Wikipedia:Teahouse

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, 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

Wikipedia Adventure - Stuck in Level 3?

Hello! The training is fab, but I'm getting stuck after I've saved fixing the five typos. It once let me try to do the bolding, but then I have to start over. I've done it three times and it doesn't let me move on. Any idea what I'm doing wrong? Thanks!!! SFElisaW (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

try moving ahead directly through the level4 link. Flawedaddiction (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

How to create a page with the same name of a disambiguation page?

I want to create an article on Magadha Empire, but there is an disambiguation page already existing on wikipedia with this name. Shall I edit that page and write my content in that disambiguation page? Flawedaddiction (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

How to remove an outdated notice banner at top of a Wikipedia page?

I recently read an article by an author, and when I looked up his Wikipedia page I noted a banner at the top from 2007 that reads: "This biographical article relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this biographical article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (August, 2007"

Since that was posted in 2007, the problem appears to be more than solved since the page now contains lots of secondary and tertiary sources. So what is the process for removing this outdated banner?

Thank you, Edith EdithWP (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Edith. If you feel the template is no longer required, then you may remove it. You can find out more information about these templates at WP:TMC. My suggestion is that you briefly explain why you are removing the template in your edit sum or in a more detailed post on the article's talk page. If you chose the latter, just add a wikilink to the talk page post as your edit sum. For example, "Issue resolved, so template no longer needed. See [[:Talk:Article name#Post name]] for more details." -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Concept of Sandbox

How do I move my article from sandbox and publish it publicly? Flawedaddiction (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Flawedaddiction. Editors may move drafts, etc. into the article namespace as explained in WP:MOVE. However, please understand that we as editors do not own the articles we create or edit. So, once we add something to the article namespace, it becomes fair game for anyone to edit (perhaps even in ways we do not like). It7s also there for anyone to nominate for deletion, which can be a bit of a shock when it happens to something you've worked on for a long time. So, you might be better off submitting your draft, etc. via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. This will give AfC reviewers the chance to look it over and suggest improvements. Drafts submitted via AfC tend to be more in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and, thus, have a better chance of staying in the encyclopedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask one of my colleagues to help me edit my submission?

I am sorry that the required format is more complicated than what I thought it would involve. Can I ask one of my colleagues to help me edit my submission? The question is, how to include a co-author for this article? Thanks.

02:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:142:2:FDDD:BC5F:7555:9CBD:E6DD (talk)

Hello, IP editor. This is the only edit from this IP address. If you give us the name of the article, then maybe we can help you. There are various ways to cite multiple authors. But context matters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Help with article requested

"Article for inclusion - The Memorial 'Mob'"

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am really not sure of the format, first time to attempt a request of this kind, this so apologies in advance.

I was wondering if someone could assist please in creating a page for The Memorial 'Mob' a not for profit group who create memorials (working on Charity Status over the next year), mainly for the lost and forgotten events of the Armed & Emergency Services. Some of our resources/social media are listed below if that assists.

http://thememorialmob.webs.com/

https://www.facebook.com/memorialmen/

https://twitter.com/Thememorialmob

We currently have over 50 projects on the books and they range from small memorials such as the ones to the Sutton Wick Air Crash to ones of National Importance for 2018 and would like to enable the World to rediscover them again, through the resource that is Wikipedia as it is the first point of call for most of us.

The next memorial will be to Buster the dog that saved a 1000 lives at RAF Waddington this summer, Buster should probably have his own page as well, if that is possible?

Thank you for any assistance you can offer and apologies for not having a clue!

Regards

Iain Founder of the Memorial Mob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipper115 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

placed here by Drmies (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Iain. If you feel that your organization meets the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), then you can post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Establishing your organization's Wikipedia notability is the key, and the way to do this is show that "The Memorial 'Mob'" has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Please note that anything the organization says about itself or anything somebody closely connected to the organization says about it is likely to be considered a primary source and, thus, not helpful in establishing Wikipedia notability. In other words, I can tell the world all about myself on my personal website or Facebook/Twitter accounts, but that just proves I exist. If, however, a major newspaper, magazine, etc. with a strong reputation for editorial control writes about me and my activities (good or bad) in some detail, then that might be enough for somebody to write a Wikipedia article about me. So, that is what you need to establish. Finally, from your use of "our" in your post, I get the impression that you might be connected to the TMM. If that's the case, then you would have what Wikipedia calls a conflict-of-interest. COI editing is not expressly prohibited on Wikipedia, but it's highly discourage because it's tricky to do. You probably should take a peek at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for some more information on this. Good luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Putting information in Wikipedia, which isn't checked by anyone on thruth.....

If anyone can place information in Wikipedia, about any subject, and this isn't checked by anyone, isn't there a big risk that (some) people place untrue knowledge about (some) subjects? 213.10.60.93 (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Quite right, every day someone puts lies or other bad things in Wikipedia. No,every day thousands of us use our WP:Watchlist to check and fix. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Which of course, doesn't mean every last untrue statement gets caught. There is probably always some innaccurate information somewhere on Wikipedia, but then there are always errors in newspapers and books too. We've decided it's worth the risk because every day, lots of people put good information on Wikipedia, more than the lies. We can always use helpers like you to help us keep the encyclopedia as accurate and complete as possible. Happy Squirrel (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

What All Do I Need To Know To Make An Article

So, I am going to this website called codecademy and learning things like Java. What all, from that website, would you guys say I should learn before I start making articles on here? Please answer me as soon as possible and look at what all you can learn about on codecademy before responding please. I can't wait to start making a article on here.

-From, Caleb

Caleeeb (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Caleeb, and welcome to the Teahouse. Why is everybody so keen to create a new article? We have five million articles already, and at least four million of them are not very good: why not work on improving some existing articles before you plunge into the very difficult job of creating a new article from scratch? --ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Error!

Okay, I looked on my sandbox page and it clearly said, It serves as a testing spot and It is not encyclopidia article! So it isn't apart of the encyclopidia articles! So basically I am able to create my fictional episode guide on my sandbox page. But I may be right or wrong!THXGold2004 (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

See also section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

That Is The Last Straw!

Sorry, I got off on the wrong side there. I want to make a fictional episode guide and me being told I am not able to do it on Wikipedia made me just mad. I am not here to annoy. I am here to edit, But what is the point of being an editor if I barely have something to edit. Oh and do other users create imaginary sandbox articles?THXGold2004 (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi THXGold2004, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place for fictional episode guides, simply because we're an encyclopedia that covers factual topics. If you want to just write about whatever you want, you may find websites like Wikia and Wattpad to be much better alternatives than Wikipedia. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

THXGold2004, if an analogy helps, you are like somebody who keeps turning up at a golf course with a tennis racquet and ball. People keep telling you that that is not what we do here, we play golf; but you carry on saying "I just want to hit my ball" and getting in the way of people trying to play golf. There's nothing wrong with what you are wanting to do, but it isn't what we do here, and if you carry on doing your different thing here, you will annoy more and more people. --ColinFine (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi THXGold2004. There are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia. Wikipedia currently has over 5,000,000 articles and none of them are perfect. Perhaps you should take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. They are always looking for people who are here to edit and will be more than happy to point you to articles which you can help improve. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Create an article.

One last question, How can I create a Wikipedia article?THXGold2004 (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this going to be about a real subject or another of your fantasies? Nthep (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Read the hints and advice given in WP:YFA. You might also want to use the article wizard at WP:WIZARD to help you. RudolfRed (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox Articles

Okay, one question. Is It okay for me to create an imaginary episode guide on my sandbox?THXGold2004 (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No it is not, as you were told when you asked this using a different username. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many times you ask this question, THXGold2004, under how many user names: the answer is no, and will continue to be No. Asking the same question repeatedly, and creating new accounts to do so, is appearing more and more like disruptive editing. Please will you either learn what Wikipedia is for, and start editing it appropriately; or if you aren't interested in what Wikipedia actually does, please go and play somewhere else. I have already suggested that you go and create a private wiki in Wikia: if you do that, you can create your fictions to your heart's content. --ColinFine (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that disruption is the aim here, ColinFine. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, Cordless Larry. I prefer to AGF as long as possible. --ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor now blocked - see User:THXGold2004 not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Making my draft notable

Hello, I have been working on Draft: Juana Bordas for quite some time. I think that I’ve used many reliable, third-party sources and demonstrated her notability, but the article has been rejected several times. Can someone give me additional guidance? Or is there a way to get a second opinion? Bonanza425 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Bonanza425. Without looking into the specific subject of your draft, I would point out that the concept of notability applies to the subject of an article (or draft), not the article itself. You can improve an article to demonstrate the notability of the subject, but if the subject isn't notable, then no amount of editing will make them so. That might (but might not) be the case here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you are writing this draft article about yourself, please note that this is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia:Autobiography. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Problems with my first page

Hello Everybody, I'm trying to create a page about one of the most important financial business man in Brazil: Jose Olympio Pereira's page; and the most important Brazilian Contemporary Art collector, with a presence in some of the councils of the most important museums of the world. I'm stating that because he is really one of the most important businessman of Brasil. But, all the times we tried to publish the page, an administrator block the page and delete it. Does somebody knows whats happening? Thank you very much! Edgardaugustodias (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. User:Edgardaugustodias/sandbox is not in English, and all of the s-called "references" are Wikipedia links, which are unacceptable (see WP:circular). --David Biddulph (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Edgardaugustodias. I checked at the Portugese Wikipedia, and there is no article about Jose Olympio Pereira on that encycledia, although I saw an article about someone with a very similar name, perhaps his father, who died in 1990. So, it is somewhat strange that you are writing a draft in the Portugese language here on the English language Wikipedia when no Portugese article yet exists. That language problem here can be corrected by translating your draft to English, but your referencing is a more serious problem. Please realize that an acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. Another Wikipedia article (in any language) is never a reliable source. Your draft has no reliable sources. A quick Google search indicates that this person may be notable. But is your obligation to demonstate that convincingly, by the quality of your references. Please read Referencing for beginners and Your first article, and follow the excellent advice you will find in those essays. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

How to link an article so that I couldn't count as orphon specially when article title is different and the text available in other article is different?

How to link an article so that I couldn't count as orphon specially when article title is different and the text available in other article is different?Nicgf (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find info at WP:Wikilink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Promotion

Good morning, I have a question, I've written a book but I'm having a,really hard time getting someone to help me promote it. I know of u tube I've yet done that route though. But if u can lead me in a direction to get it out there among our world. It's a great read, I just need people to know of it. I believe it can help so many folks get past the traumatic experiences in their life and turn out to be really happy folks in our world. If u can lead me, or help me getting it out here please show me the way. Thanks for hearing me.I greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janaehill (talk • contribs) 13:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. There are plenty of places on the web which you can use for advertising, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. See WP:Promotion. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

If you were intending to try to write a Wikipedia article about your book, Janaehill, then David is correct that this would be inappropriate. If you are just looking for advice on book promotion, then this isn't the place to ask. The Teahouse is a place to learn about editing Wikipedia. You might be able to find help at Wikipedia:Reference desk, however. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Template to Compress Contents?

Hello. I am looking for a template to compress the contents bar of List of Hypericum species. I am currently editing the article, so I'd like to avoid an edit conflict. What I'd like to do is remove the descriptors from the section name in the contents. It currently shows as:

1. Adenosepalum Spach
2. Adenotrias (Jaub. & Spach) R. Keller

I want it to look like:

1. Adenosepalum
2. Adenotrias

I would like to accomplish this while maintaining the descriptors when you look at the section itself. Is there a template or workaround to do this? Thanks, Fritzmann2002 13:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. For me the contents table already shows as

1 Adenosepalum

2 Adenotrias

and I can't see where your extra text is coming from. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am currently in the process of editing it, I just haven't saved yet. One moment while I do so. Fritzmann2002 13:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Your new changes would not be appropriate section headings. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you advise me on what would be while accomplishing the same task? Fritzmann2002 14:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it is not clear what you are asking, Fritzmann2002. Could you rephrase that question? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Help with Searching

Help! I can't find my account with a list of episodes guide for my sandbox page! My account disappeared this morning!TheLuckySeven6400 (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Accounts don't disappear. Perhaps the account you are looking for is GoldForTheWin0000, or one of the accounts listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GenoCool2016/Archive? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

But if you created a sandbox with material inappropriate for Wikipedia, that may have been deleted, as you have been told several times before. --ColinFine (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

How should I format the List of thermal Conductivities?

I have noticed that the article "List of Thermal conductivities" will not print without cutting off the right hand side of it. Can someone tell me what I should do to make it printable?Patriot1423 (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Try this link--Moxy (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Table Formatting & Small Caps

I'm using the Visual Editor for adding tables to a rough draft of a page in my Sandbox. I'm having trouble changing the formatting of the content within the tables, with the exception of italicizing. The first row in particular seems to be in bold, and resists my attempts to change that. Anyone have any tips on formatting tables?

Second question: how do I write in small caps?

RlndGunslinger (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Merging K-Pop fans

Hi, I just tried to merge the page 'K-Pop fans' into 'K-Pop', particularly the section 'Appeal and fan base', but it didn't work. Was that because that section is a sub-section? (if that makes sense?) I've just recently copy edited the whole K-Pop page and I'm pretty sure it covers everything on the K-Pop fans page, so I wanted to just redirect the whole thing. I was having a hard time with the merger instructions page though. If someone could help me out with how to merge these two pages, I would really appreciate it! Thanks :) Yannaynay (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Yannaynay, and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you removed the content from K-pop fans, but didn't add it to the K-pop article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for replying! I deliberately didn't add any of the content to the new article because, as I said, I think it covers all the information already. But I don't think the actual redirect worked for some reason...? I could just be misunderstanding how redirects work. Yannaynay (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Yannaynay. One thing you did – and I understand why and think the instruction page should be tweaked slightly to remove the issue that caused you confusion – is that instead of replacing the example parameters using angle brackets ("<" & ">" with the name, you kept those symbols in – and so your copyright attribution link in your edit summary failed. For example, if the page at issue was call "Foo", and you were told to insert it in parameter=<name> you would not then be placing parameter=<foo> but parameter=foo. If I was unfamiliar, I think I might make the same error, or certainly not be sure whether those symbols should be kept in or not. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, it seems I didn't read your question in full, Yannaynay. Apologies for that. As Fuhghettaboutit notes, the problem was with your formatting of the redirect. The correct code to use is #REDIRECT [[K-pop#Appeal and fan base]]. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Aha–I didn't even look at the redirect, which from your post I surmise had the same formatting issue. I was talking about the edit summary attempt at a link as a first step in the merge.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit and Cordless Larry, thank you so much for your help! I've corrected that mistake and merged the two pages, hope I've followed the guidelines properly. Yannaynay (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The redirect now works, Yannaynay, so that's great. I don't know if we actually need the "This is a redirect from a page that was merged into another page" message, if no material was actually moved from one article to the other. Any ideas, Fuhghettaboutit? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I noted in the page history that no merge actually took place, and removed the {{R from merge}} template that produced that message. I tend to think of a lot of the R from templates as background noise, but some users actually use them so it's good not to leave that artifact.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

While uploading image file, getting "Unknown Error" message on a Red box.

Here is the message.

Unknown error: "{"xhr":{"readyState":0,"status":0,"statusText":"timeout"},"textStatu

What does it mean? and how to fix it? RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, Rit Rajarshi. I don’t know for sure but I’ll take a guess. Wikipedia went through some maintenance earlier today, and this place was in read-only mode for a period of time. If you attempted to upload an image at that time, it would not have worked. I can’t say for sure, but I urge you to try again now and if you get the same error will know it wasn’t the maintenance mode issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much.. However I've seen the warning on top of the wiki page. However in other times also, the warning came. This was taking place due to Slow network connection. Now it seems ok. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

renaming articles

Two existing articles are Instrumental action and Value-rational action--the latter a stub. I have written a replacement covering both topics that I would like to name "Instrumental action and Value-rational action." I would like this title to replace "Instrumental action," and to eliminate the title "Value-rational action."

Are these steps appropriate? How can I do this so that one seeking Value-rational action will be referred to the new article? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Value-rational action is more like a dictionary definition than an article, it says nothing about its subject. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so it should be disposed of somehow. Replacing it by a redirect to another article seems to me a good solution.

Instrumental action is little better. It isn't an article about instrumental actions (it doesn't really explain what they are – if I go to a shop and buy some onions, is that an instrumental action?). It's an article about the term "instrumental action", and how it has been used by Marxists and others. Nevertheless, if you aim to replace it by your own article, I expect you will meet resistance from those who have contributed to it. I suggest that you first discuss your plans on its talk page. Maproom (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this a suitable topic for Wikipedia?

Good morning,

I'd really appreciate hearing from people regarding an suggested article. I am part of a church in Norwich, England (and therefore obviously have a link to the content), and would like to know whether a short but academically rigorous article on the history and development of the church is appropriate. This has come about because we have had feedback from visitors to the church that when they Google 'Surrey Chapel', they are sent to a Wikipedia article about a church in London. If people are looking to find out about us, we'd like it to be about the correct place!

Surrey Chapel is over 150 years old, with significant historical interest - not just locally, but internationally. Missionaries from the church have key links with people like Watchman Nee and also holocaust survivours; in fact you may have seen a BBC programme recently about Prof Phillippe Sands and his family's connection with Surrey Chapel and holocaust survivors. We can cite references for every major event and quotation, from a range of corroborated sources. We are not looking to write about the church from a personal point of view, but as an interesting historical documentation of the development of Christian practice in Norwich. The content has been researched and written up by a group of people within the church, each with a professional background and qualifications in history.

Is this appropriate for Wikipedia?

Many thanks in advance for your thoughts. SurreyChapelNorwich (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, SurreyChapelNorwich. An article on the Chapel would almost certainly be entirely appropriate for Wikipedia; but note that it should be based 100% on published information. Any information which is only available in unpublished sources should not go into the article, no matter how interesting it seems. See Verifiability for why this is crucial. It sounds from your description that this would not be a major problem.

If you are considering writing an article on it, I recommend getting some experience editing elsewhere in Wikipedia first; and reading your first article. It is not clear whether, as a member of the church, you would have a conflict of interest in writing such an article or not; but you should certainly read that link and make sure you comply as necessary.

Please note also that your user name is not acceptable: user names that suggest that they are being used on behalf of an organisation are not permitted. You should either renamed it (see WP:CHU) or abandon it and create a new personal one (you don't have to use your real name, as I do, but all account should be personal to individuals). --ColinFine (talk) 10:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems that Fortuna Imperatrix has created an article at Surrey Chapel, Norwich. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that should be Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi - Arjayay (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Romeo Mancini

Good morning,

Thank you very much for dedicating your time on my draft about the artist Romeo Mancini. As suggested, I have put the citations were has been indicated "citation needed" and I have to admit that it is much better now. Before submitting again, I would like to know if it is good now. If there is any part that is not ok. Thank you again, Anna Lisa Anna Lisa33 (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. One aspect which it would be good to tidy up before resubmitting would be how you present references which are used more than once. See Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello David, Sorry about that I am using the "visual page" not sure now about the name, but not the one with codes, were I am not even able to add quotes,I tried, please do not make it too complicated for me.... I just want to know if the citations are right and the text as well, I need help, in this way I can't make it, too much for me. Thank you,

Anna Lisa33 (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I must admit the method of re-using references is not at all intuitive. For big cleanup, I tend to just run reFill on the page, as I have just done. Hope that helps! Happy Squirrel (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping me out!

Anna Lisa33 (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Could anyone helping me out with the tone of the article. I have been told it is not encyclopedic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Romeo_Mancini Could anyone have a look into this? For example the first phrase "In the years before the outbreak of the Second World War, Mancini attended the Accademia di Belle Arti di Perugia. There, Mancini studied and met another student who also became an artist, Leoncillo Leonardi." I have been told it is not formal enough, like a story, that is sound not like an article. Could anyone helping me out to have a look at this draft about the artist Romeo Mancini step by step? Since I guessed it was ok. Probably cos I am not English mother tongue. Thank you very much Anna Lisa33 (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleting article

I want to request wiki to delete this article BasicLinux. How may I? Pranish 07:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranish.rock (talk • contribs)

Hi Pranish.rock
BasicLinux is currently a redirect to Lightweight Linux distribution, although there is some disagreement as to whether it should be a redirect or not, Someone looking for information on BasicLinux is redirected to the parent article, which explains what it is/was in 20 words. What would be the benefit of deleting it? especially as Redirects are cheap?
To answer your specific question - as it has already survived a Proposed deletion or "PROD" (the shortcut way), you would have to make a full proposal for its deletion at articles for deletion, although IMHO it is unlikely to succeed. - Arjayay (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Something Else!

Okay, So I decided I didn't want to make a sandbox episode guide! So how can I create an article by telling all of the information is fictional? Because I decided I want to make a real article(With the information all fictional.)GoldForTheWin0000 (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You can't. Wikipedia is about the real world, it does not accept fictitious articles. If you want to create a fictional episode guide, WIkipedia is not the right place for it. Maybe Facebook? Maproom (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Your enthusiasm is engaging, GoldForTheWin0000, but your grasp of what Wikipedia is, doesn't seem to get any better. You can't. Wikipedia is only (get that, only) interested in things which people who have no connection with them have already published significant material about. If somebody unconnected with you wrote a review of your fictions, and it got published in a major newspaper, then Wikipedia might be interested in an article about your fictions (but would not host them directly). Otherwise they have no place here.

It occurs to me that what you may be looking for is somewhere that you can use a wiki to develop your ideas: in that case, have a look at Wikia: they'll let you create your own private wiki, that you can put anything in that you like. --ColinFine (talk) 10:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Entry on subject was deleted after user was banned but entry was written and submitted before user was banned

I hired a wikipedia editor to write an entry on a subject, William J. Kelly, because I wanted to make sure the entry was neutral and well-sourced. The entry on this subject has been vandalized previously and Wikipedia took the entry down.

The user submitted the entry to wikipedia and it was approved and lived on wikipedia for at least three to four months if not more.

At some point in January, the entry was taken down completely because the user was banned. We have no relationship with the user other than him being contracted through a freelance service to help write this entry and keep it neutral. I have contacted the freelance service and told them the user's entry was taken down because he was banned. I have been told by them that the entry was written and submitted before he was banned.

Regardless of the user, I don't know why the entry was taken down if the entry was, in fact, properly written.

I would like to know how to get the entry re-instated on my own. If anyone can let me know the steps. I'd appreciate it. I am not familiar with Wikipedia's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauraglaw (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment, the article has been deleted 4 times [1] Theroadislong (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The topic has been discussed previously at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 461#How to restore deleted article. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You say that you hired a Wikipedia editor to write an entry on a subject, William J. Kelly, because you wanted to make sure that the entry was neutral and well-sourced. First, however, paid editing of Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. While making sure that an article is well-sourced and neutral is the right objective, paid editors are almost always interested in making the article either blatantly promotional or subtly promotional. Second, if you were so concerned about getting the article accepted that you thought it was necessary to hire a paid editor, you almost certainly have a conflict of interest, and you didn't serve your own interests well. Please declare your own conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I will note that some Wikipedia editors still think that the best way to get an article accepted is to hire a paid Wikipedia editor. Your experience illustrates why the idea that hiring a paid editor is good is in fact a dangerous myth. It appears that the paid editor whom you hired was already banned or blocked, likely for being a paid editor. Your experience should be a lesson to other users who think that the best way to get an article accepted is to hire a paid editor. I will again ask you why it is so important to you to get the article accepted that you will pay someone, when the hiring of paid Wikipedia editors is deprecated (including because they sometimes get blocked or banned). Robert McClenon (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lauraglaw. You seem to be misunderstanding one very important thing about Wikipedia: anyone, including you yourself, who edits (even just once) is a "Wikipedia editor". It sounds like you might've been misled into thinking something else. Participating in Wikipedia is completely voluntary and most of us do it as a hobby. Wikipedia articles are not owned by the subjects they are about or by those who create/edit them. Services who claim they can write a Wikipedia article for you may have some people on staff who have experience editing Wikipedia, but these people do not possess any special editorial control over any of the content they add. Basically, anyone who has Internet access and the inclination can create an article anytime they want. Unfortunately, this means that quite a lot of these articles are not up to Wikipedia's standards and end up being deleted or substantially altered on a daily basis. In addition, any existing Wikipedia article may be nominated for deletion at anytime, so there are no 100% guarantees. If you feel that William J. Kelly is someone who satisfies WP:BIO, then try asking for assistance at Wikipedia:Requested articles. You might be able to find an experienced editor who will be more than happy to write the article and do it for free, simply because they like writing articles. Good luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lauraglaw. I think it might help a bit if I chime in. I'm the administrator who deleted the article after is was recently recreated. I'm sorry if this causes problems, as that was never the intent. The difficulty is that the editor you hired was blocked long before they were hired to create the article. Unfortunately, there are times when blocked and banned editors continue to try and add material to Wikipedia by secretly creating alternative accounts. As a result, articles created this way, by editors who are no longer permitted to edit Wikipedia, are generally removed as soon as we become aware that this has happened. Thus once we became aware that the person you hired was evading the block by creating a new account, we had to delete the article.

Sadly, in many cases people blocked for paid editing continue to offer their services, even though they are aware that they are both violating Wikipedia's Terms of Use and risk having their contributions removed.

It may well be possible to have a new article created, although the previous one was at best borderline in regard to Wikipedia's requirements for sourcing. You could ask at Wikipedia:Requested articles, or perhaps as an editor individually if they would be interested in creating the article. Unfortunately, I would not recommend using paid editors, as while paid editing is permitted on Wikipedia, the conflict of interest it creates means that it is very strongly discouraged and, as Robert McClenon raises, many other problems can arise. - Bilby (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the best way to move paragraphs around while editing in the sandbox?

I'm still tweaking the first article in my sandbox. I want to move one paragraph from one subheading and put it into a second subheading. (And move one paragraph from the second subheading into the first subheading). If copy and paste everything into a Word document before making any changes in the sandbox, I can't later paste into the sandbox. Well, I can but although the citations remain in the reference section, the [page number] of my citations that I originally entered into the sandbox don't appear correctly.

In short, what's the best way to move paragraphs around while editing in the sandbox? Drvalsummers (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Drvalsummers. I just copy the wikicode for the paragraph in question and paste it into the preferred location. I delete it from its original location. I never use an external program but work entirely in wikicode. If you have referenced your paragraph properly, all the references will move to their proper locations automatically. See Referencing for beginners for the details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)|

inline citations.?

How many inline citations do I need? the page i started https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connor_Ingram has a box at the top saying it has multiple issues and lacks inline citations.

CaseyPDRace (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CaseyPDRace. There is no magic number of references needed, because one solid reference is vastly better than several weak references. In this specific case, you need to provide references that show convincingly that Connor Ingram meets our notability guideline for hockey players. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, CaseyPDRace. Many new editors are under the impression that templates such as that box disappear automatically once the concerns expressed in them have been addressed, but in fact they are added and removed manually by editors. If you judge that the issue has been resolved, then you may remove the template. If this is reverted, then you should discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Great Western Mainline Electrification Progress

I reviewed Draft:Great Western Mainline Electrification Progress, and declined it, among other reasons being that it lacked context. At the time, it was only a table without references, and I said that a table without references and without text was not encyclopedic. Its author, User: Chris.Bristol, then expanded it and resubmitted it, and it was reviewed and declined by User:Joseph2302. He pointed out that the subject already exists in Wikipedia, as 21st-century modernisation of the Great Western Main Line.

The author then posted the following to my talk page, and essentially the same to the other reviewer’s page: Relating to "Great Western Main Line Electrification Progress" new page submission. McClenon said (to paraphrase) "expand the page to include an introduction and some references", so I did so. the Joseph2302 said "this should not be a separate page, add it to the main one", which means the introduction and references I have added at the suggestion of the McClenon would be redundant, since the main page already has them. I'm quite confused, and feel like I have wasted my time, so I am becoming reluctant to commit any more effort to this. I can't see how I can take both of your comments into account, so should I just assume that the latest comment is the correct one?

My answer is that both reviewers are correct, and the second review is more complete. The first submission was only a table. As such, it certainly was not appropriate for consideration as a draft article, and AFC is for draft articles. I will concede that I did not search for an existing article on the overall subject. The second review, which is that the submission should be added to the existing article, is correct. Since the article does exist, the table may be appropriate for inclusion as status information for the main article.

I will comment that the current draft article contains a reference to another Wikipedia article (the main Wikipedia article). Many new editors think that Wikipedia is a good reference in Wikipedia, but any other Wikipedia article should be a wikilink or a See Also.

I concede that, on seeing a table by itself, I probably should have looked for an article in which it belongs.

Do other experienced editors have comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey Chris.Bristol. To the extent you spent time composing the contextual material at the draft that will not be needed at the existing article, this is one of those unfortunate situations where everyone has acted in good faith, but time was nevertheless wasted. No one is to blame. It might help us to compose some part of the AfC submission process better if you tell us what sparked the idea to use the draft process where there was an existing article. Anyway, drafts to be submitted through the AFC process are for new topics. This does not seem like something that should have a stand-alone article and existing articles are edited and added to directly. Though they sometimes check, AfC reviewers do not automatically look to see that an article might already exists because, after all, that's not what drafts are for and the wizard that guides you through the submission process does ask if an article already exists. But the table is not lost effort. Add it to the existing article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Unblocked and Happy!

Okay, I just got unblocked today and I want to ask 3 questions so I can get advice of not getting blocked again! So first of all, The account that I am using(GoldForTheWin0000) how can I make that my permanent account? I just want to only have one account which means that account so I can stay unblocked. Secondly, Will I do something wrong if I copy articles on my page? And lastly, Can I make fictional episode guides on my sandbox page?GoldForTheWin0000 (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, GoldForTheWin0000. I hope it works for you this time. If you want to make that your permanent account, just use it and don't use any others. Simiple.

Everything in Wikipedia (apart from some of the images) are licensed to be reuseable freely for any purpose as long as such use is properly attributed. So copying an Wikipedia article onto your sandbox is OK legally as long as you attribute it, eg by putting in the edit summary when you save it "Copied from" and the page reference. But I have to ask, Why are you doing this? It's an odd thing to do.

As for the last question, the answer is, probably not. A certain latitude is allowed on your user page and subpages (including sandboxes); but everything should be connected with your work in editing Wikipedia, which is an encyclopaedia. Something you made up will never be appropriate to put in the main part of Wikipedia, so it is hard to see how it could be appropriate for a sandbox. Please review what Wikipedia is not and User pages. --ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I see that you have already created a new fictional article in your sandbox. There's nothing wrong with using your sandbox for practice, but imaginary articles are not a good idea, even with the disclaimer that it is fictional. Perhaps you could find another wiki to create your fantasy articles? An encyclopaedia is for facts. Dbfirs 22:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

One small proviso to the advice above. If you do copy an articles content to your sandbox or elsewhere, the edit summary providing copyright attribution should link to the source page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution, and any media files, such as images, that are included in the copied content must be checked by you and removed from the transferred content if they are fair use images (as opposed to freely-licensed content such as media from the Wikimedia Commons). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

On which page is the information that you have been unblocked? See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Your account was only created yesterday and has never been blocked, GoldForTheWin0000. Could you please clarify what you meant by "I just got unblocked today"? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

acceptable source for living american actress

I'm adding a page for well known living American actress - Bertila Damas - and have been told that IMDB is not an acceptable source. What is?

Thanks,

Wdcharlton (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Wdcharlton. The answer is, sources with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking. iMDB, (like Wikipedia) is largely user-generated, so not reliable. Please see WP:IRS for more information.

If you are no aware of this, I wonder if you have read WP:your first article? I recommend reading that carefully before starting something as difficult as writing a new article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and for the suggestions. Wdcharlton (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wdcharlton. The article you have written, Bertila Damas, includes in its first sentence, "known for her no nonsense approach to acting and life as well as her irreverent sense of humor, her compassion, and a straight-up, no-crap kind of energy." That is subjective and overtly promotional language that should never be used in Wikipedia's voice. Whose opinion is that, anyway? Yours? I believe that she is notable and should have an article. Your job is to identify the truly reliable sources that have devoted significant coverage to her, and summarize what they say, from the neutral point of view. Please also read Referencing for beginners, and format your references so that they do not display as ugly, uninformative URLs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether all those sources are reliable or not, but one thing I did notice is that the article's text engaged in very close paraphrasing – enough so that it was bad enough to be a possible copyright violation. I cleaned up some of it and removed a lot of puffery. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Automatically Updated WikiStatistics

When looking at the article for wikispecies, I saw that the information in the history section is manually updated every so often. Isn't there an easier way of doing this with wikimedia offered statistics? Where is there information on how to do this? I saw in the size comparison of wikipedias they use {{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|en}}. Thanks in advance, Houdinipeter (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Old article in sandbox

So I wrote an article for creation, and it was refused, (but that's not the point!) and now I am wondering if my sandbox is not available for any new documents? Like, can I write another article for creation in my sandbox and the other article will not interfere with it? Elsa Enchanted (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

At present, your sandbox redirects to Draft:Dianne Massey Dunbar. You can just overwrite this redirect to re-use your sandbox, or, if you prefer, you can create a new sandbox and call it User:Elsa Enchanted/sandbox2 or something similar. Wikipedia will say it doesn't exist, but will then allow you to create it (just start typing). Dbfirs 18:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

What Dbfirs didn't explain, Elsa Enchanted, is how to overwrite your sandbox, if that is what you want to do. When you go to it, it will redirect you to that Draft page; but there will be a link at the top saying "Redirected from User:Elsa Enchanted/Sandbox". If you pick that link, it will take you to the sandbox itself, and then you can simply delete the #REDIRECT code from it, and start again. --ColinFine (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

How do I delete the redirect code? Elsa Enchanted (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

If you edit the article, it will look like #REDIRECT [[Target page name]]. Just highlight and delete that code, Elsa Enchanted. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Great! This helped so much! Elsa Enchanted (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I replicate published figures for Wikipedia articles?

I plan on contributing to articles on technical topics. Some useful figures are found in academic papers. I know that I wouldn't be allowed to copy and paste the image from the paper, but if I have access to the (publicly available) data, can I replicate the figure in a software package like matplotlib and upload to Wikipedia? For example, could I make my own scatterplot using the same data? What about more complex or "novel" plots? Pawg14 (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't upload my image that is stored on wikimedia

Hello, I have an image on wikimedia that was given approval by the owner to upload. This occurred february 2016. The owner gave approval through a form of some sort. I am not remembering the process. The image is for the draft titled AEDP. The image is called The phenomenology of the transformational process. I hope i have given you enough information to help me with this.Carrieruggieri (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Carrieruggieri. You need to refer to it in the article as File:Aedp chart.jpg. You must get it exactly right, as to spacing, case of letters, punctuation etc. I notice that you have there purported to licence it yourself as "the copyright holder of this work": this is different from what you have said above. You should correct the licensing information that you have entered at commons:File:Aedp chart.jpg. I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with how best to do that: if nobody comes along here to advise you, I suggest you ask for help at commons:commons:Help Desk. --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I have tagged the file's page in commons to point out that the license information is wrong, and explained the background on the file's talk page. Hopefully somebody there will correct it, or tell you what you need to do. --ColinFine (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

DearColin, Thank you for your help. I am copy/pasting the permission form that was sent by the creator of the diagram, d. fosha. In my effort to upload the diagram I went through the menu version of claiming it as my own. I then retracted that realizing that was a copyright violation. I then followed instructions as below:

Diana, please forward this from your email server.

I hereby affirm that I, Diana Fosha, PD the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright ofaedp chart.jpeg I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [Sender's name] DIANA FOSHA [Sender's authority COPYRIGHT HOLDER [Date] 2/5/2015 Carrieruggieri (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Carriereruggieri: I don't think that putting that information here or on the page is the right answer, but I hope that somebody who understands licensing at Commons will be along soon to help you. -- ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The permission must be sent by email to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org --ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear ukexpat, It was sent to that email. i followed the instructions given and used the form given. Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Then you will have to be patient. That e-mail queue is heavily backlogged.--ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear ColinFine, where is the proper place to bring this problem? If it is inappropriate here, can it be deleted?Carrieruggieri (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

How important is it to document changes in my sandbox?

I'm working on my first article and make perhaps 5-6 minor changes every day, in addition to adding more citations. I'm probably a month or more away from being ready to submit it. How important is it to write a statement about the changes I make this early in the process? And, how often should I save? Yesterday, I lost several hours of work after I saved and got an error message that my changes hadn't been saved. What can I do to prevent that from happening again? Drvalsummers (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It's your sandbox, so it's really not necessary to do much more than write. Don't let other things get in the way of you doing the useful part!

If you have a technical problem ("session expired" after a long delay when editing?) then just re-submitting the same page will fix that one. You can also copy and paste wikitext into any other text editor document (just Notepad is fine) and save it on your own computer, then paste it back again.

I would always save after a long session of editing, either because there's a lot of work to not lose and also in case of technical things popping up (I'm old, I've distrusted computers since floppy discs). It doesn't matter if the task is "finished", just save and carry on. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Andy's advice is particularly topical this week, as there will be two periods during which editing will not be able to take place, see meta:Tech/Server switch 2016. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Andy. When I'm working on an article, I may save as often as once a minute. I don't bother with edit summaries if I'm working in a sandbox, except maybe for a note to myself, as no-one else is ever likely to read them. Maproom (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I am the same as Maproom - I save every few (3-5) mins (whether in my sandbox or mainspace). I don't leave edit summaries in my sandbox, except in one case where I was building a co-operative article and I wanted other editors to know what/why I had done. Happy editting. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Occasional edit summaries can be useful to remind you where to go back to, especially when starting something you may want to reverse e.g. "save before re-arranging sections" or "save before changing table layout" - but these are for your benefit not a requirement. - Arjayay (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hosting a write-a-thon with undergrads

Hello Teahouse denziens,

I am considering having students in my fall course create or contribute to pre-existing pages as part of their work on a course on suffrage. The focus would be both local and national. I am wondering if others have similar assignments in an undergraduate course, and if people would be willing to share tips, tricks, second thoughts, etc. Many thanks, IndyClio (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a frequent activity, and you can get in touch with many who have done it with good results. m:Wiki Education Foundation Jim.henderson (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IndyClio. A current example that I'm aware of is Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Columbia University/Order and Violence (Spring 2016), which is being run by Chrisblattman. Adam (Wiki Ed) works as the Wikipedia Content Expert, Humanities for the Wiki Education Foundation, and might be a good person to contact for advice. See also Wikipedia:Education program. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IndyClio. I have participated in many edit-a-thons and have been an ambassador to college classes. Here are some tips: Have the students work on their projects in draft space, instead of in main encyclopedia space until the content is well-referenced and well-formatted. Be sure that your students understand that Wikipedia articles summarize what published reliable sources say about a topic. We do not publish original research, and advocacy is not allowed. Be sure that your students understand the neutral point of view, and let them know that we are very strict about plagiarism and copyright violations. Finally, if they have experiences with other editors that they perceive as negative, ask them to assume good faith and try to learn instead of arguing. These are the areas where students often encounter problems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

How to write and upload Article on Wikipedia

I wrote an Article on Wikipedia and uploaded. After sometime I got a message that this is advertising and needs speedy deletion. I need help and need to know how to create Wikipedia article and get it approved and uploaded on Wikipedia SyedRQadri (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SyedRQadri. I have removed the curly brackets around your post as they caused Wikipedia's software to attempt to treat it as a template. I'm sorry to hear that your article was deleted, although that is a common outcome when inexperienced editors attempt to write articles. The solution is to read Wikipedia:Your first article and then follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for creation to create a draft article. That way, you can submit the draft text for review and experienced editors will offer you advice on improving it and making sure it complies with Wikipedia policies before it goes live, rather than nominating it for deletion if there are problems with it. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@SyedRqadri:,hello,only tell me what's the name of your article (deleted article) مم ا کب (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Reasonable to assume that it was Mantra Labs Global. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's deleted because of unreferenced and maybe clueless . مم ا کب (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@مم ا کب: Please read the deletion log. The article was deleted as "(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)". Where did you get the idea of "unreferenced and maybe clueless"? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Well,I thought because my 2 clueless articles were deleted in urdu Wikipedia. مم ا کب (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The rules on each language Wikipedia are different, مم ا کب, and I do not recognise "clueless" as a rationale for deletion here. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@SyedRQadri:,You have to give good sources to your article,and you also have to read Wikipedia:Your first article, but warning!!! do not create this article again now,please wait for 3 or 4 days , then create your article again,otherwise it will be deleted again or tagged for deletation.THANKS.bye. :-). مم ا کب (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

If an article has been deleted for being overly promotional, then the solution is to write a neutral article in its place, not to wait three or four days to recreate a promotional article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I mean wait for some time then , write a nautral article in its space.It maybe work more well than creating article suddenly again . OK . مم ا کب (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I want to add a new section to a currently existing article rather than writing a new one

I was just denied an edit partly because I failed to put my content into context. The context is provided, I understand, by the sections previous to the one I want to add. How do I do that? Artemio Rivera (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Artemio Rivera. It seems that you may misunderstand purpose of the Articles for creation process, which is for writing and reviewing drafts of entirely new articles on topics that are not yet covered in Wikipedia. As a proposed section of an existing article, Draft:Habeas Corpus in International Extradition does not need to go through the AFC process. You can just add it to the article in question, and discuss with any editors who disagree. We have many articles about both habeus corpus and extradition wordwide. Your content is specific to U.S. law, so perhaps Extradition law in the United States may be the best location for the content you have written. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I have a general question, mainly to the regular editors here. Have we been pushing the idea that new editors should use the Articles for Creation process so hard that new editors think that the Articles for Creation can be used for improvements to existing articles? (Its name is Articles for Creation, but sometimes names can be confusing.) I don't think that we have been over-pushing, because I think that many new editors still create (and lose) new articles in article space, and we seldom see AFC used for additions or improvements to articles, but I am asking the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much difference it makes, but this particular draft started out at User:Artemio Rivera/sandbox, rather than at Draft:Habeas Corpus in International Extradition. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I see. Many editors, especially new editors, typically begin an article in their sandbox. (Where exactly are they advised to do that? It isn't a problem. I am just asking.) It was then submitted by a reviewer to draft space because reviewers normally move submissions from sandbox or other user space into draft space. However, it does appear that the editor did submit it from the sandbox for AFC review. So I still have the question: Are we pushing the idea of using AFC for new editing too hard in cases where it isn't applicable? My answer is no, but that is only my thought. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

A sandbox is a good place to draft some text to add to an article, so this editor seems to have started out with the right idea, but as you note, it was then submitted for review, which is where the confusion started. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

All experienced editors should keep in mind that the Draft namespace was only created in December, 2013, and before that time, it was routine for articles to be drafted in user sandboxes. Autoconfirmed editors routinely use their sandbox space for drafting new articles, and there is nothing in any policy or guideline that discourages such use of sandbox space. It is perfectly acceptable. AFC and Draft namespace are entirely optional. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. But of course, of those, only Draft space and User space are really spaces. A sandbox is only a page in user space with the name of Sandbox, and possibly with subpages. AFC is not a space but a process for the review of pages in Draft space or in User space. And users have always been able to draft articles in named pages in user space as well as in sandboxes. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Back in July, 2009, I drafted my first article on my own user talk page. I had no idea that it wasn't "proper" or how to do things better, but that article, Jules Eichorn, is still around. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Those were the days. These days several editors consider they know know best how to organise other people's user space and material in draft space created by others. Hence material is moved backwards and forwards between spaces, sent to AFC, moved from user space to main space and submitted to AFD, etc. Objections are rejected on grounds of WP:OWN. Fortunately, there is beginning to be some pushback, for example Wikipedia talk:User pages. Thincat (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Those were not the good old days, except in some senses, and these are not the bad new days. User:Thincat is correct about a few disruptive editors, and it is the few disruptive editors who have a ownership problem. In particular, moving a page from Draft space to Article space and then nominating it for AFD is, in my opinion, extremely disruptive, and should be pushed back on even harder than it is. There were also arrogant disruptive editors in the past. They are just arrogant and disruptive differently. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Unless I am misreading the history[2] there is another example below at WP:THQ#Need some help regarding Copy Editting. Thincat (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I was told recently that all brand new user sandbox pages (the one that springs into existence when a new editor clicks on the "sandbox" link at the top of the page for the first time) by default contains a "submit to AFC" link or button. I strongly suspect it's a major cause of the stream of junk submissions that give GFOO its name, and also a big part of the "overselling" of AFC that Robert McClenon is referring to. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

If that is true that all new user sandbox pages have a "Submit to AFC" link, which is a question that I have asked before, that does answer my question. What does GFOO stand for? By the way, I do not think that AFC is oversold in general. It is misunderstood, partly because of the magic button, as a way to do other things than one thing. What is GFOO?

adding some new information in Visa requirements for Pakistani citizens

hi, i added some new information of Visa requirements for Pakistani citizens. the information is that " pakistani citizen dont need visa travelling to Indonesia" this is an offical announcment and can be find also on website http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/12/21/govt-include-84-more-countries-free-entry-policy.html.

how can it will be edited back bcoz i add this infpormation but was decline.Feroz.khan 007 (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Feroz.khan 007. In my view, none of the information in Visa requirements for Pakistani citizens is appropriate to an encyclopaedia, and the article should be deleted, as should most or all of the corresponding articles for other citizens, under WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. But the consensus from 2010 is against me, so the pages stay. In which case, I think Twofortnights was wrong to revert you. But once they had done so once, the proper response from you was to open a discussion with them on the article's talk page, and try to reach agreement, not just to reapply your change. See WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Indonesia never applied the visa waiver to Pakistani citizens. The list was never extended to a few countries on that list that were considered a security threat. As you can see here the visa is still required for Pakistani citizens and here you may see the official full list of nationals who do not require a visa for Indonesia and Pakistan is not among them.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Need some help regarding Copy Editting

Dear Team, I have received this feedback on my article Draft:Purplehed Records -"Copy editing will be better." I read this article in order to understand how to fix this issue http://www.sfep.org.uk/about/faqs/what-is-copy-editing/ but i am afraid I am not that skilled writer yet, who can execute Copy Editing. Kindly guide me with actions I should take to fix this issue. Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Catrat999, and welcome to the Teahouse. The comment left for you that "Copy editing will be better" is not very clear (one might say that it needs copy-editing itself!), but I take it to mean that the draft needs copy-editing. The reason the draft was rejected was that it is not written in a suitably neutral, encyclopedia tone. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to get an idea of what is expected, but I also note that Maproom has done some work on the article since the review. The tone does actually seem relatively appropriate to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Cordless Larry Sir, A warm thank you for all your help, guidance and support. Ya I worked on tone after it was first declined there after I got feedback of "Copy Editing". Thank you Maproom Sir for helping me with Copy editing. I will check with reviewer if it meets the guidelines now. However if I will need further help, can I ask for it on this thread? Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely - please do come back if necessary, Catrat999. I'm sorry it took a while for your first question to be answered. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thats really kind of you Cordless Larry sir, Thank you for the help. Catrat999 (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Cordless Larry Sir, I checked for feedback and it seems that my draft still has a pretty big neutrality/ informalness issue, I have read this page Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and I am not sure where I am making mistake on neutrality but another fact is there is lot of scope of correction. Kindly guide me preferably with an example if possible, that will certainly help me a lot to learn about it for future references.
Feedback - User_talk:Onel5969#Thank_you_for_Correcting_me_Sir Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I happened to be browsing through and came across this post. When another editor mentions copy editing, there is actually a copy editing service at the guild of Copy Editors. Just pop over to that link and place a request to that page. Blackmane (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Barnstars

How do I give them to people? *Treker (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, *Treker. Please read Wikipedia:Barnstars, which should answer your question pretty thoroughly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, *Treker. Go to Wikipedia:Barnstars. Select an appropriate barnstar from among the many listed. Copy an item for the "What to type" column. Edit the user talk page for the person you wish to give an award to. Past the item there. Be sure to fill in the 'message' indicating specifically what the award is for. Save your changes. That is all. DES ^(talk) 04:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Really? It's that easy, I figured it would be much harder or have specific criteria or something. Nice. Thanks a lot.*Treker (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

There are no specific criteria, *Treker, except that you think the person deserves a pat on the back. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That's cool. Thanks.*Treker (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Are publications from the US CDC always public domain?

At least the first sentence on the Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder article is copied verbatim from this CDC website, "Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD) are a group of conditions that can occur in a person whose mother drank alcohol during pregnancy." Part of me thinks I've heard before that US government publications are in the in the public domain, but does that apply to everything? I can't find anything addressing it on that particular factsheet. PermStrump(talk) 20:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey PermStrump. Although the U.S Government itself states that content on their websites might include copyrighted text that is licensed by the government and thus that to "ensure that you don’t mistakenly use protected intellectual property from one of our websites, check with the agency or program that manages the website", we cannot through copyright paranoia chase down every theoretical possibility and assume material like this is in the public domain (quite unlike the required assumption that text and media whose origin is unknown is non-free copyrighted). However, just because text is in the public domain does not make it at all okay to use without attribution. That is plagiarism. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Permstrump. Anything that is a "work of the US Federal Government" is not subject to copyright. This generally means that the work has been prepared by one or more Government employees, within the scope of their employment. This applies to all branches, departments and agencies of the government. However, if the government hires a contractor to do work that includes preparing documents, those documents may be copyrighted by the contractor and the rights sold to the US Government. Or the documents may be considered "works made for hire" and the rights vested initially in the US Govt. There should be a copyright notice, or at least a "prepared by" notice of some sort naming the contractor if either of these apply. If there is no such notice, i would treat it as PD. DES ^(talk) 21:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC) {{ping}|Permstrump}} DES ^(talk) 21:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

And of course Fuhghettaboutit is absolutely correct that attribution, preferably with a proper citation, is required for any quote, PD source or not. That is still true even if a document hundreds of years old is quoted. DES ^(talk) 21:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Now this is more of a general question, because I didn't like the way it was word and wanted to change that sentence anyway, so I'm definitely going to go ahead and change it regardless. But this questino is for future reference... This is how it was originally cited,

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD) are a group of conditions that can occur in a person whose mother drank alcohol during pregnancy.

I assume that's not sufficient attribution and it would still need to say something like, "According to the CDC, 'Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs) are a group of conditions that can occur in a person whose mother drank alcohol during pregnancy,'" even though/if it's in the public domain. Is that right? PermStrump(talk) 21:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

References

That's one way to do it, another is to simply add "publisher=Centers for Disease Control" to the citation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)