Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, a Teahouse host

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

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233

Question about Corrections

Hi,

I made a correction to a name spelling in an article. The spelling on the name was incorrect in the source article, however the attached court documents on the article have the correct spelling. There are also several other news articles that have the correct spelling. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I'm not sure where the appropriate place to have a discussion about this is. I don't want to just revert the person who changed my correction, but I wasn't sure if this was better on the article talk page or on the editor's page. Thanks for any help! Kat Cheez 20:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instert image with text

Hi, I have never insterted an image and i don't know how to do it, i want to insert the Pyramid of Argumentation with the text "please stay on the top three tiers" also, is this pyramid already in Wikimedia or do I have to upload it? --DashyGames (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DashyGames. See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for guidance on including images in articles. TimothyJosephWood 19:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible deletion?

Previously, I have been impressed with the quick responses from Wikipedia staff when I needed help. I received a notice that the article "Intellectual Bigot / Intellectual Bigots, may be removed. Naturally I would be disappointed if that occurred. I presented that article with the intent of a broader perspective about bigotry, that expanded the traditional view. Are there suggestions for me to improve the article? I have read the guidelines, etc., and, I thought I did a fair objective perspective as a learning experience for the reader. Thank you in advance for your advice. Bruce Metzger. Bruce Metzger (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bruce Metzger. It looks like you've put a lot of work into the article, but unfortunately it appears to read much more like a college essay or personal reflection than an encyclopedia article, and seems to incorporate a great deal of your own individual opinions and views on the sources rather than only presenting those of the sources themselves without commentary.

Some of the content may be appropriate to incorporate into existing articles since is seems to overlap conceptually with a number of topics, such as Prejudice, Ideology, and Bigotry, but it's not clear that "intellectual bigotry" itself as a term has been used sufficiently to justify its own Wikipedia article. TimothyJosephWood 18:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to refence

Hey, I was wondering how to the referencing on Wikibooks? Do you have to include in text references including the chapter and page number from the source that you got the information from or is it as simple as adding a hyperlink to your referencing section?

Thanks SuzanneClark22 (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, SuzanneClark22, you should. Apart from a source which is only on-line, the URL is one of the least important parts of a reference, being nothing more than a courtesy to a reader to make it easy for them to find. The important part of the reference is the bibliographic information which will let a reader in principle find the original hard copy: author, title, publisher, date etc. --ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this article been deleted ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecysound_Systems

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prophecysound_Systems#Contested_deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because

it is important. People want to know about the subject. Many distinguished and famous musicians use these effects units. Many similar boutique effects units companies have wikipedia pages with less content, less references and less links. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Man_(instrument_maker)

The Company has made pedals for the red hot chili peppers, Mother's favoraite son and the birds of tokyo and is therefore of importance interest to fans of those bands who wish to know more about their guitar sounds.

The pi phase pedal is of importance to many musicians and producers for its emulation of the historic Mu-Tron bi phase which many people wish to research and discover more about which is available through this article.

The credibility of the importance of this article is cited 8 times in the article.

Thoth almighty (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Thoth almighty. The article was tagged for speedy deletion because it didn't make a claim of significance, but from the looks of it, stated mainly that the company exists and has certain products. Sometimes that's a matter of opinion. However, what is not a matter of opinion is that the text of the article was copy/pasted from the company's website, which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on copyright. I have therefore tagged it for deletion as a copyright violation. While content on Wikipedia regularly draws from online sources for information, the actual text of an article has to be written in the editor's own words, and not copy/pasted from copyrighted online sources. TimothyJosephWood 14:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your reply.

The claim of significance is in the fact that it is used by many famous musicians inlcuding the red hout chili peppers and is a modern version of the Mu-Tron Bi Phase.

There are many other effects pedal companies on wikipedia with less credibility claims ;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Man_(instrument_maker)

how could this be ?

so if the text from the companies website is deleted than I cannot understand why it is not credible and should remain on Wikipedia as of note and importance. People's personal opinion should not come in to it. --Thoth almighty (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken, nothing in the article said anything about what bands used the equipment. And that still doesn't change the fact that you have repeatedly copy/pasted copyrighted text from the company's website. TimothyJosephWood 14:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted (and salted) the article, and left a message on their talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Analog Man (instrument maker) has also been deleted for lack of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air India's terminated destinations.

Hi there. Can I add the destinations Air India served previously? I will add source to all of the destinations. Can I add? Thank You! FlyJet777 (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey FlyJet777. In cases where you have well sourced information on an article's subject, Wikipedia policy encourages you to be bold and add the content. Then, if someone disagrees and reverts the change, you should discuss it with them on the article talk and try to reach some sort of compromise. TimothyJosephWood 14:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't edit properly

Help!, whenever I try to add some text between letters the text gets replaced instead of adding new text, i don't know if i explained myself well (for example: if I want to add "is" to "Earth round" it ends up like this: "Earth is nd" instead of "Earth is round"), and it's not my computer or my browser, it only happens in wikipedia. --DashyGames (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have experienced the same problem caused by my keyboard going in to "replace" mode. Try hitting the "Insert" key on your keyboard. You should find things return to normal. Dolphin (t) 10:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! it's now normal. --DashyGames (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Getting article approved

Hi, just trying to get my article approved on Wiki after failing several times. Any advice will be helpful, even advice in pruning article so it might have a better chance of getting approved. Have cited article to the best of my ability with what I can find on internet about subject. Thanks in advance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lisa_Maxwell_(singer,_songwriter) Jammin75 (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jammin75: as so often, the main obstacle to getting the draft accepted will be the lack of citations establishing that the subject is notable. I suggest that you concentrate on that. If you can't find adequate citations, time spent on other aspects of the draft will be wasted. Maproom (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of new article

So,I created a article "Kizuna Ai" but it got tagged for "speedy deletion". I did some research,and i understood that the information that i have is very less,but is there a way to post it? She is a new type of a "Virtual Youtuber" that came out in late 2016 and wiki dose not have an article about her.Would you please look at the article i wrote,and describe the things what i should do and shouldn't do.Otaku977 (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Otaku977. If the available information is, as you say, "very less" and if this person's work is of a "new type" as of late 2016, then it is almost impossible for this person to be eligible for a Wikipedia article. The way to post it is to add the information to a website other than Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help find and insert a secondary source for a federal report

Hi there I'm new to wikipedia and Joel B. Lewis keeps retracting my edit on the Planned Parenthood Videos Controversy page saying that i need a second source.

I am wondering if the source I listed is not sufficient. If not, please help me find a secondary source. I don't know what would qualify.

This federal report needs to be included on the page and the details of the Report's findings should be detailed further below in the content. I haven't done it yet because I was worried I was going to have some kind of contestant trying to waste my time.

Thanks, G 4truth4 (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, 4truth4. It appears that you are trying to add quotes from a highly partisan congressional committee report into this article, and using the report itself as the reference. This committee report is a primary source. It would be far better to use a secondary source, such as an article in a reliable newspaper or magazine, as a reference for this. When other editors ask for better sources, this is not in any sense wasting your time. It is protecting the quality of the encyclopedia which should be built on secondary sources as much as possible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how do I add a photo from Wikimedia to my Wikipedia article?

How do I add a photo to Wikipedia article from Wikimedia? Col Jacob Griffin picture to the Col Jacob Griffin pageCol Jacob Griffin (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Col Jacob Griffin. Are you asking about how to add a photo to User:Col Jacob Griffin or Draft:Jacob Griffin (born 1730)? Adding a photo is the technically the same for both, but policy-wise there are certain differences. It's also not clear if you want to upload a new file or want to use an existing file already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. The more information you can provide, the easier you'll make it for someone to answer your question. Finally, you might want to consider changing your username as explained in WP:IMPERSONATE. Although it pretty much certain that nobody will mistake you for a person who died in 1800, your choice of username might lead others to assume you have a conflict of interest with the subject matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

replacing the photo of a political leader

Would someone please advise me on how I should proceed to replace the photo of Rached Ghannouchi (a political leader) on his Wikipedia page. Current image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rached_Ghannouchi#/media/File:Ghannouchi.png Replacement image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rached_Ghannouchi_1.jpg I uploaded the replacement onto Wikimedia Commons and it is my own work. Mouad888 (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mouad888. I agree that your photo is better. It is more recent, higher resolution and better lit. I suggest that you crop your photo more tightly on his face so that it becomes a portrait, and then simply make the change by editing the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Maproom (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

how to add References? Blackrussian6980 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blackrussian6980 and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a good article describing this at User:Yunshui/References for beginners. If you have more questions after reading that, please come back and ask. --Gronk Oz (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information could easily belong to two pages.

Hi, first I would like to thank those who helped answer my last two questions, you have really helped me get to grips with the basics of editing wikipedia, I hope to return the favor by editing more articles and also helping in the teahouse when I have more experience. Basically there seems to be overlap in certain articles such that information could easily belong to both. For example the environmental impact of hydrocarbons and the environmental impact of alkanes can be treated as almost identical as alkanes are a type of hydrocarbon, or the effects of a mechanical bond on chemical reactivity could equally belong to the article mechanically interlocked molecular architectures (which are formed by mechanical bonds) or the article specifically called "mechanical bond". When faced with such a scenario does the good wikipedia editor: A) Pick one of the articles at random and place the information there. B) Place the information in both articles or C) Other? I did look around to see if there was any information on this so I didn't have to bother you guys however I couldn't find anything that describes this scenario. Any help would much be appreciated, regards EvilxFish (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EvilxFish. Does WP:MERGE answer your questions? --ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , ColinFine for some examples yes I do believe a merger may fix it, however for others such as the hydrocarbon and alkane example, I don't think that is appropriate as though the scope overlaps on the particular issue of environmental impact, it differs in other respects and both articles are quite large. EvilxFish (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a good idea to create another article specifically for environmental impacts and link both the alkane article and hydrocarbon article to it after a brief intro on both for example? EvilxFish (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Merge is relevant to this situation. In the hydrocarbons or alkanes example I'd go with putting it in the hydrocarbons article, unless there is something that is specifically relevant to alkanes only, rather than hydrocarbons in general. In the chemical bond case put it in both articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Dodger67, There are a few things that are specific to alkanes only but for the most part it is for hydrocarbons in general (which still also applies to alkanes). So it is ok to put in duplicate information in two different articles if it fits into both as in the mechanical bond article? I may actually flag the mechanical bond one for a merger with mechanically interlocked molecular architectures as I don't feel as if it deserves its own page (wikipedia is not a dictionary type scenario). EvilxFish (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EvilxFish it's a common issue in articles about living things; a feature that is common to an entire genus would be fully explained in the genus article and be mentioned in each species article with only variations explained. I think I agree with the merge proposal, though I haven't yet read both articles attentively. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

Hello to Everyone! I just joined wikipedia and i want to delete a page which is existed with incorrect name Darosh I real name is drosh how i can delete this page please help someone to delte this page.(Ahmed.dros (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note as per my talk page Incorrect Pages for delete this article mention Chitral-I, Chitral-II, Drosh-I, Drosh-II from January this year so the districts do appear to exist. As do the places Chitral and Drosh that have separate articles. As chitral.gov.pk is not responding for me I can't verify with the local government source. KylieTastic (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say you want to delete a page. That is a complex subject, especially if you are new to Wikipedia. If you just want to correct the title of the page, or change it to a better title, that can be done easily: Immediately to the left of the Search box you will see a tab called "More". Hover your mouse over "More" and you will see "Move". Click on "Move" and you will be given the means to move the page to a new title. Dolphin (t) 11:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

help regarding a page

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Satyendra_Basu_Roy_Choudhury Sir there is no doubt that the person in the page exist and he is the most famous police men in Tripura, India... I realy admire him. You can verify it by calling any random police station in the state of Tripura and then you can know better about him. You can understand by my word how confident I am. There are many local newspaper articles about this police men's good work, plus the page had got a lot of references. So it should not be deleted. It is not a hoax. It is truly real. Do review the page I had created and undo and let me know if you want any changes in it. Sacrifies and high integrity of work of such soldiers should be noted. Thanks! TripuraKnowledge (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, TripuraKnowledge. The article was deleted as "unambiguous advertising or promotion". I suggest that you begin by reading about the neutral point of view, and then read Your first article. I am sorry, but we do not call police stations (or anywhere else) to check on the facts of articles. Instead, we summarize what reliable, independent published sources say about the topic. The newspaper articles you mentioned are more useful than suggestions to make phone calls. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle a potential COI page creation?

Hi again. I've run across Abscription which seems highly questionable to me. The references are 5 USA patents and 1 chapter of an open access book, all having in common a person with the initials MMH. The editor that created the article does not have a userpage, but the name seems that it could be a derivative of MMH's name (it begins with a potential "nickname" of the first name of MMH). This article seems to me to be a candidate for deletion for lack of notability or COI or both. PLUS, if you look at the creation entry, it actually has a trademark symbol after Abscription! If the creator had a userpage, I'd follow the directions and contact her/him first. How should I proceed in this case? @Jytdog: Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is speedy deletable per PROMO; I have tagged it. It is not worth reaching out to the creator, who was a WP:SPA and was ~likely~ to have a COI ....they haven't been active in WP for three years. Deleting it should be all we need to do. Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:

Thank you I'll remove the link to it from the PIC page which led me to it. DennisPietras (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

how does one e-mail a user?

Hi again! I've had multiple users e-mail me. I would like to e-mail a different user, but I cannot figure out how to do that. Is it perhaps something only admins can initiate? If any user can do it, please explain. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DennisPietras. You can go to Special:EmailUser and type in the username of the person you can to send mail to. MereTechnicality ⚙ 03:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DennisPietras (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Hi again, DennisPietras. Two things: Not every editor has email enabled (it's an option that can be set in your preferences). Second, unless the info you wish to discuss is sensitive, Wikipedia tries really hard to be transparent. Most communication can and should occur on the talk pages. John from Idegon (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DennisPietras: I agree entrirely with what John from Idegon has said, and would add that if the user has email enabled you will see an entry "Email this user" in the "Tools" menu in the left-hand toolbar on the user's user page and on his user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, and yes, I understand and agree that most discussions should appear on talk pages, and I don't understand why one of the people who contacted me used e-mail rather than talk, but one was sensitive, and that is what I would reserve e-mail for. DennisPietras (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How long does it take to have the changes approved?

It's been a while since I did the original submissions. But this time it's taking longer for the changes. NHot sure what the procedure is - or if I have done something wrong.NZBC1900 (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NZBC1900: specifically which article and/or changes are you asking about? You can click your "contributions" page to see any change you've made, go to it, and copy and paste the link here to show us. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NZBC1900: You may be talking about List of Chinese New Zealanders to which you made multiple edits a week ago. If you look at the page history you will see that these edits were reverted by the bot named XLinkBot which recognised that a link added was to a blog, and an explanation is given at User talk:NZBC1900#February 2017 as well as in the edit summary of the reversion. It is worth noting that if the bot recognises an unacceptable link being added it will revert the whole series of edits. In fact, many of the other edits in the series were also unacceptable as they were adding "references" to Wikipedia URLs. If you read WP:CIRCULAR you will see why this is not acceptable. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Hi NZBC1900. I'm not sure what you're referring to because you don't say. However, given your editing history, am I correct that your question regards List of Chinese New Zealanders? If so, while there are some processes on Wikipedia that make a change subject to approval (for example, the very small number of articles subject to pending changes), your edits to the list went live at the moment you made them, and then were reverted, as you can view from the article's page history. The revert was by User:XLinkBot, a bot, and based on its edit summary, the reason focused on the fact that the citation you added included blogs, which are generally not reliable sources. Adding citations to unsourced content is one of the most important activities you can do on Wikipedia, and so I commend you for taking on that effort. I don't want to discourage you from that activity, but it requires some understanding of what we are looking for.

Many of the citations you were adding are to other Wikipedia articles. That is circular, and Wikipedia's content is user-generated; our articles are not reliable sources.
Many others were to sources of questionable reliability, such as IMDb, blogs, as already noted, and others.
When I look at some of the sources, even where they were reliable, they did not seem to verify the text that preceded the spot where you added the citation. For example, the source you added for Cheung-Tak Hung may be reliable, but it does not corroborate the information in the entry for him. Citations are not added to name check but verify the actual content they appear in relation to.
Please see WP:CITEHOW for what information to include in a citation. If a cite is to a reliable source, that verifies the content it is placed for, it is better than no source, but a naked URL is not a transparent citation. To provide an example, for the citation you placed for Cheung-Tak Hung, instead of:

<ref>https://gg.govt.nz/node/2002</ref>, which results in people seeing this in the references section of the article: "[1]"

We would be looking more for something like:

<ref>{{cite web|url=https://gg.govt.nz/node/2002|title=Profile of Cheung-Tak Hung|publisher=Office of the Governor-General of New Zealand|website=newzealnd.govt.nz|accessdate=February 25, 2017}}</ref>

which results in people seeing this in the references section of the article:

"Profile of Cheung-Tak Hung". newzealnd.govt.nz. Office of the Governor-General of New Zealand. Retrieved February 25, 2017.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you upload a image for the infobox? are you required to wait 4 days until confirmed? ItsJimmyJay (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

ItsJimmyJay (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can upload one at Wikimedia Commons, provided that you really know what you are doing and in particular adhere with the licensing requirements. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section of small articles

Hello. I am recently following the Category:Pages_missing_lead_section so that I can write missing lead sections of some articles. Although I have a good idea of what a lead is and should be, in the case of such a small article as Cathedral of the Annunciation, Gospić, is the missing-lead template still warranted? If so, should the article be split into sections before its lead can be considered a proper lead? In this case, my personal impression is that this article contains just that, a lead section. Thank you very much. PaleoNeonate (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section which I just reread now, I see "All but the shortest articles should start with Introductory text (the "lead") [...]". Is this indeed a short enough one such that this applies? PaleoNeonate (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PaleoNeonate and welcome to the Teahouse.

That article is marked as a stub, which means that it may just barely include enough information to continue to exist as an article on Wikipedia. Whoever placed the "missing lead" template on it is just wasting time, since all such templates are more-or-less assumed to apply to a stub article. If you choose to de-stubify this article, you will need to add additional material, including references. Once the article has been expanded, it will make sense to provide a lead section that summarizes its content. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I fail to see the stub mark. I see {{lead missing}} rather than {{stub}}... Although the article is indeed small. It has a few references, and a standard template box. I don't really know the topic much and my interest is limited, but it may be that there would not be much more information to add; I suppose that an extended history section may be plausible. Would this then mean that the topic is not notable enough for the article to exist? I also of course mean in general, as I'm learning how to evaluate the quality of such random articles. In this case I will see if I can change it to look like an obvious stub, rather than as only missing a lead. Thanks again, PaleoNeonate (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will simply use other notable articles on the same subject as examples to evaluate (i.e. on other churches in this case). PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Contributions

Where can I get how many edits I did till now Sawongam (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sawongam - provided you have pop-ups enabled (Check box at Preferences/Gadgets/Browsing/Navigation popups) just hover over your signature - it tells me you have 181. Alternatively, although it is currently not working for me, click "Edit count" at the bottom of your "Contributions" page - this may give a slightly different figure - Arjayay (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SawOnGam: For your own edit count you can also click "Preferences" at top of any page. This is fast and always works. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for an extra set of eyes...

...to help in how I can improve my article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_Cancel

Any help is much appreciated.

Adam

64.138.248.61 (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main obstacle to getting this article accepted will be the need to establish that its subject is notable. For this someone will need to find reliable independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject. The draft currently has seven references, but (1) is not independent, (2) and (3) mention the subject but don't discuss him, (4) and (7) are about interviews with him, and so not independent, (5) is a blog and so not reliable, and (6) does not mention him. I have used Google to try to find better sources, and failed. Maproom (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to crop the image in an Infobox?

Is there a way to crop the image within {{Infobox person}}? I tried experimenting with Image={{CSS image crop}}... but the resulting image is waaaay too big to display, and it ignores the image_upright and image_size parameters. I'm probably missing something obvious; can somebody point me in the right direction? Gronk Oz (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Mustafizur Rahman for a cropped image in an infobox. Maproom (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect - thanks, Maproom!

--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not My Edit!

I, in Wikipedia Arabic, am vigilant for any POV edits. for example; On the article Qalqilya, a city in Palestine, the writer has a clear bias against Israel (which is very, very common with Mr. Wikipedia "Bias" Arabic). The name of the section talking about the Israeli claim to the farmland of the outskirts of Qalqilya (my hometown, by the way) is surreptitiously called "The Imprisoned City". I changed the title to "The Farmland dispute" and (as expected) got my edit reverted a day later. The problem is: when I compared my version with the current one, it shows I have done a lot more than that (and the text allegedly written by me had a very disgusting bias). This had happened a lot with me, what is happening?! SammyMajed (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, SammyMajed. Here at the Teahouse, we discuss editing of the English Wikipedia, and have no expertise about the Arabic Wikipedia. At User talk: Jimbo Wales, you may find people with knowledge about problems on various language Wikipedias. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging @Meno25: who is listed at WP:Local Embassy as one of the editors at the Arabic WP desk. They may be able to help figure you figure out what's going on. It may depend on how you viewed the edits; there are ways to compare two separate edits that combine all of the intermediate edits as well, which you may have done inadvertently. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SammyMajed: We cannot help with policies and disputes at the Arabic Wikipedia but we can maybe help with the software. I don't know Arabic but I looked at the page history [2]. You made the four most recent edits, and you made four edits in January with no other edits for weeks, so I don't understand what you refer to. Click the "السابق" or "prev" link to see the changes made by a single edit. Maybe you were looking at a total change made by multiple edits. For example, [3] displays "(7 مراجعات متوسطة بواسطة 5 مستخدمين غير معروضة)" or "(7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)" above the diff. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to check article is published or not?

I have written a aritcle and I want to know when it will published and how to check the article is published or not?Vsk2255 (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Vsk2255. I've moved the page to here. It probably won't be published in Wikipedia article space in its current state, because it lacks secondary sources; we need those to establish notability. I'd recommend reading Your First Article for some guidelines on how to write and style it. Thanks! MereTechnicality ⚙ 04:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article 'Subeme La Radio', a song, why is someone move my page ?

I created the article 'Subeme La Radio', a song, why is someone move my page ? I can't get over it, that editor who move my article just add 'Súbeme', that so. That is my article, how can someone move my page ? Please, can someone clear it out ! Giangkiefer (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Giangkiefer. Please note that no one 'owns' an article. It is very important to remember that. Second, the person moved the page to add an accent to the title, since pages can't be renamed. I'm not sure what you mean by "clear it out," but if you believe it should be moved back, I'd recommend asking the editor who performed the action.

However, while I was trying to find the editor who performed that action, I noticed you already made your opinion known on their page. It's very important to our community that we don't do personal attacks, that you stay civil to other editors, and to always assume that other editors want to help. Please keep those in mind for the future. Thank you! MereTechnicality ⚙ 04:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what has happened here is that Giangkiefer created the article Subeme La Radio on February 23, then Salvabl created Súbeme La Radio on February 24 by copy and paste and redirected the former to the latter, thus depriving Giangkiefer of the authorship. I'll put it right. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's done, the copy-paste version is deleted, the original article by Giangkiefer is at Súbeme La Radio, and I've advised Salvabl on how to change article titles by using the Move procedure. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Engineer Article

Can I add two Australian book references to the Flight Engineer article on wikipedia Rex58.161.77.224 (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rex. What is important is whether the book is reliable as a reference for the information in the article. There needs to be a good reason to add a reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know your reviewers are overloaded...

But it has been a month, and the backlog has doubled during that time. Is it within reason to post provisionally pending review? Or is the process simply open-ended? The article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ZPEG. Thank you... Zpeg (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zpeg. Thanks for writing an article! I'm not a reviewer, but I can tell you right now that it's probably going to get declined. It reads too much like an advertisement for Wikipedia's mainspace. In addition to that, I'd recommend splitting it into sections more suitable to an encyclopedia article. I'd also recommend reading the Manual of Style for info on how to format an article. MereTechnicality ⚙ 01:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe you should be a reviewer! Thanks for your comment, I was pretty careful to try to focus on the facts and the proven technology, I'll take a second look.Zpeg (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zpeg: I've has a quick look at the draft, and a serious flaw is that it doesn't start by explaining what it's about. The first sentence reads "ZPEG is a motion video technology". But it doesn't say what this technology does. My guess is that ZPEG is a file format for videos. But the reader should not be left to guess. Maproom (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great comment, maproom, very helpful. Thanks!Zpeg (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Zpeg:, welcome to Wikipedia and thankyou for you contribution!

I found this interesting, as I hadn't previously heard about pre-processing video for better compressibility, and also didn't know that people are using quantization on the time- or z- axes.

I'm not a reviewer and don't have direct experience with "articles for creation" (AfC in wikiparlance) nor "articles for deletion" (AfD), but I'd like to offer my observations.

I agree with Maproom that the scope of the draft seems a bit unclear on first reading: is it about the pre-processor, the perceptual model, a new quality metric, or a streaming format? The company website is focussed mostly on the pre-processor, but you're covering a wider set of applications.

I did start to get it after re-reading the first paragraph a few times. Maybe introducing it as "a technique" or "an approach" would be clearer than "a technology"? (I note that Westwater's patent for 3D-DCT resampling uses the term "method".) Or even "ZPEG is motion video technology that ..." would work.

It would help the reader to compare ZPEG to JPEG and MPEG, which use DCT with quantization to achieve lossy compression in 2D. Perhaps a diagram showing ZPEG as a cube, and MPEG as a stack of planes?

Moving on from tweaks to content, you'll have to be careful about disclosing "COI", Zpeg. Your username and apparent technical grasp suggest someone who is close to the subject.

But the biggest hurdle will be notability. There are great references in the draft, but few of them mention the term "ZPEG". I did find a paper by Khire, et al. [4], but they used "ZPEG" for something a bit different (DPCM rather than DCT in the z-direction?). I hope that one day ZPEG is as well-known as DivX or JPEG, as it looks promising.

Would you be interested to lend your expertise to an article on 3D compression generally or 3D-DCT specifically? Are there people other than Westwater working on the latter?

[I have adjusted the indentation above to reflect who is replying to what, I hope no-one minds.]

Pelagic (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A side question about Draft space and Talk pages. I don't frequent Draft space, but poking around a few articles shows their talk pages are redlinks. Reviewers post their comments at the top of the draft, rather than in its Talk (probably for improved visibility). Yet Draft Talk seems like the perfect place to discuss issues like article scope and wording of the lead sentence mentioned above. Is the lack of talk simply because most drafts don't attract wide attention, or is it considered bad ettiquette to use draft talk (akin to prying in someone's unfinished business)?

Pelagic (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Pelagic:, for your kind words. Your specific suggestions of how to clarify the introduction are most welcome, as is your suggestion for a perhaps more neutral topic (applications of the three-dimensional or time-varying DCT). And I would be happy to contribute such an article, or repurpose the existing article, if the powers that be at Wikipedia looked favorably on such a suggestion. But I have been unable to excite any interest in the topic so far (my account has been suspended without apparent recourse).

As far as COI goes, it was my intention (through choice of handle, for example) to make perfectly clear that I am indeed close to the topic, and anxious to embrace direction to guarantee neutrality of the contribution. My experience so far seems to be that there is no good way to promote discussion on this platform, perhaps as a result of the high demands being made on the reviewing community.74.196.107.157 (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Tables are no longer seen in my sandbox

Hello! First want to say the Teahouse is a great resource for newbies like myself! I am in the process of my first submission on Constantine Mavroudis, MD. I was originally having trouble with format during writing so I wrote it all in WORD and pasted into Wikipedia. THEN I found the visual editing. Now my article is in my sandbox but I had several tables that are no longer visible. Any advice or direction? Thank you!Amr247rn (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amr247rn, welcome to the Teahouse. Your sandbox was moved to Draft:Constantine Mavroudis but [5] shows it was then deleted as a copyright infringement of http://www.congenitalheartdocumentary.com/result.php%3Ftitle%3DConstantine-Mavroudis. Only administrators like me can see the deleted revisions of pages. I can see your tables but have also confirmed that parts of the page were identical to the linked page, e.g. the sentence "He was recruited to Children's Memorial Hospital-Northwestern University, The Feinberg School of Medicine in 1989 as the Willis J. Potts Professor of Surgery, Division Director of Pediatric Cardiac Surgery and Surgeon-in-Chief." This doesn't match your statement "This is all original work" in [6]. http://www.congenitalheartdocumentary.com/result.php%3Ftitle%3DConstantine-Mavroudis says the page is copyrighted. A Google search also finds some of the text at other websites. I'm not sure where it originates from. Do you have evidence that it's allowed to copy it? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about fair use images

Hi there,

The article Arturo_Herbruger is listed in the category of "Wikipedia requested photographs". The subject of the article died in 1999, so fair use would apply in this case, correct? If so, should I try searching for a photo from the time period that made him notable, i.e. when he served as Vice President? --FlyingAce (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, insofar as you have made an honest effort to look for free images but have failed. You're also correct about the time period.

The big problem with the article, however, is not that it misses an image but that it lacks sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Finnusertop. I'm working on the references too; I found a couple of good ones and will work on add more information to the article.

Regarding the image, would cropping and resizing this photo be acceptable? We do have free images of the other person in this photo. I also found this portrait, from when he presided the Supreme Court, but that was nearly 50 years before he became VP! Any thoughts? --FlyingAce (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need a review

Hello, I have been writing a Wikipedia article in my sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NeheScar/sandbox) for a year now, and only recently decided to change its focus from the business housed within 4444 Second Avenue to the building. It was flagged for promotion and lack of necessary third party sources. I would like someone to review the article and see if these problems persist or if there are any new problems. NeheScar (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NeheScar, press the blue button that says "Resubmit". The issue with notability is by far the most pressing. Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Those three sources currently in the article don't establish this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need a reviewer, possibly a mover too!

I wrote a short draft article and would love to have someone review it, suggest improvements so we can move it to articles soon. Thanks.Calexit (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Calexit, and welcome to the Teahouse. It has been submitted for review. All you have to do now is wait. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Draft approved, moved to moonscape over existing stub. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

Hi, I wrote a paragraph in an article on a technical subject, bringing it up to date and adding a concise explanation of what the thing is and does. I have gathered the knowledge used to be able to write the paragraph from multiple sources.

Should I cite one of them? Many of them? (It is not a controversial subject)

The one I would cite is a recent book. Should I cite the paper copy I have, or reference a (not-free) eBook on one of the bookstores?

I wrote the second paragraph (and rewrote / edited most of the initial section of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Session_Initiation_Protocol

Thanks!Octopenslayer (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have now also rewritten the last paragraph in the initial section. Do I need to cite? The book mentioned above has this info as well. Should I cite it again?

ThanksOctopenslayer (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Octopenslayer. When in doubt, cite! It's better to have too many than too few. You should cite all the sources that you consulted. Either the paper copy or the ebook are fine, I would go with the paper copy if that's what you actually used.

The lead section is an exception; you don't need to cite information there as long as it's not controversial and it appears (with a citation) somewhere in the body of the article. Keep up the good work! – Joe (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I also read some wikipedia policy on the lead section and citations. I edited the article again, to make the lead four paragraphs long (per best practices) and to move the citations to the body of the article. As a second edit, to separate the two, I edited the section Protocol operation for style and technical accuracy. I added a citation in the body to the textbook I used, to support the paragraphs I wrote in the head and the text I added in the Protocol operation section. I also flagged a paragraph as "citation needed" as the paragraph has questionable technical accuracy and is not verifiable... in my opinion it should be deleted, but I imagine the person who originally wrote it might not like if I summarily deleted their work. If anyone cares to take a look at my two edits on the page and the citation I made and let me know if it looks good or any other comments, I would appreciate it.Octopenslayer (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Leopold Fowler butchered article

I just need to add that the article I wrote was utterly butchered by someone with no reason, explanation or rhyme as to why. Is this wiki standard practice? How disturbing, inconsiderate and heart wrenching! Don't know where to retrieve the information from?! Thewayweis (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in the article history tab (the tab that says "View History") while looking at the article in question, people may have left summaries of the edits they made. If these summaries do not adequately explain why they made the changes they did, you can ask them on their User Talk page to elaborate, and maybe they can help you to understand why they made the changes they did. --Jayron 32 14:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse Thewayweis

I'm afraid that, like many others, you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is about. It is an encyclopaedia, which summarises what independent sources have published about subjects. Creating an article is one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia, creating one without reliable sources is just impossible I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jayron for your imput it is much appreciated. I welcome the imput and editing done since the article came into existence. As I am new to wikipedia it was a welcomed and great help. The article was suggested for deletion at the onset and through many discussions about the sources being from the 70's it was taken off deletion. Now I am finding the article for deletion again with very little constructive support. Not only that, the note for deletion was up today for a couple of hours and the note stated it was up for discussion again. Within this time the article was butchered, even the constructive edits from other members who have helped, leaving the article incoherent and incomplete. How many times does the same article go up for deletion after it has been taken off initially?

deleted sections of article Stanley Leopold Fowler

Hello I have done my best to upgrade the article Stanley Leopold Fowler, according to all the suggestions, an article that was initially proposed for deletion and after going back and forth giving the reasons why the online sourcing is difficult (happened in 1977-long before the internet) the deletion was removed. Sadly, it is up again for discussion and most of the improvements and additions have been removed, I presume may be wrongly, by TheRoadislong, who queried Leo Fowler's notability. The article was written supported by a lot of facts but suddenly, to someone it seemed biased... I am at a loss and truly feel discouraged as someone new to wiki and trying really hard to understand. It was stated the article was up for discussion today yet a lot has been removed today, without giving clear reasons as to why or giving helpful suggestions as to what to do. I am truly stumped that the same article can be proposed for deletion then taken off from deletion after discussion, then amended according to suggestions, then proposed for deletion again!!! What on earth is going on? How many times can the same article be up for deletion? Very distressing and although 'not personal' when done in such a away with no communication or constructive suggestion it feels like it!!! Thewayweis (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thewayweis. I appreciate that it's extremely frustrating to see your work on an article be discarded, or nominated for deletion, and I'm sorry that you haven't had the most friendly welcome. Unfortunately this is something many new editors experience when they attempt to write an article from scratch, because they aren't yet familiar with Wikipedia's distinct encyclopaedic style. It's important to always approach Wikipedia editing as a collaborative activity. Collaboration is fundamental to what Wikipedia is – literally, it's what the "Wiki" half of the name means. When you contribute your work, others are free to rework it as they see fit, if they think it will improve the article. Similarly, you are free to rework their reworking (or just restore old versions) if you think that is an improvement. And if any editor thinks that the best thing for the encyclopaedia is to delete a particular article, they are free to nominated it, as many times as they wish. But you have as much of a say in these processes as anybody else.

One of the key collaboration tools we have, as Jayron32 mentioned above, is an article's history. It's a log of every edit made to the article, showing exactly what was changed, by who, and what reason they gave for it. You should always check this to figure out why another editor might have removed your contribution. Another feature of the history is that it means nothing is ever lost. By clicking on the timestamps in the history you can view previous versions of the page; for example, here's the last version before it was nominated for deletion the second time. If you want, you can retrieve text from previous versions and re-add them to the page. Even deleted articles aren't really deleted, just hidden so that only administrators can see them, so there's the possibility of them being un-deleted later.

I can see that Stanley Leopold Fowler has quite a long and confusing history so I'll try to summarise it for you. When you first created the article it was nominated for deletion twice. The first via speedy deletion and the second via proposed deletion. Both of these processes are designed to quickly delete articles that are clearly unsuitable for Wikipedia, but they were quite rightly declined. Over the last month other editors have been making minor changes to the article at the same time as you, and one added some tags to the top of the page to highlight areas that they felt needed improvement. The article was nominated for deletion for a third time today using the normal, non-expedited process that involves a community discussion. Often these discussions attract the attention of editors who try to improve or rewrite the article to see if it can be "saved". This is exactly what Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi was doing when they removed material that was (according to their edit summary) overly promotional and non-encyclopaedic. What happens now is that there will be a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Leopold Fowler. It is a discussion, not a vote, with the objective being to reach a consensus on whether to delete or keep the article, and you're welcome to participate in it. The main question will be whether Fowler meets the notability guideline. So if you want to see the article kept, the best thing to do is to show that there are reliable sources that discuss his life.

Again, I'm sorry your initial experiences with Wikipedia haven't been the most positive. It isn't always like this, believe me, but you've given yourself a tough job in writing a brand new article. Whatever the outcome of the AfD I hope you continue to contribute. – Joe (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick addendum – those sources don't have to be online. Good old fashioned paper is fine. Just provide a reference. – Joe (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joe

I have found your imput most helpful and explanatory. I am deeply grateful for all the constructive editing that most contributors have done on the article and I truly don't mind guidance in any sense - I welcome it! Firstly, half of the time I am not sure where to go to respond, even now I am responding with trepidation not knowing with confidence that this is the right way to respond to you as there are so many links within links within links to know what is the appropriate option. Nor do I know when suggestions come up on boxes how to fully implement them. Shame wiki cannot allocate a guide to each newcomer if not to make life a tad easier to contribute. The disputed recurring problems, in my humble opinion, seems to be notability and references. The fact is that Stanley Leopold Fowler DID build the Elizabethan Village in Armadale, he DID win the prestigious Sir David Brand Award for Tourism, he DID have three attempts to get permission off Dr. Levi Fox, the Elizabethan Village DID get a plaque commemorating him and the Elizabethan Village as a historic site, which he built. What some one personally thinks about the site pales into insignificance with the fact that it is there and standing as a historic site. I might not like the Stonehenge but it is there as a testimony to someone. I personally saw the blueprints at the archives at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford -upon -Avon. The references kindly given by his daughter, Sally-ann Fowler were from newspaper articles from the 70's (I provided images to this effect of the articles) and I have asked wiki permissions ([Ticket#2017012910007647] Stanley Leopold Fowler) if these can be used. The problem, as I see it, is that they cannot be used as permission needs to be sought from the authors of these articles (who are possibly deceased and cannot be tracked, although I have tried). When the article was initially proposed for deletion this issue, I thought was dealt with but it seems to have reared it's ugly head three times. I hoped that dealing with it once was enough! The issue of collaboration as I see it, especially with the last deletion proposal, was that there was no collaboration nor constructive guidance by the editor who deleted it. Albeit, I must apologize for thinking it was Theroadislong although he/she cited COI. I was fascinated by the man who actually created something tangible for prosperity, which is officially deemed a historic site, and there is nothing concrete said about him. Is he to fall into obscurity because of referencing? If my style of writing was the issue that can be changed, but no one even said it was to me for me to correct it, although it was called a 'hagiography'. Yes there are guidelines on wiki, but those seem to also be at the whim of individual interpretation. I question how many times can the same article can be up for deletion and feel saddened by this whole experience and wonder at the concept of cyber community...nothing different than the three dimensional world. Going back to the beginning, I cannot stress how grateful I am for constructive editors who have truly contributed, helped and guided this newcomer...so on a positive...there is always hope! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewayweis (talk • contribs) 10:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons?

Hello all, why are some images hosted on both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons? For example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Magna-carta-embroidery-top-left.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Magna-carta-embroidery-top-left.jpg

thank you !Eartha78 (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eartha78. File:Magna-carta-embroidery-top-left.jpg is not hosted at Wikipedia but all images hosted at Commons can be viewed at a corresponding Wikipedia url unless another image with the same name is hosted at Wikipedia. The box below the image in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Magna-carta-embroidery-top-left.jpg says: "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below." A few images are actually hosted at both Wikipedia and Commons but this is usually temporary until one of the versions is deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Artists - Links to gallery websites

billinghurst asked me to take a discussion to the Teahouse. Maybe you guys here can help! According to Wikipedia:External links external links should just go to official websites. In case of contemporary artists - who very often don't have a website - it's mostly the galleries representing the artist that provide information on the person, the CV and the works online.

So, it's a general discussion: Does linking to the websites of the galleries add additional value? Should all directions to galleries be taken off Wikipedia? Or should just some be named an - in case yes - what would be the criteria?

In my opinion, adding the links does add value. Due to copyright reason, images of artworks from contemporary artists can't be found on wikipedia, but on the galleries' websites. Also, if you want to get a more profound overview of the exhibition history of an artist, you would go to the gallery website - where you would also find installation views and info on exhibitions that took place... and so on.

What do you think?

Thanks and all my best, NanoHeemskerck (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NanoHeemskerck: it's very useful to readers of an article about a visual artist, to be able to see images of the artist's work. Ideally some of the best-known pictures should appear in the article. But when copyright does not allow this, I think it's appropriate to use external links to web sites where their work can be seen; as at Mir Abdolrez Daryabeigi for example. This is quite a different case from an article with external links to the subject's own page, Facebook page, LinkedIn page, employer's page, etc.; all but one of those should be deleted. Maproom (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template help

I created a new template here Template:Board of Admiralty after using a template I had in draft Template:Departments of the United Kingdom Government, the new template created but when you click view or edit this template it takes to Template:Departments of the United Kingdom Government have I been naughty and cut corners? I would appreciate very much if I can have help resolving the problem many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Navops47. The name parameter must be the template name to make the right links. Fixed in [7]. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for rectifying my eye sight despite wearing glasses is getting worse :).--Navops47 (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

page protection

How to make an wiki page protected or semi protected? thanksArpon chakma (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arpon chakma, welcome to the Teahouse. Pages can only be protected by administrators. See Wikipedia:Protection policy for when it's done and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for how to request it. If you say which page you want protected and why then we can give more specific advice. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making a Family name page

How do I make a family name page that automatically lists individuals of that family name alongside places named after them? I discovered that the two pages I created, Balkrishna "Raosaheb" Gogte and Raghunath "Bhausaheb" Chitale are both members of prominent Gogte/Gogate and Chitale families respectively, that have several notable members and places named after them which have articles here on Wikipedia. How do I go about this? Thanks for the help Baldclock (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is anything in the Mediawiki software which will let you create such a page, Baldclock. The nearest you can get to it is a Category: It might be reasonable for every page about a member of the Gogte family or a place named after them to have [[Category:Gogte family]] in its code, and there will then automatically be a category page Category:Gogte family which lists all those pages. But it is not automatic: somebody will have to add the Category link to each of the pages.

By the way, I'm not formally reviewingBalkrishna "Raosaheb" Gogte, but I have some comments:

If the sources refer to him as "Raosaheb B.M. Gogte" then that should be the title of the article, not his real name with his nickname in brackets. The title you are using now could stay as a redirect.
It reads very oddly with all the references to him in the past tense, but no death date. If he is still alive, then it should have at least some information about him that is in the present time.
It is not for Wikipedia to say what he is best known for. If the article quotes an independent reliable source that says he is best known for something, that is fine; but otherwise that is a judgment that does not belong in a neutral article.

--ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very much, ColinFine for the category suggestions. I'm not sure if there are enough Gogte family members or places to make an entirely different category, but I can perhaps follow a similar style to the way the Kapoor family, the Khan family or the Gadgil family have been listed, and make similar Chitale and Gogte family pages.

I also have the two books on Balkrishna "Raosaheb" Gogte that I've added as references linking to Google Books and WorldCat, physically available in my university library. I'm not sure if Wikipedia accepts non online book sources since the online sources aren't reader accessible, but I have enough material to expand the article on his whole life and career, his death date is also mentioned, but not in any sources I found online. I went with Balkrishna "Raosaheb" Gogte as the name of the article as I thought it would be more formal, if it is preferred that the name of the article be changed to his most popularly known name, I'll do so immediately (please just tell me how!). Thanks, Baldclock (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, Wikipedia accepts references which are not online, Baldclock. What is required is information by which a reader could obtain the source, eg through a major library. For sources which are not solely online, a URL is nothing more than a courtesy, and is not required. In fact, I don't recommend a link unless it is to somewhere where the text can be read (eg Project Gutenberg, or Google books if they have indexed the book). Template:cite book says to use the "url" parameter only for a place online where the text may be found, not for (eg) Worldcat - you can cite the Worldcat reference with the "oclc" parameter. --ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to use objective language

Any suggestions on how to write my article using more 'encyclopedia' type language. It constantly gets rejected. The article is on Peter Mylonas ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_Mylonas HoundDog17 (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HoundDog17, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Don't call him a "leading karate expert" when no one else calls him that (not even his website, which you use as the source, even though you shouldn't). Neither did he play a "prominent" role in anything or was "avid" at that, unless you can cite such evaluations to reliable third party sources. The same goes for the "significant promise" that he purportedly showed. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.

There is an even bigger problem than language though. You need to base your article on information found in reliable published sources that are independent of this person. His own website is not. If he isn't covered at depth in such sources, there cannot be a Wikipedia article on this person. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, HoundDog17. Here is another example: Your draft claims that his father played "a prominent role model in his son's life and an avid supporter of his life-long karate journey", but who says that praise is true? There is no reference for that evaluative language. That is not the neutral language of an encyclopedia article summarizing what independent sources say about the topic. That is hagiography which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About Deletion

Sir, I created an article about my company, about its founder, history, etc. How is that promotional? If that is so, why are pages of Reliance Industries and other companies still on Wikipedia? Its not fair, as in not letting me publish my article about the company same as that of other companies.

Vivtyg25 (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vivtyg25, and welcome to the Teahouse. If by "my company" you mean you are personally affiliated with the company, you shouldn't write about it in the first place.

As for quality of articles, if you find other articles that meet the deletion criteria, please nominate them for deletion rather than use them as vehicle for creating even more substandard articles. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vivtyg25. Let me be frank with you. We have an article about Reliance Industries because it is a multi-billion dollar powerhouse of the Indian economy which has been in business over a half century. On the other hand, you were trying to write an article about an online legal services startup which raised a paltry one million dollars in financing last year. Please do not try to compare a lion to a mouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Vivtyh25, "fair" doesn't enter into it. Wikipedia articles exist for the purposes of Wikipedia and no other purpose. Nobody and no organisation in the world is entitled to an article, and as a matter of fact nobody in the world - not even Jimmy Wales - owns a Wikipedia article that happens to be about them. --ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help to write edit with implied citation

New to editing Wikipedia articles and not sure how to make an edit based on implied information from citations as against a clear citation. Would like advice on how to word what I wish to say in an edit to Granite Mountain, Arizona. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granite_Mountain_(Arizona) Ernest Bywater (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ernest Bywater, and welcome to the Teahouse. It all depends on what do you mean by "implied" information versus a "clear" citation. There are some things you cannot do with sources, please see Wikipedia:No original research. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted this information twice, but it doesn't show up - I'll try again without the link. - -

Hello Finnusertop, to me a clear citation is one with backing that clearly states something. In the Granite Mountain article they say the mountain was first named in after the first governor appointed to the Arizona Territory when it was created in March 1862 and he died in March 1863. However, I researched the area for a story, and found several maps from the 1850s and 1860s and found a place called Black Mountain that's shown at the same spot just north of Prescott, the best map is the 'Map of the Military Department of New Mexico' dated 1864 (from the David Rumsey map collection at www davidrumsey com )which shows Black Mountain at what looks to be the same co-ordinates as Granite Mountain and between Prescott and the Williamson Valley. To me, this implies or infers the two mountains are the same, but I've no clear reference saying the name was changed, and thus uncertain how to show the information on the page. I hope this helps you to understand what my concern is. Ernest Bywater (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be original research, which we don't use (even when based on primary sources). All we do is summarize professionally published mainstream academic and journalistic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, if that's the case, I gather you don't accept anything about independent authors or their works, or the research and materials they state in their works. I just find it odd I can show the reliable sources primary sources, but can't include it in the information on the page. Ernest Bywater (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ernest Bywater. Sorry, but that is not what Ian.thomson was trying to say. You can cite what independent authors say, as long as their work is published by outlets with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. I hope that you are not using "independent" as a synonym for "lacking professional editorial control" because that definition does not fly here on Wikipedia. If someone's research indicates that a certain mountain once had a different name, then they should publish that research in a journal of geographic place names, or a similar reliable source. After publication. it can be mentioned here on Wikipedia. But not before. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across such issues before. Is the map in question, Map of the Military Department of New Mexico, a "reliable published source"? How about maps published by the Ordnance Survey? Maps in an atlas published by a respectable publisher, such as Andrees Allgemeiner Handatlas? Maproom (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The map in question is an appendix in the hard cover book 'Atlas to Accompany the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies 1861 - 1865' and the map's title is 'Map of the Military Department of New Mexico' listed as 'Plate XCVIII' with the following information printed on it 'Drawn under the direction of Brig. Gen. James H.Carleton by Capt. Allen Anderson 5th U.S.Infantry, Acting Engineering Officer, 1864' - the image I have is from the David Rumsey collection and its URL (minus the dots in the web page to deactivate the link) is - www davidrumsey com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~26927~1100226:Mil--Dept--New-Mexico-

Is that a good enough source or not - it's obviously from a formal published work of military origin. The map has the longitude and latitude marked on it, and at the same place as the co-ordinates for Granite Mountain is a double peak mountain named Black Mountain the same distance from Fort Whipple as Granite Mountain is today. There are also a couple of older maps I've seen with Black Mountain on it in that same area, but they aren't as accurate or as clear. Ernest Bywater (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Bywater, in my view, it is acceptable for an article to say "this source A says X but this other source B says Y". What an article must not do is to draw any conclusion from the above statements. So, if I understand your point above, it would be acceptable to say that the (cited) map shows a mountain called Black Mountain at that location, but should not attempt to resolve the question. --ColinFine (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all, especially ColinFine. I'll now have to do some studying about how to make an edit, and spend some time thinking on how best to properly word what to say. The map in involved is very detailed and includes the explorations of a lot of people. Many of the places have the same names as today, and quite a few don't. It's a good historical reference source for Arizona and New Mexico of the mid 1800s. Ernest Bywater (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce here, and I have figured out how to use the italics, with some help from you guys. Do not need more info on that. But I still say it is a bit odd, not the usual method, to get italics. Thanks. 70.69.105.17 (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to italic?

I tap the italic button but it does not italicize? Bruce Metzger (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird. @Bruce Metzger: if you add two apostrophes between the text (e.g. ''Text''), then it will italicize the text (e.g. Text). —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why have such a convoluted method to use italics? I'm afraid to the answer. Bruce Metzger (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, clicking the italic button produces Italic text, with "Italic text" highlighted so you can adjust what you want to have in italics. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bruce Metzger. Wikipedia operates on MediaWiki software, which many people consider quaint and antiquated. On the other hand, it successfully powers this, the #6 website in the world, and countless other wikis as well. It has its idiosyncracies but tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors use it every day without a lot of trouble. The Visual Editor is a WYSWYG overlay, but personally, I prefer to work in wikicode, which I found easy to learn even though I am not a professional programmer. You may find the Cheatsheet helpful to assist in learning wikicode. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruce Metzger: The apostrophes must end up in the saved source page but they can be added with a click. I dont know what you tried but if you want to italicize existing text then mark the text before clicking the italic button. Some text is produced by templates and then the details may depend on the used template. Which text on which page do you want to italicize? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ALL OF MY EDITS REMOVED?

WHY, JUST WHY. I made a page for the character Dr. Gordon from Saw, minutets later it was deleted. I used sources from Wikipedia. explain please, I have had to redo my article twice now, still deleted within minuets.The1Fr33m4n (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The1Fr33m4n: It appears there is not enough third-party coverage to establish notability to create a separate article on this fictional character. You can see the current information at List of Saw characters#Lawrence Gordon. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested that the article be undeleted and transferred to your userpage or a draft. Hopefully an admin will do that for you. You may work on it there and maybe submit it to WP:AFC when you think it is ready. Please don't be discouraged. Nothing is really deleted on Wikipedia unless it is a gross violation of policy.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But, The1Fr33m4n, please read WP:Your first article, to discover what a difficult task it is to write a new article in Wikipedia, and how to go about doing so in a way that works. --ColinFine (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I am very sorry I freaked, Thanks for the help, I am a fan of the Saw Franchise and I made the page to expand more on the Mythos of Saw. I apologize for my behaivior and I will work on it more soon. :) again thanks User:Nihonjoe and User:ColinFine for helping me out — Preceding unsigned comment added by The1Fr33m4n (talk • contribs) 21:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strange things in android version??

I was looking at Passive-aggressive behavior and in the normal (browswer) version it looks okay , but in the wikipedia android app there is a (almost) rude starting line and i don't know how to remove it.

Please can somebody remove this (almost) rudeness and how can I do that next time myself? WillemienH (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WillemienH: Please be more specific regarding the "(almost) rude starting line". ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I figured it out. It looks like someone vandalized the Wikidata entry. That has since been corrected. Try refreshing and see if it's still there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has allready been changed, thanks -- but how can I next time change it myself? or is this kind of vandalism to rare to learn to repair WillemienH (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WillemienH: On each article page, there is a list of links to the same topic in other languages. At the bottom of the list is a link titled "Edit links" (this may not appear in the mobile version of the page). Click on that link to go to Wikidata and review the content there. Keep in mind that editing on Wikidata is a lot more technical than editing here, so be cautious before changing anything. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed it on Wikidata. I don't know how you would get to it on the Android app, but in a browser you go to the Wikipedia page and pick "Wikidata item" in the side-bar. Then you can find the relevant bit of the Wikidata page and edit it. (You can also look at the page history to see who did it, and warn them on their talk page, though there don't seem to be any templates to do this in Wikidata. This is the first time I have seen vandalism in Wikidata, but I haven't been there much recently, so I don't know how common it it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: Yeah, vandalism is less common on Wikidata because it requires more technical know-how to do things there. Thankfully.

···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: sounds all rather complicated :) maybe it was just somebody trying it out, hope it was the only vandalism on Wikidata, i guess somebody had a look at other "contribiutions" of this user and so WillemienH (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to write...

This may seem like an absurd thing to say but I feel as if everything I know about is quite extensively covered and well referenced in wikipedia. I was wondering what do experienced Wikipedia writers do about this? Do they go about learning a totally new topic that they then write about or adding little bits of information here and there? Just curious that's all as I am struggling to find much to write now and was wondering if anyone was also in a similar situation as well. EvilxFish (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I usually click the random article link and see what happens.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! I've sometimes felt the same way; I've been actively editing for a year but never created an article from scratch. I tend to do "gnomish" work, improving existing articles (which often does involve learning a totally new topic). Wikipedia:Community portal is a central index of the many ways editors can help, including "missing articles" that need to be written. Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement is good if you like to collaborate. I suspect most experienced editors become involved with the many Wikipedia:WikiProjects which focus on a subject matter or policy. Sometimes I'll hunt for typos which can be a good indicator for neglected articles that need cleanup and updating. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EvilxFish: You're welcome to work on anything on this list. There are literally tens of thousands of articles in all different interest areas that have been requested at one point or another. You can also check out mylist, if you want a smaller list of work needing done.

···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EvilxFish: There's also User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the feedback I will be sure to read through the links! :) EvilxFish (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble publishing a page. Draft:Party of Communists USA

Hi all,

I am having trouble publishing a page. I have edited out any references to the organization itself.

What remain are 6 external, independent, verifiable references.

Draft:Party of Communists USA

Please help me publish this page. There is no other such page on Wikipedia, and it is high time this article is on Wikipedia, as the organization is relevant to current events today.

So far I have followed every step there is. I have noticed that the PCM - Communist Party of Mexico (2011) page only has ONE external reference, yet we have 6. Why was the PCM page approved, but our page denied? All other links have been removed on the PCUSA wiki.

Please help.

Thank you.

Dragunsky1922Dragunsky1922 (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dragunsky1922. Let's begin with Communist Party of Mexico (2011). That article was started in 2007 when the group had a different name and Wikipedia had lower standards. The Articles for Creation process did not exist at that time, so it appears that no one approved the article. It was added without review. It is a poorly referenced article although the party may well be notable. We do not accept mediocre articles in 2017 just because someone wrote a mediocre article ten years ago. Instead, that article should be cleaned up. We have well over five million articles and many of them have shortcomings.

As for your draft, none of your sources appear to be truly independent and reliable. We are looking for coverage in sources with professional editorial control and no connection to the group in question. Blogs are not acceptable. An academic book about the history of Marxist-Leninist organizations in the U. S. would be a good source. But this group was only founded a couple of years ago and had its founding conference ten months ago. Accordingly, it may be too soon for a Wikipedia article about this group, unless you can provide much better references.

We have an experienced editor called Carrite with a lot of experience working on articles about left wing political parties. Maybe he has something to add. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Soman might be the best person to comment here. There very clearly needs to be more time and sourcing before an article on this organization will pass muster in the event of a notability challenge. A good rule of thumb is that there needs to be three substantial sources about the subject of an article, of presumed reliability and published by external entities. If the mainstream press starts writing the group up, notability will be passed. Even though I personally would like to see articles about every single extant political party in history, consensus at Articles for Deletion is to the contrary and there is no way that a free-standing piece on this organization would survive at this time. Carrite (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: If they can't be written up individually, you could always create a list (or more than one list) of all of them. Have a summary for each entry, and link to the main article for each if the article exists. That way, information is available still. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be adding a much longer list of references later today. Now the article will have impeccable references.

Dragunsky1922 (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been updated with thirteen sources, all of which are separate from the article's subject. Some of the news sources openly attack the article's subject.

I think the claim "The Party of Communists USA is too new to be on Wikipedia" is baseless, as the article's subject dates back to 1919, although the article's subject was officially created in 2014.

I am glad that you brought in some Wikipedia users that have experience working on Left-Wing articles. They will understand the next thing I am going to say, regarding relevance:

The article "Party of Communists USA" is relevant on Wikipedia because the Party of Communists USA is the only Marxist-Leninist Communist Party in the United States.

There is no other such formation on the left in existence in our country.

My submission is not the first nor the last time the Party of Communists USA will appear on Wikipedia.

So is there a minimum of 25 or 50 references required to publish a Wikipedia article? The "Time Factor" is a totally baseless claim; why then was the Women's March Wikipedia article already published, if that article's subject occurred only a month ago?

Please give me tips on improving the approval status on this article; I am not interested in "Time Factors" rather suggestions to get this article approved and uploaded to Wikipedia.

Many users will not understand what I mean by the "sole Marxist-Leninist Communist Party in the United States," but those users who work on Left-Wing Wikipedia articles will understand the importance and relevance of the article.

Dragunsky1922 (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing scholarly papers

Hello All, One of the scholars from Georgetown University is writing scholarly papers on "Slavery" specially in relation to Islam and ISIS. I took his paper and created an article here then submitted it for review/approval. This submission was rejected stating this article reads like personal opinion and not Encyclopedic article.

I dont want to change his article, as it is a scholarly article, but then how do i publish it here as an encyclopedic article? Thanks for your help in advance!!!Larkin.Bryze (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Larkin.Bryze and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia articles should be based on a range of reliable sources, not on a single author's unreviewed and unpublished papers. It should summarize all the major views on the topic from reliable, independent sources - not summarize just one person's views. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have created the article by copying and pasting text wholesale from the source, then this is a copyright violation, Larkin.Bryze. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Larkin.Bryze. If you take a look at the disambiguation page Islam and slavery, you will see that we already have several articles covering this broad topic area. We do not accept duplicative articles. I suggest that you read Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible to expand some of these articles using the paper as a source, Larkin.Bryze. That's how we use sources on Wikipedia, rather than copying and pasting them into their own articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about parasitic diseases in humans and animals

I would like to greatly expand some articles on parasites of Tropical game herds. I keep being told different information, which seems more related to other editors having a sense of ownership of the articles than to any real policy. For example, I was told I had to add the information about non-human animals at the end of relevant sections to the article about the disease in humans, rather than the separate article, and that this was policy. Now that I point out the animal disease article already exists, the person is back peddling.

But I don't see any policy that says I have to do that in the first place. It would be ridiculous to add ten paragraphs on wildland herd immunities to the end of a section that doesn't exist in a human disease article that is much more sporadically and differently distributed in humans. It's like, okay, here's the disease in humans, now let me add nothing about this aspect than talk about the eastern and western game herd spreads and farm animal breeds. Humans are impacted by parasites in sometimes the same way, sometimes different ways than other animals. But if you have entire departments in dozens of countries and billions of dollars to study the disease in animals, you shouldn't force writers to add 20 paragraphs, spread out, as an afterthought, to the human disease.

I can't find the policy that says I have to write about animal parasites as an afterthought to humans. My edits are being reverted, and I am being lectured. The parasitology articles have large sections that are plagiarized. They need work. I am willing to do it. But I get told it's against policy, no it's not, yes it is, revert, go away.

And, no I will never ever try a user name again. So don't tell me it's easier with a user name.

I want to edit animal parasitology articles. I want to see the policy that is causing my edits to be reverted. Can anyone show me that?

2601:648:8503:4467:F090:EC3E:A4AD:A34C (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can't help explain why edits were reverted unless we can see the edits. Because you are using an IP address which has no other edits, it's hard to know what edits you are talking about.

In broad principle, you're right that a subject (such as an animal parasite) could warrant its own article, if there is enough information about it available in appropriate reliable sources.

And if there are sections that are copied from non-free sources, then indeed those need to be removed immediately.

However, in the above, I'm only seeing your side of the argument; I'd need to see the context of the discussion.

Therefore, please show us where you're having problems - which articles - and where this discussion has taken place, and then we can try to help. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing for a while now, and you're inviting me to be heavily scrutinized, criticized, and insulted for editing. No, I don't want my edits under a microscope. They've been fine. Every edit on Wikipedia requires 10 non editors to discuss it. Then, after being reverted, insulted, and criticized my edits usually stand, although sometimes with some English help.

If the policy that says animal medicine must be written as an after thought to human medicine cannot be found without criticizing, insulting, and scrutinizing everything I've done, maybe there is no such policy.

My side of the argument? How will engaging forever and ever on an argument, if one even existed, help to write an encyclopedia?

I have been writing about plant viruses. Plant editors correct my grammar. I want to write about animal African sleeping sickness. Animal editors revert everything. I am not asking you if enough sources exist. I already know the answer. I know how to add sources. I know how to weight sources. The topic is notable. I correspond with the governments of 43 nations that have agencies devoted to this disease in animals, not humans. I write about the animal disease. I don't want a user name. I don't care why. I don't need links to 5000 word essays about how to change the word "an" to "a" in Wikipedia. I am looking for the policy that says instead of including the disease in its own article that already exists, I have to add animal herd distributions at the appropriate section to the human article, as I have been reverted and told this is the policy. I read the medical articels manual of style, and it, like every wall of text thrown at me thus far, did not incoude the relevant information. And not just this article. I want to see the policy so I understand it with other game and domestic herd parasitology articles.

I also tried removing the plagiarized material, and that got reverted, and I was falsely told that you can't tell whether the source copied Wikipedia or vice versa, then it turned out that the Wikipedia user was known to have plagiarized articles all over Wikipedia and was banned for it. But I couldn't remove his stuff! No, there is no "must be removed immediately," even if Wikipedia aknowledges the plagiriam.

I want to see the policy that says animal diseases are just subsets of human diseases. I don't want to have every word I add criticized ten more times, along with all my actions, and discussions about my behavior in response to being treated so shabbily. I am just trying to find the policy. This was advertised as a friendly place to ask a question, but there is not much friendly about Wikipedia, when it comes to editing articles that people consider their personal turf, and your response sounds like you're gearing up to put me in my place (off Wikipedia), but I assure you others are already lined up for that.

I'd like to edit. 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:C4 (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

There is (of course) no policy that says "animal disease info should be included in articles on the human version", or anything close to that. The relevent policies say (in essence) that we can have an article about any subject, as long as there in significant coverage of it in appropriate sources.

Policies are never that specific; there are not actually that many policies, and although there are a lot of guidelines, Wikipedia does not have hard and fast rules (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines). Each case is different, which is why I was asking for specifics.

The medical manual-of-style doesn't have much to say about this specific topic, except a mention that a disease article might have a section entitled "Other animals" in WP:MEDORDER - but it depends greatly on individual cases.

People often disagree about how subjects should be presented; the important thing is to keep a cool head, don't take it personally if someone reverts your edits, and discuss it with them. If you can't reach an agreement, there are various ways to seek further opinions.

I've no interest in whether or not you choose to get a user account - I'm not sure why you thought I would be. Note that I'm not logged in myself, either.

Re. "plagiarism" - that term can mean different things to different people. There's nothing wrong with copying from other sources IF AND ONLY IF a) the copyright allows it, and b) the information is appropriate for inclusion. Some articles include large amounts that are copied from public-domain sources, and that's fine. However, any material that is not copied to Wikipedia and is not appropriately licenced must be removed. You can get help with that at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

One way to deal with the animal/plant disease would be to use WP:SUMMARY STYLE - that is,

a) Have detailed info about the animal disease in a separate article,

b) in the "main" (human disease) article, have a brief summarized section about "In other animals" (or whatever) - probably just one paragraph or so - with code at the top saying {{Main|Foo disease in animals}} - which will look like this;

For example, see Epilepsy#Other_animals.

Hope that helps. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Writing articles in my Sandbox

I have a partially completed article in my Sandbox, but wish to start writing a second one.

Is there anywhere to store partially written articles for later work or can I only work on one at a time?

FRAS (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you can have multiple userspace drafts. The easiest thing is to move User:FRAS/sandbox to User:FRAS/Ipswich Scientific-Gossip Society and then start your second draft at User:FRAS/whatever you want the next title to be. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have an easier method. When I want to start a new draft I just blank one of my Sandboxes and start on my new draft. When I want to go back to the original one I select "View history" and then select the version I want. By selecting "Edit" and then "Save" I can continue working on the original draft. Dolphin (t) 11:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think most editors would find that harder. The bottom of user contributions has a Subpages link so it's easy to find your userspace drafts and other subpages. I use User:PrimeHunter/My subpages.js to make it even easier with a Subpages link at top of every page. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Confirmed Users

Hi, how do you become an extended Confirmed user? Thanks L1amw90 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, L1amw90, and welcome to the Teahouse. After your account is 30 days old and you have made 500 edits. The right will be given automatically. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Waltz is not on any social media

Please can you remove permenantly sorry for my english external links page of Christoph Waltz because he is not on any social media he will never open any social media he likes to keep his privacy out of the public eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinai1824 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice that you've tried to remove it yourself, about 20 times. Please don't do that; it's disruptive. Instead, let's discuss it.

What makes you believe that that is not his official twitter account? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reinai1824, welcome to the Teahouse. I have removed it with an explanation.[8] PrimeHunter (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My article has been deleted due to advertising

I can find similar language in more than a dozen other wikipedia entries about historic properties in the United States, some of them not even as significant or historic as the Smyser-Bair House. The entry is not advertising the business, it's focused on the presence and history of the house. Many of the references, especially regarding the history, come from historic archives and books. For rooms that are named after people who lived in the house in the 1800s and 1900s, we link to the website. If we edit out descriptive words about the house that are not attributed to third-party sources such as newspaper articles, and we focus more on the history, will that work? Another question: we like the idea of listing the individually named rooms since they're named after historic residents from the 1800s and 1900s, and are wallpapered with prints from other historic mansions throughout the U.S. If we edit out descriptions like "beautiful" and "comfortable," can we keep those references, or should we focus only on the history itself? Our intention with this entry is not to promote business. We, like many residents of York, feel that the Smyser-Bair House is an important piece of history and would like this nationally-recognized property to have a presence on Wikipedia as so many other historic properties do."

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by SM Zakir Hasan Anu (talk • contribs) 18:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SM Zakir Hasan Anu: some of the things you mention would help but the bigger issue is that significant parts of the article were a copyright violation and that is a real show-stopper. You should recreate the article writing it in your own words supported by references from a variety of reliable sources. Nthep (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SM Zakir Hasan Anu: You also haven't yet disclosed your paid editing that you mentioned on IRC. This might be in violation of the terms of use. See WP:PAID for more information. KSFT ^(t|c) 17:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which model to give evidence?

The articlesl should not be a source book for the census..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madurai nayak vamsa (talk • contribs) 00:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Madurai nayak vamsa and welcome to the Teahouse.

I see that you posted a query at Talk:Kamma (caste), but I can't make out what your question is. Wikipedia's content may be used elsewhere under the Creative Commons license (see WP:COPYRIGHT). jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HELP HELP HELP!!

I want to report about a admin about bad admin can you help me he block many inocent user and tagged them that these user are sockpuppet. Now i want to he remove from admins. Is that possible???(2A03:2880:3010:CFF7:FACE:B00C:0:8000 (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)).[reply]

It seems that you are not serious about this, anyways, sockpuppetry is a serious problem and admins are not always right about it, this is why they can request an unblock --DashyGames (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that somebody (an admin or any other editor) is not behaving properly, the place to bring it up is WP:ANI. But you must have tried discussing the matter with the person concerned first (usually on their User Talk page) or your report will not be accepted. You also need to present specific evidence (usually as links to Wikipedia diffs or logs) for the behaviour you are complaining about. --ColinFine (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

i have been looking for a reviewer to review two articles i created in joel orleans amponsah and rev erskine but no one can help me out.. Can someone here please help me ??Eddypep (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your pages (those two, plus two others of yours) are in the queue awaiting new pages patrol, but you'll see at Special:NewPagesFeed that so are over 14000 other pages. As there are not many editors with the new page patrol user right, the backlog currents stands at about 4 months. While you are waiting, it would be wise for you to address the points which have already been raised in the maintenance tags at the top of each article. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]