Wikipedia:Teahouse

GoingBatty, 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

Draft:LedgerLite

I reviewed Draft:LedgerLite and declined it as reading like an advertisement. Its author, User:MattyJ44, then asked me on my talk page: “Are you able to tell me specifically which text in the article reads like an advertisement so I know what it is I need to change.” Well, I don’t like to be asked exactly what reads like an advertisement so that it can be changed, because that is the question asked by an editor who is being paid to get an advertisement accepted. (Is the author the developer? If so, that is a conflict of interest.) I don’t see one specific aspect of the revised draft as having tone issues, but I also don’t see that the draft establishes notability. Do other experienced editors care to comment?

I'm the author of Draft:LedgerLite and I'm also the developer. I've declared the COI on the article's talk page and also my user page.MattyJ44 (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

(I also reviewed and declined Draft: Springs Junction as inadequately referenced. It was about a named place, which is notable under WP:GEOLAND but requires verification, but didn’t have a reference about the named place. User:MattyJ44 also asked me about it, saying that they had added sources. I don’t think that there is any remaining question about it, because I assessed it as a stub but accepted it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The second Draft has now been accepted and in mainspace, and as for the first one, it would especially benefit from actual reviews. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked Pages

Is there a way i can access a page thats been blocked to "prevent vandilism" or is it there for good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RekdRhymes (talk • contribs) 01:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@RekdRhymes: some pages are protected indefinitely, others for a set period of time. Longstanding editors can edit any page. See Wikipedia:Protection policy. If you want to edit a page you presently cannot, see Wikipedia:Edit requests. (I have moved your question to the top as the instructions say: "Please place it above the last question asked, so that it will appear at the top of the page!") – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Flag removal -

Can someone please remove the flag from this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilana_Mercer I made all the corrections.

Thanks

Kc2290 (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Kc2290Kc2290 (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Discuss on the article talk page, Talk:Ilana Mercer, and get consensus to remove the flag. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

can't get the page curator up

I have looked for it everywhere, but i can't seem to find the page curator tool in the tools section, even when i did all it wanted me to do. Please help! Newrunner769 (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Newrunner769. Just to be clear, you have 1) traveled to an article that is in the NewPages feed (because you will not be given the option unless you are visiting an article that is); and 2) the Curation Toolbar is not open on the upper right of your screen when visiting one of those articles; and 3) when you look under the tools menu while still there, you do not see a link for "Curate this article"?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I can't seem to find it at all. I went to a new, completely unreviewed page, and it still din't say "curate this article". newrunner769 (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Newrunner769:! After a recent Request for Comment, a new user right is needed to use the Page Curation toolbar. Please read WP:NPR, and then you can apply for the user right at WP:PERM/NPR if you meet the criteria. This change was implemented on November 16. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 01:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyright confusing

I got a picture from a site online, says like, this is licensed under the creative commons 3.0 law or something like that. There were copyright signs on the picture, but I though it said I could share/post it. Can I use the picture or not? Here's the link to the page i got it from: http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi/img_query?enlarge=4444+4444+1106+0437. Just search up kuhlia malo in the search if I tripped a law and delete the picture. Is this a good place to as for help as to improving an article? Just wondering as a side note.Newrunner769 (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Newrunner769, and welcome to the Teahouse. Licenses are never "something like that"; there are very exact terms for each license and not all of them are the same. The license of this image is "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0". Each of those words (right down to the version number) have significance. The problematic term here is this: NonCommercial. It means that the image cannot be re-used for commercial purposes. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons do not accept NonCommercial only licenses. Why? Because although Wikipedia is non-commercial use, some of our re-users are not (eg. people who print, bind, and sell Wikipedia articles as books). This is in line with the definition of free works (works that can be used by anyone for any purpose, even commercially). In short, no you cannot use that picture here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I was very confused about it, but now it's pretty clear. newrunner769 (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Paul Clark (designer)

I reviewed Draft:Paul Clark (designer) and declined it because it had a copyvio tag. The offending material was then removed, and it was resubmitted, and User:Shadowowl declined it as reading like an advertisement. User:Design Archivist then wrote to my talk page:

Hi Robert, Our submission has recently been declined again on the grounds that it reads like an advertisement. I contacted Shadowowl the reviewer via their talk page for some advice and clarification, however all the talk has been deleted from their page now and we didn't receive a response. I wanted to find out which language they found objectionable. We are a non-profit, educational archive with nothing to sell for ourselves or on behalf of Paul Clark. Only one of the 18 references is originated from us. So we are confused as to why it has been declined. Any advice would be greatly appreciated, as while little-known, we believe the subject to be worthy of a Wikipedia page. Many thanks. 

I first asked who is “we”. I also wonder how a “little known” modern subject is “worthy of a Wikipedia page”. I am aware that promotional language does not have to be promotional in support of a profit-making enterprise, but some new editors don’t know that, or that neutral point of view is applicable to non-profits also. Other than that, do other experienced editors have any comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

why

why cant I edit open workkkk?????????Allyouedit (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Allyouedit Is User:Allyouedit/sandbox what you are looking for? —teb728 t c 21:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick addition of templates to Wikipedia pages

I've seen people fire off uw templates very quickly while editing Wikipedia. Is it something I am able to do as well, or is it a poweruser thing? Preferably I'd like to just have a way to undo an edit and select a uw template from a list. Thanks! NOTNOTABLE (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, NOTNOTABLE. Have a look at Twinkle. It requires a certain level of competence, because you need to understand the things that it does on your behalf, since you are responsible for them; but it certainly lets you deliver warnings and add maintenance templates easily. --ColinFine (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, that looks exactly like what I was hoping for! I'll try it out! NOTNOTABLE (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Will my article be approved?

I'm looking to write an article for Wikipedia. The article might mention various examples of this tool, aka products. The intention of the article is not to market any products (hence why I would include multiple types to not show bias) but I would like to provide examples for comparison and explanation. Is this allowed? A.spallek (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid the question isn't answerable without more details about the subject of the article. New articles on Wikipedia are required to meet guidelines for notability, regardless of the topic. TimothyJosephWood 16:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

To add to what Timothyjosephwood said, A.spallek: another way of looking at it is that Wikipedia is not interested in what you (or I) think, or know; and it is certainly not interested in what anybody who is connected with a product says about it. It is only interested in what people have published in reliable sources - and preferably, people who have no connection with the subject. An article about a range of products would probably be acceptable, if there are already reliable independent sources which discuss the range of products, and the article was based entirely on what those sources said. If there are no such comparison sources, but for each product there are reliable sources independent of that product, then it might be appropriate to have an article comparing them; but the comparison should be limited to what these independent sources say, and not draw any conclusions for itself. If the only sources about a product are not independent (the company's own website, or articles based on interviews or press releases) then Wikipedia should not take note of that product even in a comparison article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New contents on already present topics.

If there is some missing content from a topic and i am adding that but after sometimes it gets deleted.. Please help me how to add it so that it last long? MUKUL SACHAN (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I moved this from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Questions (yes it was placed on the redirect). -- GB fan 13:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

help me in editing

Hello TeaHouse, I recently uploaded my new article i.e Murder of a Tree so I want to know that did anyone read it and if there is something wrong in my editing so please inform me so that i can upload a next episode of this story. Thank you, zeba rasheedZeba Rasheed (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You have not uploaded it as a new article, but to your user page User:Zeba Rasheed. What is there is not suitable as a user page, nor is it suitable as an article. Please read WP:Your first article, and read about notability. If you are writing a story, Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web hosting site. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Create a new page

Hi

I have created a new page which i would like to get featured on Wikipedia. pls could you let me know how can i submit the same.

Deeps p (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Assuming that you are talking about User:Deeps p/sandbox, before thinking about submitting for review you need to read WP:Your first article, and also read about external links, reliable sources, and referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 12:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

How can I get my draft back into my user page?

I redirected for reviewing and now don't know how to get it back to make amendementsPogga D (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You can make amendments at Draft:Annette Elizabeth Clark; you don't need to move it back to your user sandbox. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Occasionally new editors seem to think that once their draft is declined they have to create a new draft in their sandbox rather than editing it in draft space. This results in multiple copies of the draft. Is there some way that we can make sure that new editors know that they don't need to create a new draft back in their sandbox? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The pink "declined" box at the top of the draft says "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page", so I'm not sure that we can make it much clearer. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Question About Draft Moved into Checking Area

my draft, for submission, is moved to a checking area for submission. It is no longer in the user space, bye bye.

and then it gets deleted. After I get around to hinting about it and want to re-edit it ...

so, how to get it back ? Dave Rave (talk)

Hello Dave Rave. Ask the deleting admin to give it back. Unless it was deleted as a copyright violation, they will probably restore it or email it to you. —teb728 t c 21:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Dave Rave - I have looked over your edit history and talk page. I see no evidence that anything that you submitted was deleted. You have created a number of user pages that are not ready for submission, but are still in your user space. I don't see that anything was deleted. What do you think was deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

How to request for article creation?

How and where can I request for an article to be created? I am not good in writing an article and I would like to request my fellow Wikipedians that are more experienced and talented in writing and using Wikipedia. I do not want to ask it here because I feel that there is a specific page for that.
Thank you
- Jeth888 (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jeth888. Please see Wikipedia:Requested articles. TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is this place so hard to find?

Why is this place so hard to find? Shouldn't this be closer to the front for new users next to a searchable FAQ? Usename policies (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Usename policies, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Most new users receive an invitation to the Teahouse on their Talk page, especially after they've had an article rejected. It's hard to know where to put notice of the Teahouse's existence where lost newcomers will see it and understand why they might want to come here. Do you have a specific place in mind? You may even be able to make the necessary change yourself – nearly all of Wikipedia is open to be edited by anyone, only a very small fraction is protected.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking for interested editor to review revised entry

Hello, I've drafted a revised entry for an existing entry that has several flags. I've been able to get feedback from an editor on some formatting issues, but I'm having trouble finding an interested editor to review for content. I'm especially interested in having an editor review as I have a conflict of interest (disclosed on my user page) in that I volunteered to work on the entry for the organization the entry describes. Any suggestions as to how to find one?

The entry is the Committee on Sustainability Assessment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Sustainability_Assessment. I've proposed an article revision on the associated talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Committee_on_Sustainability_Assessment The editor Maproom kindly shared formatting changes that need to be made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maproom#Next_steps_to_revise_existing_article

Many thanks in advance. K.Emanuele (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@K.Emanuele: Your question raises some very interesting implications. In a sense, all Wikipedia editors have some sort of mild "conflict of interest" because we choose to edit articles about topics that interest us enough to motivate us to edit, and choose to ignore the overwhelming number of articles that interest us less. In the case of those who are paid to edit a certain article, experience tells us that promoting the topic of that article all too often overwhelms the goal of improving the encyclopedia . That often leads to problems. However, you say that you are a volunteer. I began editing Wikipedia in 2009 as a volunteer writing biographies of people who were leaders of a group that I am a longtime member of, the Sierra Club. But I edited on my own without instructions from anyone and followed Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the best of my abilities. None of my biographies or any other articles I started have been deleted. As long as you place the goal of improving this encyclopedia first, as opposed to promoting the interests of the organization, then there should not be a problem. Defer to experienced good-faith editors lacking any involvement with the topic, and all will be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Trying to populate a page that keeps redirecting

Hello,

I'm trying to populate Grant Cutler's page with his own information, not have it redirect to Gayngs. He isn't an active member of Gayngs, but he is a noteworthy composer in his own right. I can't move the draft I created because this page with his name exists.

Here is the draft I want to publish: Draft:Grant Cutler

Can you help me? I find this all very confusing.

Thank you! Allegra Aerocreative (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Aerocreative, and welcome to the Teahouse. The way to do this is described here: Moving over a redirect. However, I am not convinced that the composer is noteworthy in his own right (or notable as we say on Wikipedia). Your draft only includes a handful of references, most of which are written by his record label. Topics need to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject in order to be considered notable. The references in the draft do not reflect this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Allegra. I would suggest, if you think that he is notable in Wikipedia's sense, that you start an independent draft using the article wizard. If your draft is eventually accepted, the accepting reviewer will sort out the redirect. --ColinFine (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Regarding Conflict of Interest, Wikipedia says to post suggestions to the Talk forum of the page. How timely will responses be made? I'm worried that I'll make a suggestion, and weeks will go by without a response. Thanks. cg.wikawikawow Cg.wikawikawow (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There can be no guarantee of speed but if you do the following I think you will maximize the likelihood of a quicker response. At the talk page add an explanatory header for your post. Post below it this template {{Edit request}}. Below that type out an organized post explaining exactly what existing language you would like changed, and the manner of change, or what addition to the page you are requesting and exactly where it should go. Because you are new, I wouldn't expect you to have a lot of experience with wikimarkup, but the requested change can be made easier by doing something like this (see in edit mode for how it was done):

Please replace

Old Sentence Text

with

New Sentence Text

Or: "I would like to add the following text to the third sentence in section Y (additions in green):

Original sentence here is my suggested addition balance of existing sentence.

Regardless of your suggestions, almost any change that is not a grammar/syntax change for polishing purposes, is far, far more likely to be accepted if it is 1) purely factual; 2) contains no promotional sounding language; and 3) cites to a reliable, secondary source, entirely unconnected with the topic, that is well formatted and provides transparent attribution to the source. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Fuhgettaboutit. I'll be sure to follow your advice.Cg.wikawikawow (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Editing

How do I get to the graphical editor? Sir7 16 (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sir7 16. If you mean the VisualEditor, go to the editing section of your preferences; make sure there is no checkmark next to Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta; click on the drop down menu below that and select "show me both editor tabs" (you could also select "always give me the visual editor if possible", though there are many limitations and bugs in VE so you may need to use wikitext editing at times). You can also add ?veaction=edit to the end of a Wikipedia URL to invoke the visual editor. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I encourage you to give it a try again for regular editing. It's changed a lot since 2013. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Issue uploading photos for a historic property

Hello, I'm hoping somebody can help me.

I am an archivist uploading images to a page about a historic house and farm.

Currently, some of the images I am attempting to upload will not. The error message reads "We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons."

I am currently reading the guide now, but does anybody have any suggestions? These are images that can be used as my own or within fair use.

Thank you.Pcaserta (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Pcaserta. If you personally own the copyright of the pictures, then you can upload them, releasing them under a suitable licence as you go.

If you do not own the copyright, but your intended use of them will meet all the criteria in WP:non-free content criteria, then upload them to Wikipedia (not Commons), as non-free images. The criteria include their being used in at least one article (not draft).

Otherwise, you will need to get the copyright owner (which may be the photographer, or someebody else if the rights have been transferred, or the photographer was working under a contract which assigned the rights) to license them freely, by the process in donating copyright materials. Just giving you permission, or just giving permission for them to be used on Wikipedia, will not be sufficient. --ColinFine (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Relevant Deletion Request
• Relevant Library of Congress Entry TimothyJosephWood 15:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with this information.

What if the pictures come from the Library of Congress? They are public domain, and I have no read the criteria, so I'm assuming those would also be ok to place onto Wikipedia? PcasertaPcaserta (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Pcaserta, I have reuploaded the image here. The problem seems to have been that the original photo from the LoC was available for public use, but the picture you submitted was a photo-of-a-photo as it appeared in a non-government published work. The file you uploaded will still probably need to be deleted for this reason, but the original I uploaded should be fine. Hopefully this clears things up. TimothyJosephWood 17:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pcaserta: Not everything in the Library of Congress is free from copyright. Far from it. This image is not your own because you did not take it. This particular image is actually free from copyright, because it is the work of a photographer working for the U.S. Federal government as part of the Heritage Documentation Programs, specifically the Historic American Buildings Survey. Works created by the U.S. Federal government are free of copyright according to U.S. law. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

When will a wiki page appear in google search?

Hello I just had an article I wrote pass through a proposed delete. How long until the article is available and will appear on a google search? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Hillmann DanHamilton1998 (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello DanHamilton1998, and Welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, Google search results are out of our control. It appears that Google knows the page exists, but doesn't rank it very highly and hasn't crawled it recently. It could take any amount of time before the page appears as you would expect. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 12:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@DanHamilton1998 and AntiCompositeNumber: No, Google had only indexed a discussion about the article. The article still had noindex as a new article to prevent search engine indexing before new articles are reviewed (see Wikipedia:New pages patrol). This is a specific software action I have now done [1] so noindex has been removed. It varies how long it takes Google to index an article after they are allowed to. It's problematic that articles are not automatically reviewed when they pass a discussion like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hillmann. It's a recent feature to noindex new articles and our processes and editors haven't caught up. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Google indexed the article while I wrote the above! I have heard they watch our logs to quickly index pages but the result varies. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Hmm. I was sure I saw the green checkmark in Page Curation when I checked yeaterday...Oh well. It still isn't ranked highly in search, at least on my end. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 13:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both! DanHamilton1998 (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

DanHamilton1998: not that Google will care – but I encourage you to improve the referencing of Bill Hillmann. What there is still doesn't really do enough to establish notability. There's plenty of good sources, I can see them in the "Further reading" section, but more of them need citing. Maproom (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I'm trying to improve cites editors seem to be helping. The page has risen considerably to number 4 on google. When will google place it at the top right side of the page? Is there something I can do to request that? Thanks! DanHamilton1998 (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Remember that the Google results you receive partly depend on your own browsing and search history, DanHamilton1998. The article is on the second page of results for me. To repeat a point made above, we have no control or influence over Google search results. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

and neither should we care. Theroadislong (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

How can you join a WikiProject?

Hi. I'm a bit new here. But how can you join a WikiProject? RainPearl233 (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, RainPearl233, welcome to the Teahouse.

Visit the WikiProject's project page and look for a section about participants. Often you join by simply editing the participants list page and adding your name. Usually there will be adequate instructions there for how to join. Sometimes you can show your allegiance to a project by displaying a userbox on your user page.

Adding the project's Talk page to your Watchlist may help keep you aware of project goings on.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @RainPearl233:. In addition to jmcgnh's response, if you want to see a list of what WikiProjects are available, check out Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Why my page is deleted?

I am confused why page User:Mohammad.Mesbah/sandbox is deleted from wikipedia, I have also requested to change username is this is the reason of deletion? 119.152.87.200 (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The person who nominated this sandox page for deletion said that "the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals." The contents of sandbox pages must have a direct connection to improving the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If you click on the link to User:Mohammad.Mesbah/sandbox, the deletion log will show you that the admin who deleted the page said that it also violated criterion G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". --David Biddulph (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

As an administrator, I can read the deleted article, which began Well-seasoned, strategic, proactive, international HR professional who will be a catalyst for inspiring a collaboratively driven performance culture that engages all members of the workplace community in implementing new age, innovative, integrated people management solutions that will drive business success and went on for 1700 words more in that vein. Wikipedia only accepts neutrally written articles on topics which can be proved to be noteworthy through coverage in significant sources; we're not a general directory or a place to post advertising. ‑ Iridescent 17:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If I had read that, I would have referred to it as marketing buzz-speak in the WP:G11 nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New contributor with simple questions about "moving" a page and adding an image

Greetings!

I am proposing to rename the title page to César Abadía-Barrero. I would like help on this. I studied the "moving" tutorial, but unfortunately am unable to locate the appropriate tools on my current page.

I e-mailed Dr. A recently. He gave me permission to use an image that was rejected after being uploaded, however.

Thanks million fold!

Respectfully,

asr05008 Asr05008 (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

For reference, the draft in question is User:Asr05008. —teb728 t c 06:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Asr05008. Quickly glancing at your draft, I see it is not ready for publication. The most obvious problem is a lack of references to independent reliable sources; you have given only three references and they are all to Abadía, and so are not independent. We are looking for what other people say about him. —teb728 t c 06:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Asr05008: Another problem with the draft is that the body of the draft contains inline external links: The only external links should be references. You should convert the external links to references or to internal links to Wikipedia articles or to plain text. —teb728 t c 06:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Asr05008: In my opinion, your draft article is not yet ready for the encyclopedia. I suggest that you spend more time working on it, and when you are sure that it is ready, submit it through the Articles for Creation process, for review by an experienced editor. Please read Your first article and follow its recommendations. Please also read our notability guideline for academics. Your draft has several external links in the body of the article, which is not allowed.

As for the photo, the subject cannot give permission to you to upload it on their behalf. The copyright holder must themself release the photo under an acceptable Creative Commons license, in writing. That person can open an account at Wikimedia Commons and use their upload wizard, which will ask all the appropriate legally required questions about the photo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

editing and copyright

How do I know if the information that I edit or enter is violating copyright?(Msb4 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Msb4, and welcome to the Teahouse. Almost invariably, you cannot enter text that has been written by someone other than you. Doing so is a copyright violation. Furthermore, text you find elsewhere is usually not written in a style suitable for an encyclopedia anyway, so you should not do that. There are some exceptions, however. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Msb4: You write should write original content for Wikipedia in your own words, summarizing but not copying what your reliable sources say. And you should provide references to those sources. Brief quotes enclosed in quotation marks are acceptable, but only if referenced to the original source. Writing this way will prevent copyright problems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

What do you usually put on your user page?

I'm just curious which information would be useful to include. Thanks!Patrickh1992 (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Patrickh1992, and welcome to the Teahouse.

People put a wide variety of stuff on their user pages. You should just look at a bunch of them and see which things seem to you like they'd be useful. Userboxes seem to be particularly popular. Don't worry about it overmuch, though. User pages are not indexed and most of the time they will only be seen by users with whom you are interacting. There are a few limits on what you can put on your user page, so take a look at WP:User pages to make sure you're not doing something that may cause trouble.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Reviewer not clear

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.

This criticism is difficult to comprehend. There needs to be more detail about which references etc. are unreliablePogga D (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Pogga D, and welcome to the Teahouse!

I assume we're talking about the article Draft:Annette Elizabeth Clark. The review summary is somewhat boilerplate, but the reviewer's comments specifically call out that there are entire paragraphs with no references. So the summary needs to be interpreted as rejecting the article in its current state because it does not have enough references rather than a complaint that the references given are not reliable.

The next complaint will be that your references could be improved by using current WP referencing style as is explained in WP:CITE. I always prefer to see references that can be verified on-line, but it is certainly acceptable to use references to hardcopy sources that require a proper reference library to verify. But references must be verifiable and must be supplied for any substantive assertion you make in the article.

Please don't be discouraged. Creating a new article is a very difficult task for new editors to take on, in part because Wikipedia standards for articles have grown increasingly stringent over the years. For instance, see the essay Your First Article. I encourage you to keep working on it.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pogga D: Hello. One of your references says "From Evening Standard 30 April, year unknown". The lack of a year makes verification difficult, and verification is a core content policy. Another reference says "Testimonial letter from J. P. Ballard dated 28 July 1930". Unpublished personal correspondence is not a reliable source and cannot be verified. A Wikipedia article should summarize what published reliable sources say about the topic. Anything else is original research which is contrary to Wikipedia policy.

Your draft article includes unreferenced evaluative language such as "In her telling of Bible Stories she evokes the context for biblical events using a language which is timeless. The reader feels present while reading the story of Moses and Miriam and the Ark of Rushes." All such evaluative statements must be referenced to a reliable source, as this is the only way that a reader can verify that your assertions are true, and are not your own original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

When something is clearly singled out for personal promotion, how to adress this?

I have serious grievance with this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_by_design

It is a about one persons attempt to take the term "Privacy" and "Privacy by Design" hostage for her personal promotion while providing unclear descriptions/evaluation criteria and ZERO solutions that would ensure privacy.

All mentioned examples are with clear security problems and thus NOT abiding to the Privacy Enhancing Principles as agreed at the 2003 EU Workshop on the topic. [See e.g. page 3 here http://blog.privacytrust.eu/public/DG_Justice_Security_Economics_Engberg.pdf]

At the same time, true Privacy by Design solutions and technologies are getting ignored.

I would reject the page in its entirety as every element contains serious problems and the links are selected for the single purpose of taking terms capture for personal PR while ignoring serious science.

How to address this?Sjewiki22 (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sjewiki22.

Using the words "serious grievance" indicates a degree of involvement with the subject that could result in non-neutral editing. Be careful.

Since this is a conflict about the content of one page, the best place to discuss it is on the Talk page of the article: Talk:Privacy by design. You can edit the article to challenge individual mis-statements with the famous "citation needed" tag. But, ultimately, the content of the page will be decided by a consensus of the editors paying attention to the page. You can start a formal request-for-discussion, which may enlarge the circle of interested editors, if you continue to feel grievance, but this may result in consequences for you or the other editors if the behavior exhibited falls outside Wikipedia norms.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I am indeed expert in the field. That is why I am asking as to the proper process to respect the principles of resolution. Our problem is not "citations needed", but the selective choice of (mainly self-referencing) citations while excluding all contradictions in order to assert claim on right to define the field.

Sjewiki22 (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sjewiki22: jmcgnh told you to interact with the editors on the page and/or its talk page. That is how page content is determined on Wikipedia. I don't see any sign that you have attempted to do so. So if you don't like the content, it is your own fault, for you have done nothing about it. (Read also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.) —teb728 t c 09:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.png

I uploaded the latest version of the SVG version to the PNG version. I want to reduce the file size. GXXF T • C 18:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You can do that by going to a file compressing website.

Type in Google searchbox "file compresser". RainPearl233 (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

renaming a UBX page

Hi,

I just finished making a userbox (UBX), and I decided to rename it so it is easier to find in the gallery.

However, instead of using the "move" function, I made another page with the new name and then deleted the contents of the old one.

Is this the correct way to handle this? If not, how can I fix this? Relevant pages: Current/good page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Myoglobin/Userboxes/Habitica Old/bad page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Myoglobin/Userboxes/Habitician

Thanks! Myoglobin (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and requested a history merge for the pages, please remember though next time to use the Move feature! Thanks! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Do I need to do anything right now to effect the history merge? Also, for next time, how exactly does the Move feature work? Myoglobin (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like this just got fixed! One more question: is it ever appropriate to link to a UBX in the "See Also" section of an article? Myoglobin (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no reason why an article should ever contain a wikilink to anything outside of mainspace - except for maintenance tags of course. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a page for instructions on how to use that function, Myoglobin. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Article draft

I recently created a draft, Draft:Wishing Well Foundation USA. As this is my first attempt at creating an article, I was wondering if some of the more experienced Wikipedians here could provide some feedback on the draft before I submit it to be reviewed. (If you respond, please ping me; I do not have this page watchlisted.) Thank you. Joshualouie711 (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joshualouie711. It's good to seek feedback and but in this case there's really no need; that's exactly what the draft submission process is for. After you have submitted it, it will be added to the queue for a more experienced editor to review. Joe Roe (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Joshualouie711 has moved the draft to main space instead of waiting for a review, I have marked it for speedy deletion as an attack page, it might be possible to create a neutral article about Wishing Well Foundation USA but this isn't it. Theroadislong (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Article Creation

I want to create an article of an upcoming artist,can I do that?Blxck stiffler (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

First, many new editors do not realize just how difficult the task is of creating a new article in Wikipedia, with its references. It is the hardest task in Wikipedia, but the one that many new editors think is the way that they need to help out. There are also many less difficult ways that new editors can help us with the five million articles that we already have, rather than with the ones that we don't have. Second, however, read Your first article. Also, read WP:Drafts and Articles for Creation. We strongly recommend creating the new article in draft space, where it will be reviewed by experienced editors, and it can be declined with feedback if it isn't up to standards, rather than deleted. Third, see Up-and-coming. Often new editors want to write an article about an "up-and-coming" artist, but in many cases such an artist has not yet received enough publicity to be notable for Wikipedia purposes. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Blxck stiffler: Short answer: Up-and-coming artists don't get articles on Wikipedia. They must have already 'arrived', and the evidence for that is the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the artist. See Wikipedia:Golden rule for a brief overview. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I link my Wikipedians Facebook group in the Teahouse?

I made a Facebook group for Wikipedians. Would it be OK for me to ask in WP:Teahouse if people are interested to join this group? Amin (Talk) 11:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Amin:

It's okay to ask, but the general consensus of WP editors seems to be that discussions between editors should generally occur in plain sight on Wikipedia, usually on Talk pages.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Amin: There are many Facebook pages related to Wikipedia, including an official page run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Another popular page is called Wikipedia Weekly, which was started by Andrew Lih, who wrote a book called The Wikipedia Revolution. There is nothing wrong with discussing Wikipedia editing in other venues, as long as the conversation is constructive and open. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: The Wikipedia Weekly FB group seems very active. I have requested to join. Thanks Amin (Talk) 15:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Create a new article

Hii, how many article we can do it in a day? Bby89 (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Bby89 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia has no set limits on how much you can edit – all constructive edits are heartily welcomed.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Although I would personally stress the value of quality over quantity, Bby89. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

In fact, please stop creating articles such as Chong Yee Han until you have read and understood Wikipedia's copyright policy, Bby89. Once you've done that, I suggest creating any new articles as drafts for feedback, via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Bby89 has been blocked as a sockpuppet. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

Hii,, I am just ask about blocked. How the sockpuppet investigations will occur. Bby89 (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bby89: Welcome to the Teahouse. Please read Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Editors are blocked to prevent disruption of the encyclopedia. Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry for our policy restricting the use of multiple accounts, and an overview of how this disruptive behavior is investigated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you thought you were about to be blocked given that no investigation was under way, Bby89, but having looked into the evidence, I have now requested one. Thanks for alerting us to your potential sockpuppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Biography of a person

How can I write a biography of a person? is there any template I can use? Swijewar (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Swijewar: Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question is answered at the Help Desk. Please don't ask the same question in more than one place. RudolfRed (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a template, Swijewar, but I suggest that if you do create an article, you create it as a draft via Wikipedia:Your first article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Swijewar:Actually there is a template, which is also a template (the term "template" in Wikipedia is generally used in a different way that the term you meant, but in this case we have a template which is your kind of template.) Template:Biography.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup of Red link

Hello, How can I clean the red link to a userpage or a username that has been deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riswa (talk • contribs) 10:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Riswa, and welcome to the Teahouse.

There are two approaches to changing the color from red to something else. You can unlink the text (remove the square brackets), which will turn the link into ordinary text or just edit the link out entirely. Or, you can change the link to point to a page that already exists. If this was your own user space page, you might be able to recreate the page, depending on why it was deleted.

Or, I guess you could use STRIKEOUT markup, but that's not usually what this form of markup is for.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Riswa: There is rarely reason to remove a red link to a userpage. Where and why do you want to do it? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

How can I access a wikipedia page thats been blocked for vandilism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RekdRhymes (talk • contribs) 01:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You haven't stated which article this is affecting. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)