Wikipedia:Teahouse
![This is the teahouse](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/WP_teahouse_logo.png)
GoingBatty, a Teahouse host
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.
How to rewrite submission for approval for Traffic School by Improv
Regarding Traffic School by Improv.
Hello. I used 13 independent, reliable, published sources, plus information coming from the business's website. I also thought I was writing with a neutral view. Can you please let me know what you think I can do to have the article accepted?
Thank you! DeborahDeborah Lockhart (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Editing
I searched how to edit a page but the page I want to edit doesn't have the edit tab that's supposed to be on the page.
Danni603 (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse. Perhaps the page you are looking at has been protected because of vandalism; is there a padlock symbol at the top right? If it has been semi-protected, you won't be able to edit it until your account has been autoconfirmed. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
where to see list of 'comments' like [citation needed]
Hi, is there a page which lists the comments that i can make to articles - like [citation needed] for [Citation Needed] ? wildT (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse. You could start with Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
how i can add reference ?
how to i add reference in my article which is about myself Sagargopang1 (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Take a look at referencing for beginners for a guide. However, I'm afraid your article will probably soon be deleted because you don't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.
- Moreover, please do not write articles about yourself – it is against Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Joe Roe (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Lifting large amounts of content from elsewhere. What to do?
I have found that much of the recent expansion of Albany_Park,_Bexley has been taken from http://hidden-london.com/gazetteer/albany-park/ either in terms of a re-write or direct copying. WHt steps should I take ?
CPBearfoot (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, CPBearfoot. I presume that you are referring to these additions by Midnightblueowl. Midnightblueowl seems to have cited that source, so plagiarism isn't an issue providing that sufficient paraphrasing has been undertaken, or quote marks used. If large chunks of text have been directly copied, that is a problem, but a quick comparison doesn't suggest that is the case here. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ah. It seems I compared the wrong URLs there, but the duplication detector is now down, so I can't check again. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look Cordless Larry.
My view was that there are a number of direct phrases that stick out (the one about the church and parochial status for example) and much of the rest is pretty much paraphrasing. The overall article is more in depth than it was before and becomes more encyclopedic but the tone becomes that of the Hidden London author. There is also a large reliance on this single source (as can be seen in the references section) which itself might be either incorrect or fall out of date. As an aspiring editor, these were the reasons I sought guidance, so thanks again.
CPBearfoot (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether there's a copyright violation, you were right to ask about this, CPBearfoot. In my opinion, it's not ideal to be so reliant on a single source, but often we are constrained by what we can find and access in terms of source material for articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi CPBearfoot. As this doesn't appear to be a clear-cut copyright version, and I happen to know Midnightblueowl is an experienced, responsible editor, the best thing to do is probably to take up the issue with them, either directly or on the article's talk page. Or simply fix it yourself! Joe Roe (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- I paraphrased the source material, which is fine by Wikipedia standards; indeed it is what all of our articles do. It is just unfortunate that I had to rely so heavily on one single source, but unfortunately that's what has to be done in those instances where we have so very few sources available to us on a subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks one & all. Hopefully educating novice editors like this is what the teahouse is for?
Do we close it down now? CPBearfoot (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what we're here for. Threads get archived after a few days of inactivity - there's no need to close the discussion formally. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Need Help in Editing A Wikipedia Page
We're a digital media agency based out of Kolkata, India. Looking for help in editing a Wikipedia page about one of our client's product. The Wikipedia page already exists. it needs to be updated with relevant content. We'll provide you with the base content, which needs to be modified and integrated with the existing Wikipedia content, per Wikipedia's guidelines. We're looking for only those who are based out of India for this project. Please respond on the following lines by August 18, Thursday: 1. Examples of Wikipedia articles that you've edited - links to the articles are needed, and also highlight what you've done on that page 2. The link to your Wikipedia profile 3. How much would you charge for this activity 4. Your agreement to signing an NDA with us for this activity 220.224.234.218 (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Before commenting further, can I ask which article this refers to? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Generally we prefer to work openly, and not charge for our work. You could put the additional information on the talk page of the article in question with a covering note stating who you are and who you represent. If you have trouble finding anyone to help integrate the information appropriate for the enclclopedia, please feel free to mention it here, or add the
{{Help me}}
template to the talk page. Please also review WP:COI. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC).
- They need to read not just WP:COI but also WP:Paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- A non-disclosure agreement between yourself and a paid editor would violate Wikimedia's Terms of use so it is absolutely unacceptable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- The assumptions that are made about Wikipedia, such as that an existing editor with a reputation for quality edits is willing not only to accept pay for editing but to sign a secrecy agreement about that editing, are sometimes remarkable. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Almost as remarkable as posting such a request, without any contact details - the editor obviously needs to be telepathic as well,
I also note that the IP geolocates to Mumbai, despite the initial claim that they are "based out of Kolkata" - Arjayay (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC) - The only thing that seems remarkable is soliciting for it in an on-wiki public forum. TimothyJosephWood 17:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's also technologically impossible to do, as every single edit we do is visible to everyone (Special:Contributions), aside from edits to pages that eventually got deleted. And all those deleted edits are still visible to administrators. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Almost as remarkable as posting such a request, without any contact details - the editor obviously needs to be telepathic as well,
- The assumptions that are made about Wikipedia, such as that an existing editor with a reputation for quality edits is willing not only to accept pay for editing but to sign a secrecy agreement about that editing, are sometimes remarkable. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Ray Foulk
Hi, I am trying to create an article on Ray Foulk, organiser of some of the most historic rock events of the 1960s and 70s. My posting was criticized for lack of citations, which I feel I have remedied, (by adding more in-line citations and footnote references) but the article still does not seem to be accepted. I don't even know if anyone has looked at it. It is just languishing inactive. What do I do now please? Houndleywoof (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Houndleywoof. Your draft article was accepted in June and moved to Ray Foulk. It has been tagged for a number of issues. If you feel that these have been resolved, then I suggest posting to that effect on the article's talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- (ec):Hi Houndleywoof The article was already accepted on 30 June. You have even edited in mainspace, as recently as just over one hour before you posted here. So I really don't understand what problem you are experiencing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- I wonder whether Houndleywoof thinks that all revisions to existing articles are subject to the same review process as drafts, Dodger67? To clarify, Houndleywoof: they're not. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this response. I was a little confused. Yes I understand that the article is live to Wikipedia, I posted on it earlier as you say, but does not seem to be picked up by search engines such as Google, which is why I supposed it was not 'properly live'. I will do as you suggest and post to the article's talk page. If I can!Houndleywoof (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- When I search for Ray Foulk on Google, the Wikipedia article is the first result, Houndleywoof. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- What Google does or does not do, and when they do it, is of no significance. They generally seem to like us, be we don't care. Sometimes they pick up changes here within minutes, sometimes it takes a few days. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I see yes, good to know that. Thank you very much for this information. Well I just want to make sure I'm not doing something wrong.Houndleywoof (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's a pleasure, Houndleywoof. That's what we're here for. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Not allowing us to edit
We want to create a page called Bohniman_Systems
But wiki administrator is not allowing us to create one. Kindly help.BsplTest (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- I see you have now been blocked for having a promotional user name, and making promotional edits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for promoting goods or services- Arjayay (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- While you're allowed to create any article you want, another editor (not an administrator) has tagged Bohniman Systems for deletion because it doesn't appear to be a notable company. Generally speaking we advise new editors to get some practice improving existing articles, so they get a sense of what kind of topics Wikipedia includes and how we write about them, before they embark on writing one from scratch. If you want to create a new article anyway, it's a good idea to do so through Articles for Creation where an experienced editor will review your work before it is created, to ensure it isn't going to just be immediately deleted. You might find Your first article useful reading. Joe Roe (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Editing title
Hi, I need to edit the title, as complete title is in caps.
Thanks, SmithaShanmugam (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Open up "edit source" or source editing if it automatically sends you to visual editing. The title is at the top of the thread and located between 2 equals = signs. The just type in he edited title. Eg what I have done above. It occurs to me after the fact that we may be talking a page title, in that caae youll have to move the page.Mr rnddude (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Someone has already taken care of the page move. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Is every radio station notable?
Does a station require a million listeners to be notable? A new article was created with no references. To me, that makes it non-notable because nothing is proven and no significant info uncovered in a search. Every station is going to known, it's business is advertising. The article in question is Radio Suomipop. Thanks, Cotton2 (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not every radio station is notable. WP:BROADCAST tells you which radio stations are notable, and as always, so does WP:GNG. That the article has no sources has no direct relevance on notability. The criteria for notability derived from coverage (GNG) is only concerned with coverage in sources that exist "out there", they do not have to be cited in the article to establish notability (WP:NPOSSIBLE). Naturally, only reliable and independent sources count, and advertising won't get a company a long way in terms of those.
- This particular radio station is in Finland. I would expect that most sources to be in Finnish, which I happen to speak. My gut instinct is that this passes GNG with flying colors. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, just what I needed to know (for next time). Cotton2 (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've just popped by and added some references for you that were found using a simple Google search, selecting the News filter and letting the search engine translate into English. Hopefully this helps, given the fact that it has a 52% market share !
CPBearfoot (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm unclear about what constitutes notability
I'm trying to create an article and the first draft was rejected for lack of references. I did post references from news sources. I was hoping to get some specific feedback. Adam Rotenberg (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Adam Rotenberg. Notability, as Wikipedia defines that term, means that the topic of an article has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The article should be built by summarizing what those independent sources say. When I look at your draft article, I see no references, although I do see some external links in the body of the draft. We do not allow external links in the body of an article, although a small number may be acceptable in a dedicated section at the end of the article. Please read and study Your first article and also Referencing for beginners. Please take a look at Featured articles and Good articles about similar topics, and strive to write an article even half that good. Do not model your article on mediocre articles. We have too many of those on Wikipedia and should try to improve them instead of emulating them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
replacing a redirect with a new article
I drafted a new article about the Gray Commission, which won't post, probably because it's currently a redirect to a small background section of a large article on the Stanley plan. I am not sure how to get it looked at, but put a request in the uncontroversial moves section, as well as added a section on the Stanley plan talk page (which might not have been edited in 4 plus years since it achieved GA status, although the size has increased a few percent). The matter is timely, since the Smithsonian's Afro-American History museum is opening in a month or so, and the University of Virginia Press just published a book about the NAACP and Massive Resistance (another ungainly article). I envision a second similar article about the Perrow Commission, which was established after the Stanley plan was declared unconstitutional by the two court decisions that are still red links and that I propose creating articles for. I don't feel comfortable about putting this much info into the Garland Gray article that I put up a few months ago, nor the Mosby Perrow article I wrote more recently.Jweaver28 (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Jweaver28. While Requested Moves/Technical moves would usually be the right place to request an article be moved over an existing redirect, in this case, since the content is coming from your sandbox, I would simply copy-and-paste it over. You can do that by editing the redirect page in the normal way.
- By the way, I understood almost nothing of the rest of your post. It's usually best to discuss in-depth content issues either on the relevant article talk page(s) or with your fellow subject-matter experts at the relevant WikiProject (WikiProject History? WikiProject Virginia?) Joe Roe (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, it worked. Part of the problem is that I think the WikiProject Virginia's unread or at least pretty slow, so I put a heads up note on the talk page of the editor (I think in Washington DC) who last edited the Stanley plan page (and got it to GA status 5 years ago).Jweaver28 (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hey Jweaver28, just one caveat to the absolutely correct advice of Joe Roe: If you collaborate with someone else on a sandbox article, so that 100% of the edits are not yours alone, then the page should be moved instead of pasted, that way the edit history is preserved.
- As to the project, every project is different. Some are very active and some are not. No way to tell unless you get involved. TimothyJosephWood 22:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, wikimediaDC didn't have a wiknic this year, and its mailing list got flakey, but I finally did figure out how to join WikiProject Virginia this morning and posted a couple of comments and a request for help, so we'll see.Jweaver28 (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Vensim and promotional language in software articles in general
I reviewed Draft:Vensim and declined it as having a promotional tone. I then received the following from its author, User:Tomfid:
I've edited the Vensim draft to make it less promotional, per your flag. If you have any further suggestions, I'd appreciate a pointer to particular language that's problematic. Looking at other items in the List of computer simulation software, they're generally less encyclopedic, but have not been flagged as promotional. For example, the Wolfram_SystemModeler page uses self-citations almost exclusively and the Anylogic page practically gushes over its own virtues. I think it's intrinsically difficult to describe a commercial product without mentioning features that could be construed as promotional. Thanks for your time - much appreciated.
My question has to do with his comments about other software. It is very difficult to describe a commercial product without being promotional if one has a connection with the product. Do you have a connection with the product, or are you just interested in it? Should the other two products be tagged as having peacock language? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Neither of the other two articles seem particularly promotional to me, though AnyLogic is generally poorly written and rambly, so maybe a general cleanup tag. And despite their pessimism, Tomfid appears to have managed the task of writing about a product without being promotional in their latest submission, which I've just approved. Joe Roe (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, User:Tomfid and User:Joe Roe. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
change my name
Can i change my name i don't to be problem to another people article i need to change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valvular (talk • contribs) 18:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- May I ask why you can't edit the article with your current username? -- Gestrid (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you change your username, the change will be reflected in any previous edits. That is, you won't lose the record of any edits that you don't want to have made. However, if the reason you are asking is that you created two pages in article space that have been tagged for speedy deletion as made up (or test edits in article space), once they are deleted, those edits will no longer be visible to non-administrators. If you have learned not to make test edits or made-up stories in article space, welcome to Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
my edit for Costello Tagliapietra
Hello We are Costello Tagliapietra and made those copy paste edits.... I am pretty new to wikipedia and would love help if I did something the incorrect way. Thank you Robert TagliapietraHughesspina (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Host, please see Costello Tagliapietra's page history, as well as Hughesspina's talk page for reference. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Read the conflict of interest policy. It appears that you may have a conflict of interest. For that reason, you should not be editing the article, but may request edits on its talk page. If you own the copyright to the copyrighted material, you may donate the copyright under a CC-BY-SA copyleft, but that does not mean that the language will necessarily be acceptable anyway, because it may be non-neutral. Also, you may not simply authorize the use of the copyrighted material without donating the copyright. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
This article has a misspelled title while Psychological distress also exists. Maybe somebody would like to do something to it?--by Huhu9001 (talk) at 14:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hey Huhu9001. Looks like the former is a redirect to Stress (psychological), while the latter is a redirect to Mental distress. Seems like Mental distress may be a good candidate for a deletion or merge discussion. Other's here may be able to comment further. TimothyJosephWood 14:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- For the time being, I've redirected Pyshological distress to Mental distress since it doesn't make sense to me that they have different targets. Also stress and distress are quite different. On another note, Huhu9001, redirects are there to help readers who have typed in the wrong thing to still end up in the right place. Most of them are synonyms but many of them are common misspellings that get enough hits to justify a redirect. Happy editing! Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Happy Squirrel, looking at the Stress (psych) article, it seems to cover distress pretty thoroughly. Looking at the Mental distress article, it defines itself in the first sentence as "Mental distress (or psychological distress)". Seems a bit more like an editing mix up than two entirely distinct concepts. TimothyJosephWood 15:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- There's also Distress (medicine) which seems to have considerable overlap. Joe Roe (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps Wikiproject medicine would be a better venue to discuss this if it involves many articles. Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
References from magazines and newspapers
Is it able to use notes from magazines and newspapers as references? I mean is it acceptable on Wikipedia to cite scanned image of a page from magazines or newspapers which will be uploaded to any image hosting sites which could be used as a reference. Júnior N 14:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- N Júnior: it is as acceptable to cite magazines and newspapers, by giving the name of the magazine or newspaper, the date, the page number, and if possible the issue number and the name of the writer. Uploading images will not help, and if the publication date is 1923 or later, will probably be illegal. Maproom (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Maproom: Why do people expect that sources need to be online? It never ceases to amaze me how we don't seem to get any message across :( – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Why amazed? We are used to more and more stuff being accessed online, as in the copyright-be-damned days of YouTube. I know that I highly prefer openly accessible online references over references that either require payment or registration, or - worse - require visiting an actual good library. Sure, WP allows these other kinds of references, but they are much less likely to be checked by other editors. But then there's link rot, so nothing is perfect. —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Maproom: Why do people expect that sources need to be online? It never ceases to amaze me how we don't seem to get any message across :( – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Images from 1942
I came across an image that was published in 1942 and therefore, I think, in the public domain. I loaded it in Commons under public domain, but apparently it is now problematic. The file is called Baragwanath hospital, 1942.jpg. What do I do to sort the problem out? Regards, Vaaljapie (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hey Vaaljapie. The standard commons uses for public domain via age is either A) the life of the author plus 70 years, or B) created or registered prior to January 1, 1923. If the author of the picture died in 1942, which is unlikely, the picture would have only entered the public domain in 2012. If the author lived many years after the picture was taken, which is most likely, then the picture would not be in the public domain under this standard.
- Also might want to keep Wikipedia:Media copyright questions in mind, as they specialize in this kind of thing. Hope this helps. TimothyJosephWood 12:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- (e/c) Hi Vaaljapie. A good principle to follow is: don't upload unless you have some specific information to make you think an image is suitably free, and if you're not sure, ask. For the image you are asking about, it appears that is in fact public domain – another user has added Commons:Template:PD-SA to the image description which provides detail on why, replacing the zero license you used, which was opaque here. So that image appears to be okay, as better tagged. Images from Google Earth are not PD so File:Baragwanath Hospital today.jpg, appears to be a copyright violation.
For File:Suideroord Cemetery - Johannesburg.jpg, you don't provide the date of the original work depicted so what might make that image okay? The date you took the picture, which you do provide, would be controlling if the subject was not itself copyrighted (if your photographing of it was sufficiently creative to form a second copyright, then the concept of derivative work would apply for which, here there would be no de minimis exception, given the image). What might make that PD as you marked it?Forget that, original image text has details making it highly likely it's older than 50 years and is obviously a South African image. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks guys! Regards, Vaaljapie (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Why must we have editors who insist on keeping an article different from the style guide requirements, who are not sanctioned for it?
OP blocked, prolific sock | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
While I've been reading up on the rules here, I've looked at some articles that come into question (but haven't tried editing them yet; see explanation below), and upon going down the list of changes on some of them, have discovered that one or a few editors insist on keeping an article not conformed to the manual of style. Let me use just one article as an example for now, though I'm sure there are many more. For this one example, please look at Pink (singer). Notice that the wording goes "...known professionally as..." even though the manual has it worded as "...better known by the [her/his] stage name..." (and even has a link to that article about stage names). The latest editor to change this found that the article already met that style from the guide, but then insisted upon changing it back to an edit that did not match [presumably because he or she believes that just because something's been a certain way for a long time, that is the "better" or "stable" way), claiming that the compliant edit "was not stable" (or, more accurately, that his or her edit was "the stable version"), and that editors should discuss the change on the talk page. So I ask these questions: Why? Why should anything for which there is already a rule from the manual of style dictating the format it should take be discussed any further (except, perhaps, at that section of the style guide itself)? And why should his edit take presidence over the long-established rules set by the Wikimedia Foundation or whoever sets that? Why do we even have a manual requiring certain styles if there are editors who insist on reverting articles away from it, and why are these editors' changes not enforced back to the established format set by the rules? So why don't I just change it back to meet the standard? Because with all the warring that has gone on about it, it looks like anyone who tries to make this and other articles like this actually fit the requirement get caught up into that war and that the more established editor always prevails even if she or he is definitely astray like that. It looks like it would take quite the established editor to stand their ground and look for all those articles like this and fix them to match the required style. Can we get a few sensible editors to bring their brains and muscle to the table on this, please? Banners and Shirts (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym:
Well, Ian, I was going by the general definition of the two words, not some oddball different idea given by some guy on the wiki. But fine, please show me a place here on this site where a so-called "policy" is less strict than a so-called "rule," and where the wiki seems to define it. It's not that hard to go to the history of the article in question and just look down at the date, is it? But all right, fine, in the future, just for you I'll try to post a link to every edit I'm referring to. No, my issue is not that it was like first-stage-last. The edit that he(?) (sro; not a name we can guess the sex of) last made was what took it farther away from the MOS. It was already closer to the MOS example before he(?) came back by and touched it. So why is it that even after so many people have tried to bring it up to par with the suggested wording (again, fine, it's not a requirement according to you, but still the suggested method), his way (less like that method) must always be the one that takes over, even though it's less like that suggested method? Banners and Shirts (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
|
Received Speedy Deletion notice for My Article. Need Help
Hello,
Today i created an article "Azea Botanica" in wikipedia and got speedy deletion notice.
What can i do to save it from deletion? Azea Botanica (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Can anyone review it and let me know what i can do? Azea Botanica (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Azea Botanica. Your user name violates WP:USERNAME as a company name. Your article is written in a highly promotional tone that must be removed. Please read about conflict of interest and comply. Also, read and study Your first article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ok.. Thanks for the info. I have requested for username change.
Also, now i understand why it is a conflict of interest. I think i should not have created the page in the first place. Rather i should have requested an article to be created.
Would that be the right approach? If the editors feel it is worth including in wikipedia, they can create an article for it. Also, I hope this will remove conflict of interest issue. Azea Botanica (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be the right approach. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
does 'Ignore All Rules' apply to blocked users?
This is not the place to discuss Wikipedia policy, especially with a block evader |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
WP:IAR says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." What if you have been blocked from editing? The rules say you can't edit. But WP:IAR tells us we should ignore this rule if it prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:582A:317E:D137:51D7 (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
IAR is not an unconditional "get-out-of-jail-free-card", every instance of invoking IAR must be justified and defensible. Block evasion is ipso facto disruptive editing, regardless of the intention, nature or content of the edit itself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC) |
Want to add so much more to the 'Jackanory' web page based on YT viewing ........
I'm watching so much and the page seeems so missing of the love the program had. Please may I add factual stuffed based on the series and the BBC 'making of' prog with ref to YT and please could someone be my mentor as I have never done significant updates to wiki and fear I may be predudice or wrong in some way so would want an experienced person to keep a careful eye on me and advise me when I go wrong? Can it link directly to (for example) a video of 'George's Marvelous Medicine' or an episode of 'Jacanory night'? I'm sure I could probably also find direct quotes from the BBC too? A sort of collaboration for a newb please. My active time of editing would probably be late UK time, roughly 10pm to 3am.
I will keep this page open and refresn each day for new replies (if any). Not quite sure of the best way to know how I have responses otherwise :( I have ticked to watch this page so maybe wiki emails me?
DM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dormouse7 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Dormouse7. What I suggest is that you first take a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial for a general introduction to editing. Then – and because proper sourcing is so important here – that you please read Help:Introduction to referencing/1 and Help:Referencing for beginners. After that, you can boldly add well cited factual material to Jackanory, using only reliable sources that you attribute well and which verify the information you are adding.
Though for things like plots, sometimes the work itself is used as your source, in general you should be attempting to find secondary sources, written by third parties to the topic and then citing them using inline citations—so you probably should not even use those videos, much less link "directly to them". If you want to suggest an edit rather than make it directly, you can do so on the the article's talk page, which here would be Talk:Jackanory. Also if you want, I would be willing to review any suggested edit – drop me a note on my talk page (which you'll see linked in my signature). Just be aware in advance that any suggested additions must be accompanied by identifying a reliable source, or that'll be the first thing I'll be asking for:-) By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them.Template:Z30 Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
i'm useless and would appreciate it if someone could make the following notation for me...
in re the Mark Zuckerberg page in the section on political controversies, the text cites an Israeli minister verbatim and refers to same as simply "minister" as opposed to using the article "a" before it, implying that "minister" should be followed by the name of the minister, which I was curious to know, but it is absent. I hope this makes sense and appreciate any assistance available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Zuckerberg&action=edit§ion=15&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro Jedherman 20:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedherman (talk • contribs)
EDIT: The footntoted Newsweek article identifies the minister as Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan. http://www.newsweek.com/israel-minister-facebook-zuckerberg-blood-hands-over-teenager-settlement-477399
It would seem preferable to either name the minister in the text of the article or to use some modifier before the word "minister" for clarity 20:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Jedherman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedherman (talk • contribs)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Jedherman. I added Gilad Erdan's name to the article. You could have done it yourself quite easily. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Cullen328: Mark Zuckerberg is semi-protected, and if I'm not mistaken Jedherman's account is not yet autoconfirmed, so they couldn't have edited it themselves. Joe Roe (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Joe Roe, for pointing out what I did not notice. My apologies to you, Jedherman. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Cullen328: Mark Zuckerberg is semi-protected, and if I'm not mistaken Jedherman's account is not yet autoconfirmed, so they couldn't have edited it themselves. Joe Roe (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- this is why i'm useless! thank you for making the change I requested @JoeRoe and for your help @Cullen328. i know that there are extremely rational reasons for it, but i am completely overwhelmed by the UI on the editing side of Wikipeida and never have any clue of the appropriate way to do somethign myself or attain assistance in doing so. I've tried. it's embarassing. cheers to all and thanks for working on this place. i love it.
Jedherman 05:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedherman (talk • contribs)
add name to alphabetized list
Category is "Fellows of the American Institute of Architects."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fellows_of_the_American_Institute_of_Architects
Names are listed beneath each letter of alphabet. I am not seeing where to add/insert a name.InsightOut1 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, InsightOut1. Articles are listed in categories by adding the wikicode for the category to the bottom of the article itself. You do not edit the actual category. The biography in question should include a reference verifying that the person is a Fellow of the AIA. Add the following code to the bottom of the biography:
- [[Category:Fellows of the American Institute of Architects]]
- I hope this clarifies things. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, InsightOut1, and welcome to the Teahouse. You've made a common mistake and got things, well, inside-out. What you need to do is add the category to the article, not the article to the category. See Wikipedia:Categorization on this. You need to add the code
[[Category:Fellows of the American Institute of Architects]]
to the bottom of the article, but make sure that the article includes a reference to a source that supports the categorisation. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Help creating page
Hello there, I am an author that wrote about a band I am familiar with, and it got marked for deletion. When I asked why, another moderator said that it was marked because it had no indication of notability. Would someone please be able to help me create a proper article and fix my work in a way that it will be a proper page and not get deleted? Please let me know. thanks. Amy Sumtinfancy (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Amy. Reading Your first article is a good place to start. But general advice (which I've just given to somebody else further down this page) is that Wikipedia is not interested - at all - in what you know, or what I know, or what anybody else who edits it knows. It is only interested in information which has already been published in a reliable place; and mostly in information written and published by people who have no connection with a subject. So the way to start writing an article is to find reliable independent sources, and then forget everything you know about the subject and work from those sources only. --ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Colin, Yes, I understand. However, All of the info I wrote is on the NBC Webpage on Emil and Dariel and/or on the AGT Wikia page on Emil and Dariel. How do submit that as my proof of a valid source? Would someone be able to help me properly recreate this page. Please let me know. thank you! Amy Sumtinfancy (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Sumtinfancy. You can read how to reference sources at Help:Referencing for beginners, but note that a Wikia site is not considered a reliable source, because it contains user-submitted content, just like Wikipedia. Please see WP:USERGENERATED for an explanation of this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I made a risky error?
Hello,
Thank you very much for the invitation to the teahouse. May I ask if I have accidently made a serious mistake. I signed up to make changes and continued to make changes and have just discovered that some were not under my user name but my PC address. Is this a great risk? Can the PC address be deleted or changed to my user name? It is great to have started editing - improving!
Aehullia (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Aehullia, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume that you are referring to your IP address, which you are worried you might have disclosed. There is no way to reassign your edits to your user account, but you can request suppression of the details of your IP via Wikipedia:Oversight. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Aehullia, I made an educated guess which edits you meant, and suppressed the IP address. Take a look, and if I guessed wrong or there are others, then you can request followup by email. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you soo much! I feel like I have been welcomed into a family! Aehullia (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's good to hear, Aehullia. Unless you live somewhere where the state monitors internet use and persecutes citizens based on their activities, I don't think that revealing your IP is inherently risky (some editors don't even bother creating accounts, which means that their IPs are revealed with every edit), but there are possible privacy concerns with doing so. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, an occasionally dysfunctional family, but a family just the same. Welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Draft:JAYS0 - How to get draft to display
I’m stumped. I reviewed Draft:JAYS0 and declined it because I couldn’t view the text due to the codes that hid the text. I then received a message on my talk page asking why I declined it. I have since been trying to remove the codes and get the text to display. Can someone help me, and also its author, and also possibly comment on the quality of the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I believe the problem is the trailing "!" here
<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE ----!> Therealmorris (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I finally succeeded at the same time as I got the advice. Thank you.Robert McClenon (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- At this point, my major comment on the quality of the draft is that, while the subject appears to be notable, the draft reads promotionally. This one was a puzzle. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Can someone else please comment on the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Seems like a notable person but it's written in promo language, which I boiled down in a few places. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Can someone else please comment on the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- At this point, my major comment on the quality of the draft is that, while the subject appears to be notable, the draft reads promotionally. This one was a puzzle. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
page up for deletion - what to do?
I went to a wikibomb today for women in STEM (at Microsoft in Adelaide) and during that course we started pages, however i didn't finish mine during the course but published it hoping to finish at college...not long after i got the message that the page maybe deleted. It would have been nice during the course to get more instruction...however...i do believe my subject that I was given is noteworthy..not sure how to reply as I am not yet familiar with talk etc. Jacbazz (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- (Note: see related discussion here. The unheralded flood of Australian academics was viewed suspiciously at first but good faith has been recognized and I hope better communication is under way :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hey Jacbazz. Wikipedia gets a lot of poor quality articles created, many or most from spammers trying to advertise or people creating hoaxes. Because of that there is a vetting process that new articles go through, and it looks like your article got caught up in it because of a misunderstanding.
- Maybe the best thing to do would be to create the article in your sandbox. (You can access your sandbox by clicking here.) That way you can get it 100% polished up before you create it. Your sandbox is visible to anyone who visits it, but it's more-or-less a place for you to work on things privately until you're totally finished.
- If you have any other questions, feel free to ask away. TimothyJosephWood 12:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is by no means assured that the existing article will be deleted, Timothyjosephwood (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Jane Howlett), so I'm not sure whether advising Jacbazz to start a second version is wise. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- As I was. Didn't mean to start a second version. Was anticipating a follow up of "how to I move this to there". TimothyJosephWood 12:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Moving would make more sense, yes. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Commented on the AfD to this effect. TimothyJosephWood 12:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Moving would make more sense, yes. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- As I was. Didn't mean to start a second version. Was anticipating a follow up of "how to I move this to there". TimothyJosephWood 12:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is by no means assured that the existing article will be deleted, Timothyjosephwood (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Jane Howlett), so I'm not sure whether advising Jacbazz to start a second version is wise. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Jacbazz. I think you're quite right that Howlett is notable and the deletion nomination seems likely to fail at this point. It will take a few days for the discussion to be closed and the tag on your article removed, but in the meantime I'd suggest you just continue to improve the article. I hope this won't put you off continuing to edit, and thank you for taking the time to contribute to Wikipedia. Joe Roe (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
wanted to edit indian movies wiki
i wanted to ask that why google removed our edits because i updated few Indian movies wiki ( i added the collections of movies in Indian rupees) but it was automatically removed by google from movies wiki??? so if you can explain how google removed the edits or if i wanted to updated my edits what should i do ?Shoaib79791 (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Shoaib79791: Google has no power to remove edits from Wikipedia. If your question refers to your recent edit to Great Grand Masti, that was reverted by a human editor, Materialscientist, probably because it was unreferenced. Maproom (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- i dont think that was fake info was provided by me ?? but how does human editor has the rights to remove my editsShoaib79791 (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Maproom didn't say that the info was fake, but that it was unreferenced. Please read about verifiability and about referencing. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Shoaib79791, Wikipedia is not interested, at all, in what you know, or what I know, or even in what Jimbo Wales knows. It is only interested in things that have been published in reliable sources. If you can cite a reliable published source for the information, it might be acceptable in a Wikipedia article (though that is not the only criterion); but if you add information without citing a source, anybody may delete it. --ColinFine (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
wikipedia in viewing my page
Why i can't find my page in Wikipedia when i search Abidit Wikipedia in google. help if possible . 05:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abidit (talk • contribs)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Abidit. If you are referring to User:Abidit, that is your user page, not an encyclopedia article. Your user page is for letting other Wikipedia editors know about your interests as an editor. Google does a good job searching our encyclopedia articles, not our user pages, as user pages are not intended for the general public. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
page and name declined
i have created a page on a musician - former Allman Brother - who has many magazine articles written on him - has recorded albums and plays to large audiences - and I have many links. How do I get this approved? I feel like i have to learn a whole new language to do this task but this artist deserves a page - his other band mates are linked to the main page The Allman Brothers as well as having pages of their own... I'm lost! Also the name is correct and like the other musicians "Jack Pearson (Musician). Jack Pearson (Musician) (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Jack Pearson (Musician). Your username indicates that you are writing an autobiography. Please be aware that writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged (though not forbidden), and experienced editors will scrutinize your efforts carefully. You say that there are many magazine articles. Those should be added to your draft article immediately, and referenced properly. Please read Referencing for beginners for details. You have a long list of quotations praising Pearson. Policy requires that all quotations be referenced properly. This is mandatory and not negotiable. Even if properly referenced, this list of quotes lacks context and is promotional. It looks more like a book jacket than an encyclopedia article. Similarly with the long unreferenced list of other musicians that Pearson has performed with. That is promotional name dropping, and ought to be cut way back and properly referenced. A Wikipedia biography of Jack Pearson should summarize what reliable, independent sources have written about him, in a neutral fashion. No more and no less. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am not Jack - but I thought that was how the user name should be (as it would show up that way when searched)? NO? Should I provide links for the magazine articles? I have way more information than is even listed so far - like concert tours - other bands he's with etc. I don't want it to look like promotion - am just seeking the recognition that the other Allman Brother members have that he is currently in a band with plus his own band. I also need to link him to a number of other pages where he is listed. I believe you are telling me to cut back the quotes unless I have the source they came from? ahh this is hard to figure out - someone should make wiki more user friendly :) Jack Pearson (Musician) (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you are not Jack Pearson, then your user name violates our username policy because it appears to be that of a living person whom you are not. You need to request a change in your user name. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've requested a new user name - thank you - but I need to discover then how to have Jack Pearson (Musician) come up when someone does a search? Currently nothing related comes up when I search his name. Thank you Jack Pearson (Musician) (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Jack Pearson (Musician), it seems that you have confused a username with an article title. A username is either the real name of an editor, or more commonly, a nickname that editors use when working on Wikipedia. My username is "Cullen328" but there is no encyclopedia article with that title. The title of an article is an entirely different thing, such as Canada or Abraham Lincoln or Oxygen. If your draft article is brought into compliance with our policies and guidelines, then it will be moved into the encyclopedia with the proper title. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- A few new editors do confuse username and article title, and actually think that their username should be that of "the" article that they are creating. That is just a misunderstanding, that is in no way something that Wikipedia is responsible for, but it illustrates that, first, if anything can be misunderstood, it will be, and, second, if something can't be misunderstood, it will be anyway, so we need to be very patient with misunderstandings by new users. This is not the first or second time that I have seen this misunderstanding. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Jack Pearson (Musician), it seems that you have confused a username with an article title. A username is either the real name of an editor, or more commonly, a nickname that editors use when working on Wikipedia. My username is "Cullen328" but there is no encyclopedia article with that title. The title of an article is an entirely different thing, such as Canada or Abraham Lincoln or Oxygen. If your draft article is brought into compliance with our policies and guidelines, then it will be moved into the encyclopedia with the proper title. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- you guys are great! i'm waiting to get the new name approved before doing more. Meanwhile migraine headache has arrived ... Jack Pearson (Musician) (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- ok I have my name change - how do I get my page approved enough to get it seen? I am wanting to format it similar to a other musicians - with their picture and info on the right and then their bio - then references, links, discography etc.... maybe another photo. Thank you again for your help - I couldn't do this without it! Jackguitarfan (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome back to the Teahouse under your new username, Jackguitarfan. Read all the advice you were given above and the included links. Read Your first article and Referencing for beginners. You mentioned some magazine articles. Add references to those articles and summarize what they say in your own words. Write neutrally, avoiding praise or evaluation in Wikipedia's voice. Check out WP:INFOBOX for the box in the upper right. Photos can be challenging unless you took the photo yourself. I suggest that you try to get a basic biography into the encyclopedia first and then improve and expand it later. Use Featured articles and Good articles about other rock musicians as models. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Featured articles about rock musicians include Frank Zappa, John Lennon, David Bowie, Ringo Starr, Jimi Hendrix, George Harrison, Roger Waters, Paul McCartney and Elvis Presley. For a more contemporary example, take a look at Katy Perry. These are among the very best articles on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome back to the Teahouse under your new username, Jackguitarfan. Read all the advice you were given above and the included links. Read Your first article and Referencing for beginners. You mentioned some magazine articles. Add references to those articles and summarize what they say in your own words. Write neutrally, avoiding praise or evaluation in Wikipedia's voice. Check out WP:INFOBOX for the box in the upper right. Photos can be challenging unless you took the photo yourself. I suggest that you try to get a basic biography into the encyclopedia first and then improve and expand it later. Use Featured articles and Good articles about other rock musicians as models. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- thank you Cullen for your easy to understand solutions to the issues I am facing in getting this page formatted and approved correctly. Could you please look at it again and help me to understand why Diannaa is saying it's all uncited? I have a lot of work still to do on it and I am referencing as quickly as I can but I can't keep up with their comments before it's complete. Thank you again musicfan (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Please pay attention to what User:Diannaa and I have been saying on your talk page about copyright. It appears that you copied information from the musician's web site, and Diannaa deleted the copyrighted information. It also seems that you uploaded images, and that there are questions about permission for the images. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Using copyrighted media with permission from rights holder
How do I include copyrighted media (photographs) if the copyright owner gave me permission to use in a Wikipedia entry? Artmonkey textmaker (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Artmonkey textmaker. The short answer is, you cannot. Other than if the media met our stringent requirements for fair use of non-free copyrighted material, the person (or entity) who owns the copyright would have to irrevocably release it to the world under a suitably-free copyright license (or into the public domain). That owner would have to provide that release directly, in a verifiable manner, showing their authority to do so – except for unusual circumstances, it could not be secondarily released by you as an intermediary. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for some guidance on how this might be done. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Advices about my new article
Hi, I discussed with Biblio at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Biblioworm#European_Society_of_Surgery and he recommended me that I should talk with you to get advices from you how to improve my article User:Ksiarkiewicz/European Society of Surgery and to get your approval to publish it. So I'd like to ask you to read it and list me your notices. Later I will fix and I hope you will agree to release my new page. BR Ksiarkiewicz Ksiarkiewicz (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Ksiarkiewicz, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would sum my advice up as "reference, reference, reference"! The bulk of your draft isn't supported by references to reliable sources, whereas WP:VERIFY requires that readers should be able to verify the content of an article by consulting its sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
how to properly make/publish a professional looking wikipedia page
Hi my username is Pseudoeight, i am currently making a wikipedia page for the english band DEATH PIGS and im very new to this, i currently have no clue what im doing... how would i go about embedding links in words or having the page verified? thank you Pseudoeight (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- You can read Wikipedia:Your first article for starters. It will tell you how to do most of what you need to know. I also made a userpage, User:White Arabian Filly/Help for New Users that shows how to do the coding and wikilinks. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Pseudoeight. In addition to the links suggested above, I encourage you to read our Notability guideline for musicians. I did a variety of searches for "Death Pigs" and found only the predictable social media sites controlled by the band. I found no Google News articles about them in major newspapers or magazines, and no mention in books. I searched the Rolling Stone magazine archive and found nothing. At this point, I see no evidence that this band is notable. Future news coverage could change that, of course. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
"CityU MFA" Next Step
I added "CityU MFA" page content in my talk page, and this is after my initial attempt to create the page in June and the comments and advice from Wikipedia editors Robert and Cullen. Can anyone please share advice on how this page will be published? Thanks. Knoxtennessee (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse. You submitted very brief drafts at Draft:CityU MFA and User:Knoxtennessee/CityU MFA. If you intend to use the content which you've currently got on your talk page at User talk:Knoxtennessee#CityU MFA as an updated draft then you would include it at Draft:CityU MFA and resubmit, but before that you ought to read the advice you've already received after the previous unsuccessful submissions. Some obvious problems with the material on the talk page are:
- You've tried to use Wikipedia as a reference, but that is not acceptable, see WP:CIRCULAR.
- You've used bare URLs.
- I suspect that many of the "references" don't actually mention the subject of the article. You need to concentrate on published reliable sources independent of the subject which give detailed coverage of the subject.
- A lengthy list of alumni who (being redlinks) are presumably not notable in Wikipedia's terms does not help to show the notability of the subject.
- --David Biddulph (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Since I was mentioned above, I will add that I agree with what David Biddulph wrote in response. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hi, Knoxtennessee. There is really no point in adding this material to your talk page: it is very unlikely that anybody will do anything with it there. You need to add the material to Draft:CityU MFA. Nobody will interfere with what you put in a draft, unless it is something really bad like a copyright violation or a personal attack. However, in my opinion, most of the material you have added to your talk page is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. What I suggest you do, if you want to write about the course, is to start by ignoring absolutely anything published by the university or its staff, and forgetting absolutely everything you know personally about it, and look for places where people who have no connection with the university have published material about it (this also excludes items based on interviews or press releases from the university). If you cannot find much independent published material about the course, then it is not notable in Wikipedia's terms, and there is no point spending time on trying to write an article. If you can, then it may be appropriate to write an article, based almost entirely on what these independent people have published about it. You can then add a bit a uncontroversial factual information from the University's own website, such as dates and locations. But if, for example, you cannot find an independent source that talks about Dr X's or Professor Y's contribution to the department (not just a directory that lists them) then you should probably not even mention them in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you all for your prompt feedback and especially, your time reviewing and writing. I intended to keep writing on the initial draft but I could not find it when I logged in last time, so I wrote it on the space where is readily available to me, the talk page. Thank you, ColinFine. Now I know more about the talk page. Points are taken on 1. using wikipedia as a reference 2. using bare URLS. Thanks, David. These can be easily corrected, however, as much as I am impressed with Wikipedia's quality control, I have begun to lose hope on the site regarding its rules on page notability. Would appreciate your help if any. Knoxtennessee (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you have difficulty finding your previous draft, firstly there are links from the feedback on your user talk page, and secondly you can find pages to which you have contributed by clicking on the "Contributions" link at the top of any page. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
WMFlabs links on Contributions page appear down
'Pages created', 'Edit count': Haven't been working for a few days. I do appreciate them when they're available. Is there anything I can do? Swliv (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Swliv. They don't seem to be working for me either. The Teahouse is a place for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, though, so I don't think this is the appropriate place to raise this issue. Could Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) be a better place? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Cordless Larry. The tools are working again so no need now but Village pump (technical) did look better for it, for future reference. Swliv (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Category sorting
I placed a page into a category but it isn't sorting alphabetically on the category page. anyone know what could be causing this? Unconventional2 (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Unconventional2. The article had a bad DEFAULTSORT. I have fixed it.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- PrimeHunter Thanks much! Unconventional2 (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you're talking about Cupping therapy? Someone has set its default sort order to "Fire cupping". That's quite unusual, so unless there's a special reason to sort it that way then you can go ahead remove it: either in the categories menu in the Visual Editor, or by removing {{DEFAULTSORT:Fire cupping}} from the top of the list of categories in source mode. Joe Roe (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hey User:Cullen328, Will I request Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International or Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License? I see two different email templates. Thanks! Deedeefleur (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I apologize. Wrong discussion. Deedeefleur (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Deedeefleur (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Image Copyright Permission from Company
Hello. I would like to be sure I follow the proper guidelines when asking a company for permission to use an image found on their website & submitting their permission to Wikipedia Foundation. Could you please advise me of the necessary steps? Thank you. Deedeefleur (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Deedeefleur. Complete details can be found at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. The most important thing that you must understand and convey to the copyright holder is that they must allow free use of the image by anyone for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Releasing the image for use only on Wikipedia or for non-commercial use only is not acceptable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Cullen328. I appreciate your guidance.
Is this boiletplate letter acceptable? I would like to email it to the company contact person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Example_requests_for_permission#Semi-formal.2C_Polite.2C_Concise
And, is this release of rights acceptable? Does the company contact person submit it on behalf of the company? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. Deedeefleur (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, those are fine, Deedeefleur. I find the prose in the letter a bit stilted, and you should take that wording as a guide, and modify as you see fit as long as the meaning remains intact. Another possibility is that the copyright holder could upload the image to Wikimedia Commons themself. That is very quick. Another possibility is that you could take an equivalent photo yourself, and then upload it. What is the subject of the photo? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is the photo provided here: http://www.southwings.org/pilots/south-carolina/thorne/
It is for the aviation section of a biography current in draft. Deedeefleur (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Which license do I request? Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International or Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License Deedeefleur (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- For images, you can use any free license currently accepted by Wikimedia Commons, and there are several accepted there, Deedeefleur. Personally, I use Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported for my own photos, because it is the default choice for the Android app I use to upload photos. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Deedeefleur (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I accidentally marked some edits as 'minor'. How can I change this?
I've just edited a page for the first time and accidentally checked the 'minor edits' box when submitting the changes. The changes weren't big but I realise now that they didn't count as 'minor'. Can I go back into my edits and unselect 'minor'?
Thanks Leyhart (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hey Leyhart. There's no hard requirement to fix anything if you made a mistake and marked an edit as minor. It is good that you went and read up on what constitutes a minor edit, and you should apply this knowledge going forward. The only time "minor edits" are really a problem is when someone misuses it to try to hide what they're doing, and refuses to follow policy when someone points out their error. TimothyJosephWood 12:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your help! Leyhart (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hey Leyhart. The short answer is "no", it is not technically possible to undo this. But, as Timothyjosephwood's said, there isn't a problem here. --LukeSurl t c 14:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks LukeSurl.
Leyhart (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Can everyone see the sandbox or only you?
Can everyone see what you do in the sandbox or only you? If anyone has answers I would love to hear them, I am just very curious on what the sandbox is all about like whether other people can see what you do or if it is like your personal page. Thanks
JakobtheDaddy (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- @JakobtheDaddy: please see the previous question on sandboxes, #Can an editor make their sandbox visible to others?, below. Nthep (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Article/topic
Virksaite (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Hey,I would you like to ask your help about my topic.I would like to create a topic like INTELLIGENCE OF CORVIDS,but I can't because there is already similar article like crows ,do you have any suggestions how can I changed it?Virksaite (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Virksaite. I would suggest helping to improve the article Bird intelligence rather than creating a new page. Existing articles can be edited by anyone. Having multiple people improve an single article is how Wikipedia works. --LukeSurl t c 14:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Virksaite. In addition to the more general article Bird intelligence that LukeSurl mentioned, we also have a lengthy section at Corvidae called Corvidae#Intelligence. That is quite detailed, written in an encyclopedic style, and includes about a dozen good references, most of which are to books and scientific journal articles. Your draft article is written like a homework assignment and your references are mostly to pop culture sources like Cracked.com. You must write on a much higher level using better sources if you want to contribute to Wikipedia articles about scientific topics. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Why is everyone deleting my page?
Hello I am JakobTheDaddy. I recently made a page on Wikipedia about a Rugby League player I really like. His name is Jakob Tait and I really like him because he has the same spelling of Jakob as his first name (which is very uncommon). So i am writing away and people keep giving me speedy deletion notices. I do no know why. The reason is that apparently he is not noticable enough but he played for the kiwi's but then moved back to his home town of Tamworth NSW. Everyone is deleting it so I just want to know why?
ThanksJakobtheDaddy (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, JakobtheDaddy. The reasons for the speedy deletion of the various iterations of your article are explained in the notices placed on your talk page. For a subject to have a Wikipedia article, it or they need to be notable, which is defined according to whether they have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Kids who play under-12s rugby generally won't be notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ah but there you are wrong. Jakob Tait has competed in international competitions shown on Foxtel. Thankyou for answering my question though.
- JakobtheDaddyJakobtheDaddy (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Only full internationals and players who have "appeared in at least one match of a fully professional club Rugby league competition" are deemed notable - age-group matches do not count - see WP:RL/N for the full list of criteria - Arjayay (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- For young atheletes WP:NHSPHSATH gives additiona guidance about not relying on sites like foxsportspulse.com and the need for sourcing from much broader sources. Nthep (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Only full internationals and players who have "appeared in at least one match of a fully professional club Rugby league competition" are deemed notable - age-group matches do not count - see WP:RL/N for the full list of criteria - Arjayay (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi JakobtheDaddy. Another thing to be aware of is that continually re-creating an article after somebody else has deleted it is likely to get you into trouble (that's what the warnings on your talk page are about). I appreciate that it's frustrating to see someone do something you disagree with, especially when it results in your work being deleted, however the way we resolve disputes on Wikipedia is through discussion, not edit warring. If someone deletes or "reverts" your work in future, you should contact them on their talk page to discuss the matter and work out a solution, rather than simply re-doing it. Joe Roe (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Thankyou guys so much for your answer's to my questions. I did not know that they had to be full NRL Players. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakobtheDaddy (talk • contribs) 11:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Convert images to .svg
All of the characters I uploaded to the page Cirth are .png (Gondolinic runes and Additional Angerthas Erebor cirth) or worst .jpg (Runes from The Hobbit) format images.
This causes size issues when using Mobile view (i.e. some the caracters are displayed too small to be read).
I would therefore these images to be fully converted in .svg format.
I am looking for someone who would like to do this as I am not able to.
Regards, ᚪᛋᚦᚩᚾᛏ (Asþont) | Talk 19:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hey Asþont. You can use a free program like GIMP to do this, and I'd do it if I was sure these images were okay, but I'm wondering if they're not all copyright violations. The answer to that does not seem straightforward to me. I did a little research, and found Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alien decoder Futurama.svg – which at least contains some indication they might be okay, but there's only surface analysis there; the link to the copyright office refusal posted there is no longer working; and such a refusal might not be conclusive in any event. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Archive link to U.S. Copyright Office refusal: here. Also, compare this case with cases at C:Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States, particularly File:Prince logo.svg which the U.S. Copyright Office thinks is original enough to warrant copyright. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Fascinating reading. So, the conclusion I would reach is that, because Tolkien actually constructed a usable language system, the symbols are not copyrightable in the U.S., where, counterintuitively, taking the cue from the symbol for the artist formerly known as Prince, had Tolkien not constructed it as an actual and usable rule-based writing system for a language with defined phonemes, the alphabet symbols would likely have had sufficient artistic expression to enjoy copyright protection.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Those nice people at Paramount are about to settle the question of the copyright status of invented alphabets for us, as one element of the Prelude to Axanar lawsuit is the claim that they own the copyright to the Klingon language. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Fascinating reading. So, the conclusion I would reach is that, because Tolkien actually constructed a usable language system, the symbols are not copyrightable in the U.S., where, counterintuitively, taking the cue from the symbol for the artist formerly known as Prince, had Tolkien not constructed it as an actual and usable rule-based writing system for a language with defined phonemes, the alphabet symbols would likely have had sufficient artistic expression to enjoy copyright protection.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Archive link to U.S. Copyright Office refusal: here. Also, compare this case with cases at C:Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States, particularly File:Prince logo.svg which the U.S. Copyright Office thinks is original enough to warrant copyright. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Asþont! First of all, thanks for your work on the Cirth article. I hope to translate it into Swedish at some point. Regarding the images: The glyphs come from a font, right? If so you can easily do the work yourself.
- Download and install Inkscape (it's free!).
- Open Inkscape and create a new document.
- Use the text tool and write the largest glyph you can find at a reasonably large font size. Make it center aligned.
- Adjust the document size to fit the glyph (File > Document properties…). I used the same size for both Tengwar and Cirth which is why there's so much space above and below each certh in my SVG images.
- Center the glyph within the work area.
- Repeat the following step for each glyph:
- Select the text area and type the glyph you want to export.
- Switch to the arrow tool and make sure the text area is still selected.
- Convert it to a path (Path > Object to Path).
- Save the document using Save As….
- Use Undo to restore the text area.
- As for copyright: As far as I know single glyphs are considered too simple to be copyrightable. The complete font files (TTF or other format) are still copyrightable though. Wikipedia:Public_domain has some information. I hope that helps. —Tasnu Arakun (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Spelling mistak
How do you notify Wiki of a mistake? On my Notifications page, for Unread Messages, it states "There are no notifications matching this criteria." This should be "criterion"...Kenwyn74 (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Kenwyn74, and welcome to the Teahouse. For that feature specifically, you can try reporting the problem at Wikipedia talk:Notifications. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hey Kenwyn74. That's a great thing to fix – seemingly minor, but unprofessional and probably seen by vast numbers of people. One other option given at Wikipedia:Notifications#Reporting feedback or bugs is to "post it on Phabricator". By the way, I often bite my tongue and don't post when I see the error of referring to Wikipedia as "Wiki", but since you brought up an error, I felt more empowered to bring it up in response, so ... there you go. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointers. Sorry for the abbreviation! I was trying to be affectionate, but didn't realise my error.Kenwyn74 (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
How to redirect users to an existing page
If a page is already existing. Someone is trying to search matters which is included in the page. Due to slight difference in the article name and search name, the user is not directing to the page. Then how could we redirect them to the page. സജീഷ് ജെ എസ്സ് 16:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajeeshjs (talk • contribs)
- Hi Sajeeshjs. Please see Wikipedia:Redirect. In brief summary, you create a page at the title you seek to redirect, with this text as the content: #REDIRECT [[Target page name]]. This code can be automatically placed by the editing interface button with the symbol:
. By the way, what do you mean by your use of the word "we" in your post? Is the account you're writing from being used by more than one person?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for your useful reply. By the way the word "we" was a mistake intead of "I". I am the only user of this account.
സജീഷ് ജെ എസ്സ് 06:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajeeshjs (talk • contribs)
Are Google Books copyrighted?
Hello ! I want to ask whether google books available for preview are copyrighted or not? Terabar (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Or whether I can use the content in them in Wikipedia or not? Terabar (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Terabar, and welcome to the Teahouse. The vast majority of books on Google Books are copyrighted. You cannot replicate their content verbatim on Wikipedia, except for brief quotations. As with all copyrighted material, you can paraphrase them (present the information given in those books but in your own words). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. But I find many pages on Wikipedia which uses Google Books as their source. In what circumstances I can use Google Books? Terabar (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- When Wikipedia articles use Google Books as their source, they do either of the two allowed things I described above. They either offer brief quotes marked by quotation marks. Or, more typically, they convey information in that book but in different words. Remember, it's not information or ideas that is copyrighted, but the exact verbatim textual expression. If you can present information given by a book in your own words, then you are citing the book properly. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. But I find many pages on Wikipedia which uses Google Books as their source. In what circumstances I can use Google Books? Terabar (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Terabar, and welcome to the Teahouse. The vast majority of books on Google Books are copyrighted. You cannot replicate their content verbatim on Wikipedia, except for brief quotations. As with all copyrighted material, you can paraphrase them (present the information given in those books but in your own words). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Is Cracked.com an acceptable source?
Hi. The article for one of my favorite songs, which happens to have a very strange music video, is a stub. I am new to this, and need help, especially when adding substantial amounts of information. I want to add a section to this about the music video. But the only place I can find an article with much of a description of the music video at all, is within a Cracked.com article. Is this considered an acceptable source when it's all there is(besides the video itself)? Thanks. Yojunemeow (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)