinked. Dbfirs 07:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Proofreading, etc.

Hi, Could someone please look over this article before I submit it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Congregation_Emanu-El_Bn%27e_Jeshurun Thanks!Jennaxel (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jennaxel: The first major problem I see is that you're using a self-published book from AuthorHouse as a source. A self-published book can occasionally be reliable for certain things, but it will likely not contribute to notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll look for other sources.Jennaxel (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

On vandalism

How can a page be protected from vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Peterson 753 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Hello, Robert Peterson 753. Please sign your contributions on talk and project pages with four tildes (~~~~). The answer is that you can request protection at WP:RPP; but the page needs to have been subject to persistent and recent vandalism. If you are talking about Syrian–Turkish border clashes during the Syrian Civil War, you need to read the Wikipedia definition of Vandalism: editing that you disagree with is not vandalism. You are having a content dispute with Gala19000, and you both need to stop edit warring and start discussing on the article's talk page. If you cannot reach agreement, follow dispute resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

See What is not vandalism. The use of hostile edit summaries, such as "revert vandalism", in a content dispute that is not vandalism, can be construed as a personal attack. It is, if anything, more serious than such statements on a talk page, because personal attacks on talk pages can be deleted, but personal attacks in edit summaries cannot be deleted. In extreme cases they can be redacted by an administrator. In looking over the specific content issue, it appears to me that the best way to resolve the content dispute, which appears to be over how to characterize the result of the battles, would be a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Same source cite

When you use the same source more than once in an article, how do you make it do that a b c thing in front of it, rather than repeating the whole thing in different spots? Evidently I'm not using the correct search term(s) to find it. TYVM in advance. ScarletRibbons (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

O, wait....it was in the Teahouse ques right below mine! WP:CIT, who'd've thunk it?

Using the same footnote multiple times[edit]

For more details on this topic, see WP:REFNAME. Add a name attribute when creating a footnote <ref name="name">citation text</ref>. Thereafter, the footnote may be referenced by just using the following expression <ref name="name" />.

So it's that last tag, yes? Do I need to backspace the last 2 characters for it to work, or is it OK as is? ScarletRibbons (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hang on, it LOOKS like it works as is.... (space deliberate so the revered Teahouse elders can see it this time) < ref name=name (obvs newspaper article name?) space fw slash>? ScarletRibbons (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That's right. Wikimarkup uses the HTML convention that tags are usually in pairs <thing> ... </thing>; but when there is no content (nothing between the opening and closing tag, you use the different syntax <thing/>. By the way, if you want to present something here that the Wiki software is going to scramble, put it between <nowiki> and </nowiki>. --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:McCloy Fellowship

I reviewed Draft:McCloy Fellowship and declined it based on the sources not substantiating notability, because the references were all associated with the program. Its author User:Pk1416 then updated it and resubmitted it, and I declined it again, saying that it didn’t have a proper Reference List, and that sources appeared to have been added, but not as footnotes, and that the added references were run together, and there was a redundant heading. The author then posted to my talk page:

Dar Robert, thanks for reviewing my post. Your comments are great to help me improve my post. Could you kindly elaborate on what to do. How to format the references? Why footnotes, which header? This is my first wikipedia entry and I am clearly struggling but eager to learn and approve. So I'd really appreciate you taking the time to eplain in more detail what needs to be changes in order to get approved. thanks and have a good Sunday

The author put an additional heading at the bottom of the draft. I am not sure why. I have removed it. As to how to format the references, I see that the author was able to format the references and put them in-line in the earlier draft. My advice is to re-read Referencing for Beginners again.

Do other experienced editors have any advice? Should the additional references (in German) be considered independent? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon - I usually refer them to WP:CIT, which gives them the actual formats for citations. Depending on how much effort the other editor is putting in, sometimes I'll correct one or two of the citations, to give them a concrete example of how it's done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Stub still

How do I get an article's status changed. I have worked on several articles for some time and I feel like I have improved them but they are still considered to be stubs. Is there any way that I can have that changed?

Exaples

Before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Smith_(athlete)&oldid=606220037

After.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Smith_(athlete)

Before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Under_the_Mat&oldid=604394987

After.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Mat

Ofcourse I want to also say that obviously not all of the improvement has been made by me.*Treker (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The various stub templates, like other tag templates, are added and removed manually by editors who think that this is appropriate: there is nothing automatic about any of them. If you think you have enlarged an article so that it is no longer a stub, you can remove the template. Make sure you put something meaningful in your erroredit summary, so that nobody will mistake the deletion for vandalism. --ColinFine (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean to put something meaningful in the edit summary. Referring to it as an error summary is an error, but we know what was meant. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks. Rather good, though, wasn't it! --ColinFine (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

How to ad-block the voting ads ?

How does one disable this advertisement? "Help choose the best image of the year. View the candidates and vote for your favorite" Bytesock (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bytesock. Clicking x in the corner worked for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but they re-appear quite soon. Need a more sustainable solution. Bytesock (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Vote for something. I did, & I don't see them any more. ScarletRibbons (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Uchu RRFisher and an apparent requirement for applicants to be in Wikipedia

I reviewed Draft:Richard R. Fisher. I custom-declined it, stating that the author should fix reference errors, should not use Wikipedia as a reference (because it is either a wikilink or a See Also), and should provide wkilinks to relevant articles whose title appear in the draft. I also templated the author with the autobiography caution. I then received the following from User:Uchu RRFisher:

I applied to the AIAA for consideration for an advisory committee position, and without approval or disapproval I did get the comment that my bio was not visible in the Wikipedia, Exact ontemproaries, Edward Weiler, Chris Scolese, James Green, - all of the same department and serving the same agency are listed with basic bactual information. Using these examples I have tried to create a parallel bio free from value adjetives contining only verifiable information concerning period of intense and notable developmdnt for the NASA scientifc research program. I was completely unaware of the policy concerning autobiography - so I stuck to the facts only. I would like to be identifable and factually documented, but do not participate, out of preference, in various forrms of social media. If I have made an error of procedure that disqualifies the addition of my bio, perhaps you could help me make appropriate changes to th ms to make it more acceptable. Thank you for your attention in this matter,

Maybe I miss something? I consider it troubling that apparently a review committee is stating that the presence of a biography in Wikipedia is desired for applicants. While there is something to be said that a biography in Wikipedia is evidence of notability, peculiarly defined, I think that Wikipedia agrees that the absence of a biography does not mean that a person is notable. Also, as we can see, this sort of policy does push applicants into creating autobiographies. As autobiographies go, it is a good one, and appears to me to be free of peacock language. However, does anyone want to comment either on the draft or on the comment by the review committee? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Part of the reason that the Articles for Creation process was implemented is to allow new editors with a conflict of interest to create a draft for review by experienced editors. Drafting an autobiography and submitting it to AFC (as opposed to adding it to main space) is an entirely appropriate thing for someone to do, especially a retired NASA senior scientist with a very long career. After a few minor tweaks, I see this as a good improvement to the encyclopedia. I see no need to template someone who is following our recommended procedure in good faith.

On the other matter, some committee somewhere saying that someone ought to have a Wikipedia biography should have no effect on our decisions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY: "The proper way to get your own writing about yourself into Wikipedia if you really think that you can meet the inclusion criteria and are willing to accept having a neutral, non-promotional article, is to make a proposal at Articles for creation containing the text you want, instead of just putting it into the encyclopedia directly, and seek the consensus of the community through discussion. Not only does this provide independent viewpoints on it that can allow you to discover biases you were not aware of having, it also helps provide an indication of good faith and that you are willing to put the interests of Wikipedia first instead of standing in a conflict of interest." Therefore, this editor is behaving in the "proper way" and in "good faith". What more can we ask? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I know it can be difficult dealing with COI editors. Interestingly enough the autobiographies are some of the easiest to deal with. But Cullen is spot on about AfC being the appropriate route to take. I rarely use the autobiography template, I think only once, and that was with someone who was simply intransigent. That said, I've only dealt with three autobiographies (in developing them into mainspace articles - don't know how many I've declined due to POV and the editor simply walked away), and they have all been pretty interesting and pleasant experiences. The results on simply COI issues are decidedly more mixed. I do place a COI template on the draft, however, since I feel it's important during the draft process that other editors know about the COI, and once moved to mainspace, I'll place a template on the talk page - for the same reason. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

My take-away is that I should seldom use the autobiography template on AFC autobiographies. I agree in particular in this case, which was a good-faith effort by a marginally non-notable person to write an autobiography about his career, which is the usual basis of notability for notable people. Most of the autobiographies that I encounter in sandboxes that are submitted to AFC are a different matter, in that most of them either are really social media profiles (for which we probably need a special decline reason) or are complete junk (for which we have a few decline reasons). I agree that I shouldn't use the autobiography template on good-faith AFC submissions of autobiographies by people who have a marginal case for career notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem with this autobiography is that only one of the cited sources even mentions Fisher, his employee profile on the NASA website. The rest are simply links to college websites or pages about projects he claims to have been involved in, but these pages don't mention him. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Never going to be notable, and it isn't our problem if he can't get on at work because there isn't a Wikipedia article about him. Started MfD here. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have !voted Keep as a valid use of draft space to try to establish notability for a non-notable person. I only !vote Delete on non-notable persons and companies if the draft is being tendentiously resubmitted, and this is not. (If the draft meets any of the speedy deletion criteria, it should be speedied, not nominated for MFD, and this draft does not need speedy deletion.) Joseph2302 and I can agree to disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the articles for his colleagues, and not a one of them has sufficient sources (I did some tagging). Christopher_Scolese has one reference, a press release. James L. Green's article looks like the one we are discussing here, with lots of primary sources but no secondary sources, as is the case with the article for Edward_J._Weiler. So, to be fair, all three of these should get the same treatment, and quite honestly they probably do not meet GNG. That said, I find it to be VERY unfortunate that someone is using Wikipedia to make this kind of judgment, especially as they do not understand that WP is not authoritative, and that these particular articles are quite flawed. LaMona (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

User:LaMona and I are in complete agreement that it is deeply unfortunate that an organization (AIAA) is using Wikipedia as a step in their judgments. Not only is Wikipedia not authoritative, but this sort of setting it up as an authority will make it even less authoritative by encouraging applicants to create autobiographies to serve their own agendas. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Uchu RRFisher says that "without approval or disapproval I did get the comment that my bio was not visible in the Wikipedia". Without further evidence, let's not read into that that the organisation concerned is taking the existence or otherwise of Wikipedia biographies into account in its decisions. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding A Subtitle

File:Screenshot Sayori Bhadra-01.jpeg
This is a screenshot of Wikipedia (app-Android) search results. As one can see, it has got a subtitle "Indian Classical vocalist" below the name Kaushiki Chakraborty. I want to put the same on a page Shyam Sundar Goswami which is created by me myself. Need your kind help for this matter as soon as possible. Sayori Bhadra (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

That is not an appropriate image for a Wikipedia biographical article, Sayori Bhadra. You can discuss it on the article talk page at Talk:Shyam Sundar Goswami. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Sayori Bhadra. I believe that information comes from the corresponding record in Wikidata, Kaushiki Chakraborti. I have added it to his Wikidata record, and I believe that will cause it to appear in the App (but I don't know how long it will take to appear). --ColinFine (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Mobile search results do indeed use Wikidata descriptions. The results can also be seen in desktop browsers at the mobile Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org. The existing Wikidata item was actually about somebody else, an Indian yogi with a Swedish article at sv:Shyam Sundar Goswami. Sayori Bhadra has sorted it out by reverting you and creating a new Wikidata item wikidata:Q23697714 about the Indian classical vocalist. The description now appears in mobile search. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops! didn't look and see whether it was the right person. Thanks Sayori Bhadra for correcting it (I got notified that you'd added a message here, but then I found you'd removed it again - I didn't realise there was actually a problem with my edit and that you had fixed it). Thanks PrimeHunter for explaining it. --ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine and PrimeHunter thanks to both of you. I have solved the problem on myself. Would refer to you for other problems in future.

Sayori Bhadra (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC).

can I publish the lead section of an article and later publish the complete article

My lead section of the article is ready to go. The remainder will take me quite a bit more time. Can I publish the lead section for now and the body of the article later? Carrieruggieri (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Carrieruggieri, and welcome to the Teahouse. Not if you create the article directly in main space (because an article without references will probably get deleted rapidly); but you can create it as a draft, and write it bit by bit. As long as you don't do anything naughty, like infringing copyright, or personal attacks, nobody will interfere with what you have in a draft. I suggest you use the article wizard to create it.

However, more generally I would suggest that the lead should not be the first part you write. The reason I say this is that the lead should summarise what is in the article, and what is in the article should be 100% based on the reliable sources you have found. Unless you have already found and studied the sources, you won't know exactly what can go into the article, and so what can go into the lead. --ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. For added context, the draft is Draft:AEDP: Accelerated Experiential Dynamic Psychotherapy Your lead is long enough to submit on its own, yes. Once it is accepted, you can keep working on it and add more sections. However, as an AfC reviewer, there are two things I can see right away that you could do to increase your chances of a quick review and accepting. First of all, the vocabulary and style used will make it very difficult for people not in your field to read and understand your submission. It will also make your article less accessible and useful to most people. Try to strive for increased readability by explaining what you mean with less jargon. Another thing is that looking up journal articles can be time consuming. Providing links to your references can help reviewers check your sources faster and readers get more background more easily. Good luck! Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

thank you colin, I do have all the references and I have written the entire article. The lead paragraph is a summary of the article. I have to do a lot of re-writing because I lost track of my copy/pasting method of note-taking. So here and there a copyrite infringement may be picked up - So it needs a complete overhaul. Carrieruggieri (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Carrieruggieri, the draft is already an acceptable article, it just has a few "style" issues that should be fixed. The excessive referencing (as already pointed out) - no claim needs ten references, a maximum of three should be sufficient for all but the most complex claims. Secondly, this is a website not a printed book, so please add ISBN numbers to the book citations and DOI or PMID codes for the journal references - these codes automatically become weblinks that enable readers to quickly find the sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

thank you Happy Squirrel and Roger Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Charitable organisations

Hi there,

I am new on Wikipedia .since last few weeks I am trying to add one of the reputed International charitable volunteers organisation ( SMILE Society ,India).I am in the field of volunteering since last 25 years and I found this organization really good and hope they should be included in wiki. I tried to give third party sources ,like websites,books,image etc but still it is not accepted !? If any can guide me?(Kamalaindia (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC))

Kamalaindia, Greetings, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm glad to see your interest in Wikipedia. However, there are two issues here; notability, and conflict of interest. You need to demonstrate that the subject of your article is notable, and the basic threshold for that is our general notability guideline, which requires substantial coverage in reliable, secondary sources. You have added secondary sources, but none of these actually have very substantial coverage; the book I could access had only two lines, and the other didn't seem much better. The second issue is that of conflict of interest. I'm not sure if you have personal connections to SMILE society, but if you do, you shouldn't edit articles about them. I would recommend reading WP:COI. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for your answer. About books I think there are few references already given like lonely planet ,gap year etc. Hope that should work cause I have found pages that been accepted on the basis of these types of ref. If there are any other types of ref might help the article ? Please guide. About myself ,I already wrote earlier that I am a volunteer and I did volunteering with many organisations including SMILE Society . I believe organisation like them should be included in wiki . Looking forward to hear any advice ,guide and suggestions . (Kamalaindia (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC))

Sandbox

What is the Sandbox for? Is the sandbox a personal item, like a userpage, or is it a community page for discussion? Elsa Enchanted (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know the Sandbox is for trying out making articles. Before you post them.*Treker (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Elsa Enchanted, welcome to the Teahouse. Sandbox is actually for testing purposes. It can be used for drafting; before literally making changes to mainspace—that is, where "live" Wikipedia articles reside. So, yeah, it's more of a personal item. See Wikipedia:About the Sandbox for more details. -- ChamithN (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, there are different types of sandbox, Elsa Enchanted. There is a page at Wikipedia:Sandbox, which is public and is explained at Wikipedia:About the Sandbox, but you can also create your own sandbox or sandboxes in your userspace. For example, you might draft articles or test things out at User:Elsa Enchanted/Sandbox, User:Elsa Enchanted/Sandbox2, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

A small correction to the answer above. For user subpages including user sandboxes you should use forward slashes, not backslashes, so User:Elsa Enchanted/Sandbox, User:Elsa Enchanted/Sandbox2, etc. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, David Biddulph. Now fixed, to avoid any mishaps! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your answers! Elsa Enchanted (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ella. I haven't written any articles - I do grammar tidying, spelling/typo corrections, rearrange things for better flow, pop in *citation needed* tags if I know nothing/don't have any handy, & take on some poor article that desperately needs source material. This is where the sandbox comes in VERY handy. Wikicode for citations ain't your mother's HTML! My sandbox is full of code testing for references. This way I can make sure I didn't mess something up before I stick it in the article. It's a lot easier on your eyes to do it on a pg that isn't cluttered with text. I also save code for templates I think I might need in there, too. It's a useful little attic full of junk for me. ScarletRibbons (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

What characterizes a respectable source?

Hi, im a bit of a newbie on here. I was just wondering what would be classed as a respectable source for quoting in changes? I understand that something with fact is required, but what about websites or forums that discuss facts but aren't the actual source?BuildersBelt (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, BuildersBelt, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources has lots of information on this. As a rule, forums are not considered reliable sources as their content is user-generated and is not subject to editorial control. Sources can be used to support opinions and interpretations as well as facts, though - our wording should make clear that that is the case and attribute the opinion clearly to its source, however. Some examples of sources that are generally considered reliable include scholarly journal articles, quality newspapers, books published by well-established publishers and specialist websites and magazines. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Larry BuildersBelt (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@BuildersBelt: The above re forums is correct. That said, some forums can be useful sources of reliable sources - e.g. links to news items posted in forums. They shouldn't be dismissed outright as a tool for research. Mjroots (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@BuildersBelt: -I just want to expand a bit on Cordless Larry's advice: "Sources can be used to support opinions and interpretations as well as facts..." We write about opinions and interpretations at "arms length" by reporting the fact of existence of the opinion, rather than directly stating the opinion itself in Wikipedia's voice: Critic A described the event as "a day that we will remember",(reference Critic A's article) while critic B said in an interview "the event did not live up to the hype".(reference for Critic B's interview) -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your further help Mjroots & Dodger67. I will have a look and try and understand Forum usage on pages. Presumably i am OK to contract you direct should i have any further questions? Thanks BuildersBelt (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Change of My Article Name

I have changed my Article Name by using the " MOVE" option.It has created a new page..right now old & new both pages still exists.How to solve this issue ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NandaDulalMaity (talk • contribs) 06:23, 5 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse NandaDulalMaity, there is only one copy of the article: Mrigendra Nath Maity is only a Wikipedia:Redirect to Mrigendra Nath Maiti. Redirects are useful to readers because they resolve misspellings. —teb728 t c 06:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

how to tell if the article i copied to my sandbox is in the right placeLotta Little (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

i am editing my first article. I copied it to my sandbox and added stuff. but now i am not sure it is in the right place in the sandbox because i pasted it and then below it it says "edit below this line" should i move it? also do i put the sign icon in the subject or the body of the post??Lotta Little (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Lotta Little. It really doesn't matter where it is in your sandbox, because when you are ready to put it back into the article, you are going to have to copy and paste the section anyway. Copy and paste is not recommended for within Wikipedia, because it can lose history (attribution information). When you want to copy it back, you are going to have to look at the history of Ann Charlotte Bartholomew, and make sure that nobody else has made any changes while you have been working on your own copy; if they have, you need to incorporate their changes into your text (or make a positive decision not to, in which case you should explain your decision in the edit summary or on the talk page). It is very much easier to edit existing articles in place than to take a copy. (Don't worry about breaking something: all previous versions are still there, and it is easy to revert to an older version if necessary). --ColinFine (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed your last question: put it at the end of the body (as you have) not in the header (as you also have). --ColinFine (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Your draft mostly looks good for a minor but notable artist a hundred fifty years, and is almost ready for acceptance. Please try to find any more reliable sources about her. The list of other artists who have exhibited is probably not useful and could benefit from deletion (but I am guessing that it is a left-over from the Art and Feminism project). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I notice that I used an odd phrase "minor but notable", and I stand by it. If anything has been written about an artist who lived a hundred fifty years ago that still survives, she is notable, even if she was minor at the time. Issues about notability usually apply to living persons or existing companies or bands. If anything was written in a serious medium a hundred fifty years ago that is still extent, the subject is notable. In fact, a good rule for notability might be: "Do you expect that, a hundred years from now, there will be a passing mention of this person by scholars or journalists? If so, the person is notable. If not, they probably are not." Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)