Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

GreenMeansGo, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Unable to edit any page as logged in user.

I have edited some pages without logging in. However, in the history of the edited article, it shows my ip address instead of username. I want to edit as logged in user. But when I save my changes after editing as logged in user. I get following error.

"Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try saving your changes again. If it still does not work, try logging out and logging back in."

I am using Chrome in Mac OS and I have enabled my cookies. Please suggest.

96.241.237.240 (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, 96. What is the username you're trying to use? John from Idegon (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

If you get that "loss of session data" message, all you need to do is what it says – try saving your changes again (i.e., press "Save changes"). It usually goes through OK the second time. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

149.134.174.160 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Hi John, I am using my username psmeeta to login to wiki. After login, it takes me to read page as logged in user. ( Read page from right top corner). When I choose edit. It directs me to edit page but logs me out and gives me following message "You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to a user name, among other benefits.". If I try to login again, it logs me in but takes me to "Read" page and the cycle repeats. Any idea ?

As far as I can see, the user name User:psmeeta ‎was already taken. Registered and made one edit Feb 06, 2014 14:43:05 in 2014, and never made another edit since. I don't think you have ever successfully registered an account. Try again with a different name. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sacharya (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC) I registered new account.Thank you (Kudpung)

Please note that your signature should be placed at the end of your comments, not the start, Sacharya. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess the problem is resolved since you made a new account. But I'm curious if the issue may have been caused due to some browser add-in you had. My add-ons sometimes interfere with website functionalities. If the issue recurs, you might try temporarily disabling some of your add-ons to see if the issue is resolved. UltravioletAlien (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

References and sources.

Hello Cullen328. Teahouse host, Please let me know if I am sufficiently including "References and Sources" to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Coleman_(sailor).

I just want to make sure we have reliable references sources added within a seven-day grace period for this article.

Thank you.

Peter

PeterColemanUSA (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Haven't heard from anyone yet.

PeterColemanUSA (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, PeterColemanUSA and welcome to the Teahouse. Other wikipedia articles are never acceptable as sources for Wikipedia articles. This is partly because of the danger of circular sourcing (where A is a source for B, B is a source for C, and C is a source for A), and partly because anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, so they are not considered reliable sources. Peter Coleman (sailor) currently has no citations to sources other than Wikipedia articles, and is therefore in effect unsourced. It needs citations to independent published reliable sources. The format of citation you used is not the standard one for inline citation on Wikipedia, but that is less of a problem. If the information is there, we can help with its formatting. But do please read Referencing for Beginners.

Currently, this article does not demonstrate the "notability" of the subject. Please read our guideline on the notability of people. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

PeterColemanUSA, do please understand that everyone here is an unpaid volunteer, doing this in spare time. 24 hours is generally considered a prompt response. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, I think it's safe to warn you about Conflict of Interest editing, glancing at your username. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 15:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The page is already tagged as an Autobiography. Creating autobiographies is strongly discouraged, but if it is going to be done, it should be done properly. The curent version does not seem overly promotional, alhtoguh earlier versions seem on a quick look to be more so. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I had originally tagged it for deletion as an unsourced blp, which was correctly removed when a citation to United States Sailing Association page was added (although incorrectly formatted). The autobiography tags have been removed several times, and now an ip is editing the article. Would be so much easier if the editor simply declared his conflict of interest. As an fyi DESiegel - I removed the unsourced blp tag you had placed on the article, since the citation I mention above remains on the page, although it's been moved to the external links section. My understanding is that as long as there is a single reference, either in the reference section, the el section, or a link to a webpage in the infobox, than that counts as a reference. Feel free to revert if I've misinterpreted that. I also left links to WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:CIT on the editor's webpage, as well as letting him know it was a no-no to use other Wikipages as references. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, onel5969, and I have now formatted that as a proper inline citation. I hadn't realized it was a supporting ref when I placed the tag. I suspect the editor has logged out and not seen the comments here or on his talk page, but that is just a guess. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Please let me know how we make a minor edit of the below from "who has missed qualifying for the Olympics" to "who has just barely missed qualifying for the Olympics". Thank you.

Sailing Career[edit] Coleman has competed in many world class events such as the J/24, Soling and Etchells classes.[3] Coleman is a North American Champion who has missed qualifying for the Olympics five separate times with his brothers Paul Coleman and Gerard Coleman. PeterColemanUSA (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The correct section for this discussion is #References and sources., PeterColemanUSA. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Moved here from the section where it was asked. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

PeterColemanUSA, You don't. That change has now been reverted by at least two different experienced editors. More exactly, you don't unless you can find and cite an independent and reliable source that uses the words "just barely missed". Otherwise it is opinion in Wikipedia's voice, and puffery, and does not belong in the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I was referred by a nice Wikipedia person (Cordless Larry) to go to "References ans sources."

Please let me know how we make a minor edit of the below from "who has missed qualifying for the Olympics" to "who has just barely missed qualifying for the Olympics".

Sailing Career[edit] Coleman has competed in many world class events such as the J/24, Soling and Etchells classes.[3] Coleman is a North American Champion who has missed qualifying for the Olympics five separate times with his brothers Paul Coleman and Gerard Coleman.

Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule for this.

PeterColemanUSA (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I personally think the addition of "just barely" isn't a value to the statement, unless there is some source that validates the quantity. Whether it was missed by one point or twenty-two points, it was still missed. Now if a recognized reliable source states that "the group failed to qualify by a margin of X", then that could be included in the article and wouldn't be disputed. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 15:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

PeterColemanUSA, You don't. That change has now been reverted by at least two different experienced editors. More exactly, you don't unless you can find and cite an independent and reliable source that uses the words "just barely missed". Otherwise it is opinion in Wikipedia's voice, and puffery, and does not belong in the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a page waiting in the draft.

Hi guys, I have Draft:Edgar Phillips waiting in the draft. Is anyone able to check it out and help me activate the page please.

Georgiethejourno (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Added link. John from Idegon (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that your question hasn't yet been answered, Georgiethejourno. I have added a template to the draft with a button that you can press to submit it for review when you think it is ready. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

image upload wikimedia commons issue of copyright

I have uploaded two images both belongs to my client Kutty Padmini and it was her own images. I am her PR. Those two images got deleted. Kindly help me out Seetha raghavan (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Seetha raghavan. Wikimedia Commons accepts only freely-licensed material. If the copyright holder is willing to license the images under a licence such as CC-BY-SA (which means that anybody can reuse them for any purpose, as long as they attribute them properly) then they can be uploaded to Commons: see donating copyright materials. If not, then they may only be used as non-free images. They would have to be uploaded to Wikipedia (not Commons), and used in a way that met all the criteria in non-free content criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Howver, Seetha raghavan, if Kutty Padmini is your client, please read the policy on WP:Paid editing. You are strongly discouraged from editing the article Kutty Padmini, and it is mandatory for you to declare your status as a paid editor. --ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine. I am not being paid for this process. I am doing this upon her personal request. What should I do now? Seetha raghavan (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

im about to loose my article, please help

i have been warned that my article will be deleted due to the following reasons, 1. i am making a promotional rather than encyclopaedia article. 2. copyright infringement of a blog. so please i have included the blod as the reference what else should i do to salvage the situationFabregado (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Fabregado. If it is copy/pasted from elsewhere on the internet, and therefore a copyright violation, then it has to be deleted, and there's nothing we can really do about it. We're legally compelled to make a good faith effort to remove such content.

As to the promotional tone, maybe User:Alexf who deleted it can be more specific, but articles deleted under WP:G11 are usually so overtly promotional in tone that they would require a 100% rewrite. You may wan't to consider creating an article as a draft, which you can do by clicking on Draft:Godwin ezeemo, and then using your own words and reliable sources (i.e., not blogs) work on making an article that would be suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 18:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fabregado. Agreeing with what Timothyjosephwood said, I have taken a look at the article (as well as the draft which had the same content, which I have separately deleted as a copyright violation from the same website noted in the other deletion). It contains statements that you might expect to see in, for example, a resume posted to a LinkedIn page (where a person is touting their accomplishments) but which would never properly appear in a "just-the-facts", neutrally-written, encyclopedia article. To provide one example, this said that he "leaves bold and indelible footprints on the sand of time". That is evaluative, flowery, grandiose, non-neutral, promotional language. It's not "wrong" per se, but has no place in an encyclopedia. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

OK,so what exactly do I have to do now to ensure my article is posted? I Need a thorough guideline Fabregado (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Here: Wikipedia:Your first article Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

More than one quote in a citation?

Editing Carlos Núñez Muñoz just now, I noticed that while his latest album, Inter-Celtic, was listed with the date 2014, there was no citation for it. (Or the other albums, but this is the one that interested me.) I found evidence on his official website, on the page http://www.carlos-nunez.com/carlos/, where the top has a thumbnail of the cover and the text

NEW ALBUM

Inter-Celtic 2014

and the page text says, much further down,

All of that can be heard to great effect on his new CD, Inter-Celtic, released by Sony Music on February 10.

I thought the publisher info was worth adding as well as the citation, but two duplicate refs to the same page, differing only in the quote parameter, would be absurd. I could have just ref'ed the whole line

• Inter-Celtic - 2014, Sony

without any quotation, but including the quotes from a long page seemed preferable.

There seems to be no way to include multiple quotes in a single citation. quote1, quote2, etc. seem like reasonable ways to do it. I wound up joining the quotations in their order on the page, with "..." to mark the (very long) ellipsis between them. Is there something I'm missing here?

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thnidu, and welcome to the Teahouse. Not all facts supported by a citation need to have a |quote= to support them. Indeed a quote= is never required. It helps people who cannot readily see the source understand how exactly the source supports a statement. This is particularly useful for offline sources and sources that require payment for access. A quote also helps locate the place in the source where support is given. There is significant resistance to overusing the quote= facility, lest a copyright issue arise, so i doubt that a quote1=, quote2= set of parameters will be added, although you could propose it. In this case I think the sentence All of that can be heard to great effect on his new CD, Inter-Celtic, released by Sony Music on February 10. provides petty nearly all the information, and would be sufficient to include in the quote= parameter. But what you did is in no way wrong. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, DESiegel. --Thnidu (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

How to make the side bar language option to show Okazaki, Aishi instead of Aishi.

So, how do I go and make it show/direct ms:Okazaki, Aishi instead of ms:Aishi for ms language. Hayate891 (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to mention. This is for english wiki Okazaki, Aichi, just in case. Hayate891 (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hayate891. None of the pages ms:Okazaki, Aishi and ms:Aishi exist. I assume you wanted to show ms:Okazaki, Aichi instead of ms:Aichi. I have removed [[ms:Aichi]] from the English article.[1] This means it will use ms:Okazaki, Aichi which you added to the Wikidata item Okazaki (Q242783). A local interlanguage link overrides a link in Wikidata. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks PrimeHunter :). Yeah sorry, I meant Okazaki, Aichi and Aichi. So, I look at the diff, and now I know why Aichi is there. Thanks a lot. Hayate891 (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Help! I don't want to loose my article again

Please,I saved my article while I was still typing to avoid loosing the entire write up. It happened that I have not included my reference. Now I have done it I want the article to be retained, please if there are other things I did wrong inform me to make amends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabregado (talk • contribs) 10:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Fabregado I´ll give you my opinion. The article is not perfect, but you have found what seems to be (at least partly) sources that discuss the subject in depth, which is essential, so I don´t think the article is in danger of speedy deletion. Next, you should look at Help:Referencing for beginners and add inline citations to the rest of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course, sometimes things happen very quickly: Godwin Ezeemo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Fabregado, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I take it this is about Godwin Ezeemo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), is that correct? I don't think that article is in danger of speedy deletion either. Expansion would be good, and there are some minor technical issues with the citation formats, but all that is just a matter of normal editing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe that´s correct, based on Fabregados contribs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Is fixing articles and grammar issues in them a COI?

Hi, I am having some issues, I am seeking help but the editors who are placing tags on my contributions are not helping me and not explaining why they are doing that and I think they don't even verify anything and just place tags/banners blindly. As an example, this page Ivan Olita, I fixed some categories and grammar section wise as a process of learning and the editor just seen the number of edits and placed COI banner. I don't care seriously, but I want to know the policies if fixing issues in the articles and fixing grammar and typos is a crime then what else I should do on Wikipedia. As per my understanding, the person who places banner should express in the talk page that why they have placed it, whereas, nobody writes and answers there, they place tags and disappear. Not even help when I ask and instead accuse me of being a paid or etc. I already planned that I shouldn't contribute anymore where people are getting personal. I was really happy to contribute that I am at least helping people in some way but I think I am not at the right place. I'll appreciate help and answers, and I would like someone to verify my changes on the page I said above and guide me what I did wrong, so I can avoid that in the future. Thanks HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi HeatherMPinchbeck, I see no problems at all with your edits to Ivan Olita except some overcategorization which has since been fixed. It seems to me that the editor who tagged your contributions as a possible COI, Bilby might possibly be a bit over-zealous and failing to assume good faith, however I have not examined your whole contribution history so there may be some other factors involved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

There are other factors involved. In this case, the tag was placed on the grounds that with two editors hired to edit the article in recent weeks, it is very likely that the article has long-term COI problems. However, I'm not overly worried as to whether or not it remains tagged. If you feel that the article is neutral, that's ok with me. - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) HeatherMPinchbeck: you have made numerous changes, most but not all of them improvements, to Ivan Olita. Since then several other editors have tried to make further improvements to the article. That's how Wikipedia gets improved: people deal with things they think are wrong, sometimes reversing what previous editors have done. Doing something which someone else thinks needs correcting is not "a crime". (Incidentally, I see that you wrote no edit summaries, while those other editors all did. Edit summaries aren't compulsory, but they do help with communicating with other editors.) Maproom (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much guys, I really appreciate your help. I was seeking replies and everything but every time I am accused of editing and fixing pages. I want to contribute much but I am just holding because when I see my talk page and what people say I feel like a criminal. I try my best to fix issues I see in the articles, but if my edit gets an article tagged, it's not good and I think it's my right to know what is wrong and what could be done to fix it. When I see people here say 'I' it makes me feel that they self-assuming things and see you guys checked the edits and guided me to add a description and it's nothing wrong, why not the people who tag, checks it before tagging blindly again and again. I am having issue with another article, I spent 3 days on research and when I published I discovered that page is with COI, but instead of removing problematic text that editor reverted everything, while he self-claimed some are useful but he never mentioned and removed them also, I kept asking for help he seldom replies. I am not saying he is totally wrong, but he simply ruined my efforts and I lost most of the things in it due to editing again and again. He himself said to keep an example article format but never accept changes. Anyway, I am scared of touching more articles lol. Well, thanks Dodger67 and Maproom I am really happy that you guys helped me HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Haha look at the page of Ivan Olita again, that's what I was saying and he is the guy just placing tags like a tagging machine HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)HeatherMPinchbeck, I think the problem is that, while you deny that you are editing for pay (and good faith demands that we accept that denial), your behaviour often suggests otherwise. Your creations such as Taehoon Oh, Mark Gottlieb (Literary Agent), Jasmine Directory or HK URBEX, additions such as those you made to SurveyGizmo and Mark Tedeschi, your repeated attempts to add a huge block of inappropriate material to Francesco Clemente (where at least three COI editors have been active in the last three months), are all fairly typical of the sort of editing we expect from paid/COI editors. You could perhaps try using the articles for creation process to get some feedback on what you are doing, using the Article wizard to start a page and submitting it for review when you think it's ready. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

See, that's what I am saying, this answer clearly shows you are getting personal with me for none, I explained you everything before, but you are on the same track. Obviously, I'll create and edit pages, that is what Wikipedia is for. I made myself very clear that I'll disclose my COI if any, ever. But you are taking all that personal, and it shows clearly that you intentionally tagging an article that I discussed here. You know all rules but what are the rules if you are doing things intentionally and getting personal? Instead of removing problematic text from Francesco Clemente you just reverted everything and forced me to edit I lost all format and efforts including references. If you are taking things up to that extent because of me I don't know what to say, because Wikipedia is not your property nor mine. You are not even valuing the opinion of your fellow editors. The purpose of Wikipedia is to add knowledge and information. If all my contributions are referenced and the people who reviewed them have no problem why you have issues? Please explain. I am really upset because of your attitude and how you are after me. You are harassing me at every step. When I ask you don't bother a reply and when I do something you jumps in like you did here and on Ivan Olita. You are now saying to use Article wizard where were you before? I learned Wikipedia and spent a lot of time in gathering codes and things, I feel easy in creating articles the way I do, so explain to me what's wrong in it. Should I swear to God or should I jump from a mountain to let you believe that I have no connection with anyone HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Everyone involved, please assume good faith, and even the assumption of good faith. And, btw, I ask myself if the Teahouse is really the right venue for that topic....how about moving to Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest? Lectonar (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

My behaviour is to learn and that's why I am asking questions and seeking help. Your behaviour clearly shows you are chasing me, threatening and harassing me again and again. Getting personal over my edits.

Dodger67 and Maproom I'll wait for your opinion, I just want to understand. As you can see that you removed a tag and that guy placed many, why? Because I am involved, I think they are hitting articles especially I contributed due to some personal grudge now. Maybe I am wrong but that's what is pretty much clear. He isn't valuing your edit and after placing that tags, he removed and fixed article but left the tag. Isn't it vandalising Wikipedia content? I mean if people visiting pages for knowledge and see such kind of tags isn't it wrong? And if they know issues, instead of fixing them they place tags and disappear. Who will fix Wikipedia articles with such issues, because if I do they place tags and threat and accuse me, if you do they place more tags. Is that how Wikipedia works? and is totally dependent on any person's own mindset? and he can do whatever he wants and never fix but only place tags and just remove edits and all. I am seeking answers, please. Or let me know any higher authority where I can ask this. Or just simply tell me that I cannot use Wikipedia because they owns it HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If a tag is warranted (which I don't know in this case, I still haven't figured out what tag in what article you've been referring to), then placing one is justified. An editor may notice that something needs attention, while lacking the knowledge or the time to fix it himself. Maproom (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Maproom Thanks, I am talking about the same page Ivan Olita you guys just fixed and then he placed more just because I raised the issue here and that's clear from his talk above. Well, I'll now try to fix that and please you also help me. I want things fixed in Wikipedia and I want to go to an extent of learning what issues they can create to a knowledge base by just getting personal and accusing me again and again while denying the policy of assume good faith, and even the assumption of good faith please help I see no bad in tone or anything HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

HeatherMPinchbeck An earnest word of advice: let go of this issue. Step away, go do something else, there are several million other articles that need improving. It seems you have (inadverently) stepped into what appears to be a rather contentious article that is giving even highly experienced editors significant difficulty. Please do not insist on stomping on every bomb in the minefield. This advice is for your benefit, you will be a much happier (and productive) Wikipedian if you simply walk away from this article. (Even with my 10 years and over 80,000 edits of experience on WP, I am reluctant to get involved with this article, the subject is simply too far outside my comfort zone.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dodger67, this is what I called a good advice in a better way. I was just learning, to be honest. I am unable to find issue regarding WP:PEACOCK that he placed. Anyway, I'll walk away, just tell them also to leave me alone, I expressed 100s of time that I have no COI, anyway, I'll probably not continue editing. I don't like being chased or accused. I joined Wikipedia to help people seeking info but if creating pages that do not exists and editing articles that have issues is undigestable, maybe it's better to quit. I thank you all, including Bilby, Justlettersandnumbers, it's nothing personal, it's just a part of learning and understanding Wikipedia, I did a small project while in college on Wikipedia but I never know about these situations. Well, thanks for all help and guidance HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve my own article

Hello, Thank you so much for your attention. I'm trying to improve my own wiki page and my father's with infos and photos but wikipedia is deleting my media, saying I don't own my owm image and personal photos. this one: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_Mim

Also I tryed to create my dad'd article since it was erased, I don't know why, but since I live in Brasil and the article is in Spanish. I cannot make it work. I already edit that but is not published.

can anyone help me please! thanks a lot! Marianaeva (Marianaeva (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC))

Welcome to the Teahouse, Marianaeva. We answer questions about editing the English language Wikipedia here. Wikipedia is each language is administered separately. You will have to ask your questions on the Portugese and Spanish Wikipedias. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if you really want your article here in the English Wikipedia, you will need to translate Draft:Héctor Ricardo Leis into English before it is deleted. Dbfirs 17:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The language barrier aside, you are not the best person to edit your own article. I would suggest reading WP:COI extensively before proceeding. - Stormy clouds (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I am looking for some feedback on my first article written around the North Highland Way.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated as I have been awaiting review for a few weeks now, and if i could amend my article before this stage I hope that it could speed up the process (I am also unsure if i have to post a link to my draft page or can you find it from here? hopefully you can find it from here!) thank you in advance. EleanorLC (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I assume this is Draft:The North Highland Way (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, EleanorLC. To link to any page, you just need to put its title inside double square brackets, so in this case [[Draft:The North Highland Way]]. You've picked what I think is an interesting topic to write about, and done a good job so far. Based on a quick skim, I'd suggest that you remove or reword phrases such as "exploring all that Scotland’s north coast has on offer", which sounds like an opinion rather than a verifiable fact. You also still need to provide sources for some parts of the article's content (e.g. "However, the walk has now been taken forward by Ian Ellis who has walked the route a number of times, and has registered the route with Walkingworld.com"). Finally, you need to remove all external links such as walkingworld.com from the text of the article. Such links only belong in the external links section of the article (see Wikipedia:External links on what should and shouldn't be included there). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, EleanorLC, and welcome to the Teahouse. A few additional points to add to what Cordless Larry said above. When we say that no external links should be in the body of the article, that does not count URLs for citations to sources. Those are very much desired, when a source is online. I note that most of your cites are to ViewRanger. A few additional cites to other sources would be desirable, if possible. When available, please include the publication date, page number (for printed or PDF sources) and author in your citations. I added these to one cite, and combined two two duplicates into a single multi-use citation in the draft. But this does look good to me, better than many drafts at this stage. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! It is greatly appreciated! I shall edit as appropriate. In reference to the citations for the route itself, I couldn't find many details on the full route, a number of walking holiday companies provide some details of the route, but do not outline the full route, would it still be appropriate to use these as citations? Thanks again! EleanorLC (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Walking holiday companies' websites aren't likely to be the best sources, EleanorLC, as they are likely to be written with the aim of promoting the route rather than neutrally describing it, and they probably aren't subject to very strict editorial control. Coverage in specialist magazines and websites would be better, if it exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any more information about the route else where (other than on walking holiday sites, which as expected, would not be appropriate) will this have a negative impact on the article? Or will the citations I already have be sufficient "evidence"? (Thank you so much for all your help, it really means so much!) EleanorLC (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There are two separate aspects to the sourcing issue, EleanorLC. The first is that Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that readers can check that information in an article comes from a reliable source. So, where would I check that "During the summer, it is also possible to see puffin colonies" is correct, for instance? The second aspect is whether the draft meets the Wikipedia:Notability test, which requires an article to demonstrate that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. DESiegel might be better placed to offer advice on this second aspect than me. I would have thought that a walking route would pass this test fairly easily, as they tend to get written about quite a lot, but I've also been struggling to find sources about this particular route. It might be that the sources cited so far are judged to already establish notability, however, and in that case the issue would just be about verifiability. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

EleanorLC, it is my view that the sources already cited are enough to establish notability but only just. Things like the puffins would need to be sourced or removed if anyone challenged them. Cordless Larry is 100% correct that non-commercial sources would be better, if they can be found. Note that off-line newspaper coverage would be perfectly acceptable. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have just checked LexisNexis and there's not much, but did find two articles in the Aberdeen Press and Journal and one in The Herald, which I don't think are available online. When I get some time, I'll read them properly and try to use them in the draft. It also turned up one that is openly available on the web, here. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I managed to find a citation for the puffins, the citation also includes a map of where the puffins can be seen in the UK, so hopefully that is enough to back up the information, however, it is not a huge issue if this needs removed. I shall have read over the Scotsman article and see if there is anything that I can include or cite in the North Highland Way page. Again, I am so grateful for all your help and advice, this has been an excellent learning process for me and your knowledge has really helped. EleanorLC (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It's always a pleasure to help write a worthwhile article rather than having to provide advice to paid editors writing about businesses or celebrities, EleanorLC. I've redrafted the history section based on some new sources. What this has highlighted is that there's a bit of a gap in the story between 2014 and today. In 2014, it was reported that more work was neeed on various aspects of the project, but the route now seems to exist, so are there sources that tell us what happened in the past three years (or does the route exist more on the internet than "on the ground" with signs, etc.?). Also, the route was described as 115 miles long in 2010 but seems to have grown to 150 miles today. Some clarification would be helpful here too. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Use italics on the foreign language names of landmarks?

There's an article for a city in a Spanish-language country, and the names of some of the landmarks of that city are written in italics, whereas the English translations of those names are written in parenthesis with no italics. Is it necessary to use italics when writing the names of landmarks in another language? Lupine453 (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lupine453, and welcome to the Teahouse. According to MOS:ITAL: Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not common in everyday English. Proper names (such as place names) in other languages, however, are not usually italicized, nor are terms in non-Latin scripts. Whether the "names of landmarks" count as proper names might be debated. I would probably have used italics before reading this MOS section. If you decide to remove the italics, you might want to quote this MOS section on the talk page of the article to explain why you removed the italics. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh the MOS is Wikipedia's Manual of Style. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DES Lupine453 (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there a place for a funny face in Wikipedia?

I found this image some time ago File:NewAC.jpg.
I've asked the uploader to rename the file so that a name would reflect and describe what the image contains (User talk:Acol37#Image file naming) but got no reply.
A few days ago I found out the image is included in List of EastEnders crew members where it has a caption 'Writer Andrew Collins'. In the same section #Writers the article Andrew Collins (broadcaster) is linked.
Together with the uploader's nick (Acol37) it made me believe the file is an Andrew Collins' selfie, so I hurried to add it to the infobox in A.C. bio article.
However, soon I found some comments at the file's talk page suggesting that the 'face' is not necessarily appropriate for Wikipedia. So I undid my addition – but what should I do next?

Should I insist on renaming the file? Or request renaming myself with {{rename media}} instead?
Is my deduction reliable enough to request renaming 'AC' to 'Andrew Collins'?
Is the file actually 'too weird' or funny for Wikipedia? Can such funny selfie be considered as means of autopromotion? If so, should the file be deleted rather than renamed?
If it is kept, will it be appropriate to add it to the bio article...?

CiaPan (talk) in a multi-level confusion, 22:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm still learning how to use Wikipedia from under the bonnet. I did upload this file - a long time ago, so I can't vouch for its continued relevance - but didn't know the drill and didn't know how to properly name a file. By all means re-name it if you know how. But I'd rather upload a newer pic. I just don't know the ropes well enough re: jpeg files.

Acol37 (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Unblocking pages to edit them

Hi, I've been using Wikipedia since 2010 and I've been wondering how to edit a blocked page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramount Pctures (talk • contribs) 22:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Paramount Pctures, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suppose that by "blocked" you mean "protected". It very much depends on what page, and why you want to edit it. Most protected pages are protected for good reasons, and should only be edited by users with the appropriate rights while they are protected. Please read Wikipedia:Protection policy to learn about the various types of protection, why they are applied to pages, and how to request that protection be removed or reduced. If that doesn't answer your questions, please ask again in this thread, giving the name of the page involved, and more detail. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Paramount Pctures. First, as to terminology, pages are not blocked, only users can be blocked. What I'm fairly sure you're referring to is a page that is protected from editing at some level. (However, on the issue of blocks, you need to change your username. I will not block you for it, but it is a username violation, and don't be surprised if you keep using it if someone else does. Please read Wikipedia:Username policy and then Wikipedia:Changing username).

Since you are not yet autoconfirmed, you may be here about a page that is semi-protected, or one that is fully-protected or one more rarer possibility. Note that your account will become autoconfirmed once you make three more edits, and then wait until 21:43 (UTC) on June 25, 2017.

The way to edit such a page is to make your request on the talk page. To draw attention to it, you can post above your request the template {{Edit fully-protected}} or {{Edit semi-protected}}, depending on which form of protection is at issue. You can also do this by clicking view source at the protected page, and you should then see a notice with this button: Submit an edit request. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, While it is potentially confusing, I think the user name Paramount Pctures (note the exact spelling) is not technically a violation of the Wikipedia:Username policy. It does not unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product. Still I think you would be better advised to change it, User Paramount Pctures, as it could easily be confused with someone editing on behalf of the well-known company. See WP:CHU for instructions on how to request a change of username. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

DES: There's that, but it's coupled with WP:ISU: ""Usernames that are simply names of companies or groups are not permitted". Even if this teeters on the edge of WP:ORGNAME, it seems squarely in the shared type of name hole. Regardless, it sucks for any user to continue with a username that is not unlikely to be blocked at some point; always better for the person to be told and to make the request when he or she has few edits (and hasn't become too attached).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

But it is not the name of a company or group, Fuhghettaboutit, although it closely resembles one. Nor does it strongly imply shared use, in my view. If anyone blocked this for a username violation, I would unblock, unless there was a consensus at AN or ANI or UAA to support the block. All that said, a change would be very advisable to ward off possible drama and conflict. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

DES We agree on the last. The technicality that it has what appears to be a typo, in what is plainly intended to invoke the name of a famous corporation, and even were it not, where it patently reads as an entity name and nothing but, makes is subject to WP:ISU, if not WP:ORG. The policy is not about intent, it is about perception of third parties reading the name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that the user has been soft blocked for their username, apparently unrelated to this discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And I have asked that the blocking admin unblock, and stand ready to do so myself if convincing reasons are not provided. Note that the policy does not deal with either intent or perception, but with actual facts. A neame either is simply the name[s] of [a] compan[y] or group[s] or it isn't. This isn't. A name either unambiguously represent[s] the name of a company or it doesn't. This doesn't. This policy is one of the clearer one we have, Fuhghettaboutit, and there is no reason to stretch it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You think I'm stretching it. I think you are doing somersaults to avoid this name not fitting within its meaning and spirit. Anyway, you sound like you're ready to wheel war. Don't do that. Start a discussion at a larger location instead.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to wheel-war. I am strictly following the exact letter of the blocking policy and the policy against wheel-warring. Note that wheel-warring is defined as repeating an admin action after it is reverted, not as reverting one. Wikipedia:Blocking policy says Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter I am so contacting. WP:RAAA says: administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged. I am doing all that. WP:WW says: When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. I am not going to do that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Simply having a typo or a missing letter in the username does not make it "ambiguous", and it doesn't make the username not a violation of relevant policies or guidelines. It's a username that was a company name; let's not beat around the bush here. If simply having a missing letter or a slight miss-spelling makes a username no longer an unambiguous violation of relevant policy, then I guess usernames such as "WIKIPEDIA CAN GO FCK ITSELF" or "IM GONNA RAEP BABIEZ" would be acceptable. Come on! Don't be ridiculous! Wikipedia policies and guidelines are created with the intention that they be read and enforced using the spirit and principle in which they are written, and we're expected to use common sense in favor of what will benefit the project. I think you're reading into our policies and guidelines much too closely to the letter and to the point where it seems that applying the spirit of the rule or even common sense is not proper enforcement, which is absolutely not true and for situations just like this. I appreciated your message, by the way, and I hope that my response was adequate :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

How do users get banned from editing?

Is there a "report" function? Or does an admin just happen to stroll on by and ban after checking edit history? How does it work? The Verified Cactus 100% 00:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (also somewhat new here), multiple avenues can be taken to deal with the issue. Should a user engage in disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, bullying or other bannable offences, other users will issue warnings on their talk pages. Should these warnings mount, or if the user refuses to heed them or engage with them, an administrator is notified. They can investigate their edit history and interactions with other users and act accordingly. If this plan of action fails, there is always (gasp) ArbCom, where investigations get very serious indeed.

Out of curiosity, has a specific incident and/or user prompted this query? - Stormy clouds (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

PS - I am quite likely to be entirely incorrect here, and am ready to learn a thing or two on this process myself in such an eventuality - Stormy clouds (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey The Verified Cactus, Stormy clouds. There are multiple ways but here are some highlights. After a user has been sufficiently warned (typically through an escalating series of warning templates, see WP:WARN) (though you don't always start at a first level and go up incrementally, it depends on the severity of the issue), after the editor persists with whatever the issue is, they are reported for a block at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV). Another way (see the discussion just above this one) is because of a username problem. That happens through Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention WP:UAA. Another avenue is people who are found to be sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Another is through a report and discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). See also the notice at the top of that page, which list other noticeboards that blocks may issue out of, such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Another rather large source is just administrators doing various rounds. For example, I do a lot of copyright patrolling, and when I take action on a copyvio, I may look at the editor's other edits (where there's smoke there's fire). If I find lots of copyvios, and the user has not been issued a final warning, I will issue one, and if there's copyright violations after I check back → block. That sort of activity can of transposed to other areas. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to mention. This is all about blocks, not bans, which is what I think you were talking about. A ban Is something else.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As User:Fuhghettaboutit says, those are how users get blocked, and a ban is something else. Users can be site-banned from the English Wikipedia by consensus of the community at WP:ANI or WP:AN. Users can also be banned by the Arbitration Committee. Banning is a formal process that also results in a block. You were probably actually wondering about blocks. I suggest that you read both the blocking policy and the banning policy. They contain information about bad behavior to avoid. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw that someone was banned just because some people wanted it and nobody helped him, so I think it can happen to anyone any day. I don't think that's right. Dolberty (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That quite simply isn't the case. Whilst any administrator can issue a block, if they do so without good reason then a) the block will be lifted and b) the administrator risks having their tools revoked, or even being blocked themselves. Bans, as explained above, are something else, and can only be imposed after community discussion. In other words, it can't happen to anyone - if you are blocked or banned, there has to be a good reason for it. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The administrator wrote that there were enough votes and there was no reason to wait. Dolberty (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you must be mistaken, Dolberty. Blocks should not imposed according to any voting system. Could you provide a link to the discussion concerned? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That said, people do sometimes use the term "!votes", but discussions should be closed by taking into account the quality of arguments, not just the numbers. See WP:!VOTE on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

My guess is WP:AN#User Roadcreature / Guido den Broeder. Lectonar (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

In which case, my point stands - there were very good reasons to reinstate that particular ban. Again: you cannot be banned/blocked for no reason. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand everything, but Lectonar you just voted and ignored what he said. He asked for evidence and you didn't give any. That's not ok. But I don't want to get involved. I have a school project to do and I am leaving this topic. I just saw that it can happen to anyone simply because people don't like you, and that's still what I see. Dolberty (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with people liking you. Hardly anyone here actually knows anyone else, so liking or disliking a person doesn't come into it. The only criterion is whether or not your behaviour is good for the project - if you are disruptive, you get blocked/banned, regardless of whether you're the sweetest little old granny on earth or a tattooed thug with personal hygiene issues. Conversely, you can be a raging psychopath and as long as you stay within the rules, you can edit here forever. It's nothing personal. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes people say you behave badly because they know that is how to get rid of you, not because you really did. It has happened to me in school, so I know. Dolberty (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Dolberty - I don't know what happened to you in school and am not sure either whether I want to know or whether I am interested. However, you seem to have decided, after two days of experience as a Wikipedia editor, that Wikipedia isn't fair and that it treats some editors badly. I won't spend much effort trying to persuade you otherwise, because, when an editor starts off with the idea that the system is unfair, it usually isn't worth trying to reason with them. The particular case in point is proving controversial, but the real issue seems to be whether the user, who had previously been banned for very good reasons including sockpuppetry, was unwisely unbanned and needed to be banned again. This isn't the place to argue that case, but the case is about whether the punishment was appropriate to the crime, not whether the editor was punished without a crime. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, you guys! And yes, I meant blocked, not banned, my bad. The Verified Cactus 100% 20:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Does new article require review before it appears in searches - not appearing

I would appreciate someone's clarity - despite research, cannot find answer. A recent article I created does not show up in any search, Sheryl Nields. Is this because it needs a New Page Reviewer to approve it? Maybe I needed to tag it for review. Also, I extensively reworked my first attempt in order to remove any appearance of promotion - all content is kept to solid references. I dare not remove the "peacock" label myself. Does that get an assessment and hopefully removal by Reviewer? Marcomgirl (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Marcomgirl, by my admittedly limited understanding of this, you are correct. Unless an editor has autopatrolled rights, any new article they create will not be indexed by search engines until it is marked as reviewed by a New Page Patroller, or after 90 days, whichever is sooner. I am pinging Kudpung here for clarification, as he seems to have been leading the reform of NPP (New Page Patrol). Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Marcomgirl. The page in question has not been patrolled yet by WP:NPP. This process changed recently to make it more thorough and is currently severely backlogged. You are correct about that being the reason the page is not indexing to search engines. Unfortunately there is nothing you can do but wait. As far as the peacock tag goes, I would have removed it if it weren't for the phrase "award winning" in the lede. Whereas that is true, listing the awards as you have done is sufficient. John from Idegon (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon and Softlavender:. Marcomgirl is a paid editor whose only concern is that her clients' articles be referenced as quickly as possible in Google. I am reluctant to offer any of my unpaid time to help here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have left what I feel is an appropriate comment on Marcomgirl's talk page. If you think it's OTT, don't hesitate to let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I've PRODded the article. Maproom (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheryl Nields. Note that the discussion should be of the article and the topic, not of any individual editors. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Redundant/fork

There is an article already in Wikipedia that has been tagged as biased. I concluded that is partly from the periodic use of loaded language, and partly from the weight of content on one side only of a controversial issue. As someone with knowledge in the field, I thought I would make the effort to bring more balance, but my first effort contained too much that was not sufficiently referenced. I knew I was referencing published works, but I didn't have every sentence documented accordingly, so it all got reverted. I thought perhaps I could write another article and the two articles could be merged. Now I have been told I can't do that either because it duplicates what is already here. I have information on both sides of the issue, I am neutral and balanced, I am not pushing a particular point of view, I am just attempting to include the most recent scholarship with new views and information. The current article is based on 200 year old scholarship; that's a good foundation, but not adequate by itself to create a truly neutral posting. So I tried editing the current article, again, using what I have already written in my new draft (that isn't supposed to be a draft). I was careful just to do a small section this time and to be sure every sentence was referenced appropriately. It all got reverted again. The editor claimed it was opinion, but it is not. It is summary of published authorities in the field. I don't know what to do. I am feeling blocked at every turn. The article is Christianity and violence. Perhaps the title is enough to explain the controversy. But this is my field. I would like to make a contribution if someone could help me figure out what I am doing wrong. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You've made edits, they've been reverted, and you've discussed things on the article's talk page. That's the recommended, and most likely effective, way to achieve at least some of what you want. Either carry on, or give up on this article and find a better use for your talents. Your new plan of creating a rival version of the article will provoke hostility and achieve nothing – I've seen it tried before with other contentious articles. Maproom (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I strongly recommend that you move Draft:Violence and Christianity to your user space before it gets deleted. You've put a lot of work into it (misguided work, but some of it potentially usable), and it would be a shame to see it all vanish. Maproom (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)~

Maproom is correct, I think. You may be able to find more editors interested in your proposed changes at the talkpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity and Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay! I certainly had no intention of being hostile to anyone! Would you be willing to give me some advice on what is misguided? I am brand new here and still learning the rules and I do want to comply and cooperate. I will do as you say and move the article. Thank you for responding. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

acting against policy

Dear Friends, I am interested in both editing and creating new entries. As part of my job, I am interested in making sure that we have a positive and truthful presence on Wikipedia - but want to make sure that I am adhering to policy. Any advice, help and guidance are appreciated.

Thanks.Kirschnik (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kirschnik. The most important piece of advice I can give is that if you are editing as part of your job, you need to make a paid-contribution disclosure. I will leave a welcome message on your talk page with further links to pages that explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Also important, don´t WP:COPYPASTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Kirschnik. Your interest and Wikipedia's broadly coincide in wishing that anything we have about is is accurate, (though on Wikipedia's side, only according to reliable published sources, so unpublished information does not belong). Where they do not coincide is that Wikipedia is not interested in your having a "presence" on Wikipedia, still less a positive one. If reliable published sources, independent of you, predominently describe you in positive terms, then that is how you should be covered in Wikipedia. If they are predominently negative, or mixed, then that is how you should appear. If there is little or no independent coverage of you, then you are not a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article at all (see WP:CORP). --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I want to know about money policy

Dear Wikipedia. Please don't be offended, I wish to find out if it is against wikipeida policy to create a page for a personality and request he pays me for the services i offer to write articles on wikipedia?

while i wish to hear from you back and ready to learn and stay in the community in peace without any violet of the trems of use on wikipedia. Thanks Abanda bride (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally you can't, because the articles you write in Wikipedia are not yours (see Wikipedia:Ownership of content), so you can not guarantee any specific contents of the article (anybody can change them, both adding, removing and re-organizing their contents), hence you can't make any 'offer of a service'.
For more help you may want to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help and Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay).
Also, some of the pages at special:allpages/Wikipedia:Paid edit index may be of some use for you. --CiaPan (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Abanda bride If you charge a fee for editing Wikipedia, or do it as part of your job, you must disclose as described in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. But since, as CiaPan very correctly points out, anything you post can be changed or deleted at any point, your client can't count on getting what s/he paid for. Also, many editors are very hostile to paid editors, even when they disclose properly. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning

Hello, when I tried to mention myself from my second account @Shorouq2911:, I didn't recieve any notification, although I signed my edit! Same happened when I tried to mention my seconed account from this account! What is problem?--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Super ninja2. A signed edit means an edit containing ~~~~. I found no signed edits with mentions. [2] was unsigned. The account Super ninja2 has no recent edits before your question. If you think an edit should have caused a notification then plese post a diff to the edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

User:PrimeHunter I mean an edit I made on Arabic Wikipedia, you can see it here. I tried to ask help from Arabic Wikipedians but no one helped. And notice that I recieve no ntifications from a lot of mentions to me that other Wikipedians do.

How do I post a diff to the edit? Thanks--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide:

Find the page which contains the edit you want to refer to. Click on its history tab. Find the edit in the history list. (If that's a problem, clicking on the word prev in the list will let you read the edit.) Right-click on its "prev" button and select "Copy link location" or "Copy Shortcut". The diff you want is now in your clipboard.

Is that helpful, Super ninja2? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: This page is for the English Wikipedia. Always say if your post concerns an edit or page at another wiki. You already posted a diff on "here". mw:Manual:Echo#Technical details says:

• The diff chunk must be recognised as an addition of new lines of text, not a change to existing lines.

It looks like the edit didn't satisfy that. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I do the arrow thing when a conversation drags on for too long?

excuse my wording

Like when a parent conversation has too many children, I see people using an arrow to reset it or something The Verified Cactus 100% 20:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There are two ways to accomplish this. The first is places a line all the way to the beginning

like this, by using an {{od}} code.

(←) Another option is to use an arrow, as you mention above, which is {{od2}}. These are called "outdents". Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus: - I guess it might help if I do this... lol - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged! The Verified Cactus 100% 21:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

If you browser is like mine, it will try to autocorrect {{od}} to {{of}}, so watch out for that! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Spelling it out—{{outdent}}—works fine. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

references keep duplicating

I entered my references and they show up fine, but I keep seeing "1,2,3" with "link text" in addition to the reference links I input -- how do I get rid of those that automatically appear?? When I go to edit, they don't appear in the edit box?

Judithmunson (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Judithmunson and welcome to the Teahouse. You have put your references in twice. I've copied the details for your first ref to the in-line version. You can do the same with the others, then delete the duplicates at the bottom. The system shows the reference details so you don't need anything else after "reflist". Click "Edit" at the top of the page to edit the whole page. You will need to find some independent references in WP:Reliable sources if you want to establish that the subject is notable in the Wikipedia sense. Dbfirs 06:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Convenience link: Draft:Factumsoft, LLC. --CiaPan (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

CiaPan, thank you for correcting the other two references and for inserting "cite web".

Judithmunson, you just have to click the edit at the top (to the left of the "Search Wikipedia box) so that you edit the whole page instead of just editing a section. Have a look at the references now. You do need some better references. I have not been able to find any mention of the subject in the second or third references. Has the content changed since you looked at them, or do they serve different content to different countries? Dbfirs 19:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Judithmunson, thank you for pointing out that the two references are about the founder. I see that now, but they do nothing to establish the notability of the subject of the article, or to establish that he founded the company. You really do need to find some better references. By the way, you can reply here so that others can see both parts of our conversation. Dbfirs 06:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, working on that right now. Thank you!

Judithmunson (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Remove a map of my own with an error

Hi Teahouse

I have uploaded an image file of my own with a map showing the Indian territories as described in the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851). There is an error on the map, and that is not good at all. Please help me delete that file. File name "Fort Laramie Treaty (1851), Indian territories JPEG". I have already uploaded a new file with the Northern line of the Crow Indian territory right. Thanks and enjoy your cup of tea. Naawada2016 (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Naawada2016. Because File:Fort Laramie Treaty (1851), Indian territories JPEG.jpg was uploaded by you more than seven days ago, AFAIK you have to request deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests (if it was under seven days old you could have used Commons:Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion# 7. Author or uploader request deletion instead). You can automate placing such a request a bit by clicking on the "Nominate for deletion" link from the bottom of the menu on the left hand side of the file page. (Make sure you're actually at the file page at the Commons, and not just viewing the image locally, e.g., if local, you'll see "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below" with "description page" a link to the actual file. This has fooled many a user.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is article rejected

Hi,

I think my article might be rejected due to lack of references. The article is about a not-much-studied species of cactus and references are available, but obscure.

Should I include the old references (100 years old).

JoeSatxjoe (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, it is because you copied it from somewhere without permission. Dolberty (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it is fine to use 100-year-old documents as references, but you must not copy from them directly without attribution. Even if you are absolutely certain that the publications are out of copyright, it is still much better to give the information in your own words. If not much has been written about the species, then it might not be sufficiently notable to deserve its own article, but try to add more information and lay out the article with a lead section like other fuller articles, and try to find somewhere else that the species has been written about so that you have two references. Dbfirs 19:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the article is better suited for Wikispecies. Isn't their goal to have articles on all accepted species? I have created two Wikipedia plant articles with limited references, they were for a new genus and species. I do believe the references were of high quality.User-duck (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Help

Can anybody explain a user here why I was trying to remove the extraneous images on the article Desert Cottontail? Also, in the article, he is editing while changing the complete meaning of the sentence, and as per the citation that I provided, I changed it back. However, he does not seem to listen to it. Also, he seems to continuously attack on the talk page provided above, despite me trying to kindly explain him the reason why I removed the unneeded images. Check this too. The user also changes the corrections made by me despite me explaining him the reasons. He does not even seem to read the citations that I provided. Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be a situation where involved parties need to take a step back for awhile, or even move on to different areas. There is much usage of the word "friend", however nothing in the behavior seems friendly. This is a losing battle, which has the potential to lead to further situations down the line. Furthermore, I would suggest keeping article discussions on the Talk page of the relevant article, instead of sitting on another user's talk page. As it currently stands, the talk page is basically empty, so another editor could come along and have no clue what they're stepping in. (*just my personal, unbiased opinion*) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 19:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, sadly I can't read the citation for the phrase in question ("You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book"), however the sentence as it currently stands is poorly constructed. If it's truly a direct citation, then I surely can't fault you for that, however I certainly wouldn't want my daughters coming across that sentence. :D - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 19:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

If you read his talk page, you would notice that I was consistently friendly while he was continuing to attack me. I explained him so many times that it makes no sense to be frustrated on Wikipedia, and that everybody on here are friends. Apparently, he has deleted all of that, so you can check the history for that. Also, the sentence written by him is completely different than what I had written, and also present in the citation (though rephrased due to copyvio). The citation does open for me. Could you click the link directly and check? https://books.google.co.in/books?id=L1qYYLeTx58C&pg=PT13 Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I read the conversation, hence my first comment. I've also been able to track down the page that the citation was pulled from, and unfortunately both of you were partially correct. While his sentence was grammatically correct, it didn't fully convey the idea that the writer was trying to send. While you included a touch more accuracy to the statement, the grammar was way off. (*hence my statement about the poorly constructed sentence*). Again, I think this is a situation that could have been handled more reasonably on the talk page for the article instead of having a back and forth on their talk page. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, so I did explain a lot of times and without attacking even for once. However, he did not keep his calm, and instead of correcting the sentence structure, he was just putting his sentence. If you read this conversation, you would understand. (Just check his English too, you will see many more flaws despite which I never attacked him in any way) Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

In either case, I've started the discussion at the article talk page. Personal back and forth between editors will not get the article to the place that it ultimately needs to be. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup. You are right buddy. However, he needs to understand my point of removing the extraneous images, which he might revert again. It is just like he changed my image repositioning earlier. He does not seem to understand the point I made on commons being for all the extra images, and not wikipedia articles. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

One thing at a time, and again -- on the article talk page. Discussions need to be based on the article, not anything to do with "he" or "I". - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Gotcha. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Adityavagarwal, Tricky Behavior by Kimberley Jane Pryor (like your earlier suggestion Daisy and Ducky Mallard by Judy Moulton) is a book for children. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a reliable source for a scientific article on a mammal species. Please reassure me that you do understand the difference. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not a self-published source, and Marshall Cavendish is a very big publishing company. Also, on verifying with other sources such as this and this, the information does look correct. It is also an independent source, and not a web citation (so increases the likelihood of being reliable). Also, please correct me if I miss out anything so that it would be useful in the future. Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Adityavagarwal. The post above does not imply to me that Justlettersandnumbers was indicating any problem with the source being self-published, nor by a small publisher, nor just a web citation, nor non-independent. Source use is contextual. What they are reliable for is contextual. To give you an example, a news article in The New York Times, a sterling source for many things, when it mentions in an article in the Fashion Section, by a fashion writer, some aside about quantum mechanics, is generally not a good source for an article on quantum mechanics theories, whereas, an article by a dedicated science writer appearing in the Science Times section of The New York Times, citing peer reviewed scientific journals dedicated to physics, might be. Children's books often simplify concepts for good reason and in general are not going to be go-to sources for science knowledge. See also WP:RSCONTEXT and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences)#Choosing sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for explaining. It does make sense. Also, one small question, that is it to be identified by the look of the book? (like cover page, and all) or is there any other way to know if it is a children's book? Yup, the previous two books in Just's comment are children's books (can be said by the looks of it), however, just so that I do not miss any in the future, could you say if I am correct, or there are other ways too? Fuhghettaboutit Adityavagarwal (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Adityavagarwal, with a couple of simple Google searches, I easily found many sources, including academic sources, that indicate that the Desert Cottontail freezes when it sees a predator, and runs in a zigzag pattern if it thinks an attack is imminent. Simply select a better source and add it to the article. As for determining whether this book is a children's book, Google Books categorizes it as "juvenile nonfiction". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Adityavagarwal, apart from the Google Books category which Cullen328 rightly points out, the main and obvious indicators that that book is for children are: the title; the cover; the page layout; the language of the text; and the limited amount of actual content in the text – all those things would be quite different if the book were intended for adults, still more so if it were intended for scientists. It's also published by a publisher of children's books, but I didn't know that and had to look it up. Fuhghettaboutit has given an excellent explanation of why a children's book is not a good source even if it has the facts right. If you have more questions, please ask away! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I understood where I went wrong. Thanks a bunch buddies to give such a nice explanation, and how could I have any questions after such a wonderful explanation? As always, questions asked in the teahouse (actually, not only teahouse but also in most user's talk pages too) are explained really nice. I will take care of it in the future. Thanks again. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Shiba San - I began an article that violated the terms and would like to find the content

Hello,

I wrote an article under 'Shiba San' and cannot find the content any longer. Even though it was removed from wikipedia, I would like to at least find the actual article, as it took hours and hours to compile. ShibaSan (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I've emailed the deleted contents to you. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: thank you!

Can you please help?

Hi. I would love it if you'd send me an email so I can send you what changes I want to be made on protected pages for media companies. If you have an email address, can you please send it to my username on this page? Thanks! NS4545678 (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, NS4545678, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid that isn't quite how things work here. Instead, go to the talk page of that article(s) you want changed, and describe your requested changes there, with reasons. Don't forget to provide sources that can be checked. Then place {{Request edit}} on the page. You can find more detailed instructions at Template:Request edit. Do that and an admin or experienced editor will look over your request and respond, possibly making the changes you request. We don't normally handle editing via email. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I did post edit requests on the talk pages, but people kept removing them for no reason at all. That's why I asked you guys to email me. NS4545678 (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

NS4545678 You have made only 4 edits under this username, all of them versions of this request or followups to it. Perhaps they were made under a different username, or while not logged in?

Anyway, Even if i got your suggestions by email, the content and source would still be posted on the talk page of the relevant articles. You might as well post the article names, at least. That will be enough to find the issue in the page history or talk page history, probably. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Advice for sources for my draft

Hello, Teahouse Host. I am currently seeking an AFC review for my draft, and before the review starts, I would like some advice regarding sources for the draft. I could not find a lot of third-party sources to back up the draft through Google search alone. What other methods could I use to locate sources?

Thanks! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 02:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jd02022092, and welcome to the Teahouse. If I were reviewing that draft as it now stands, I would decline it as not having enough sources to clearly establish notability. Did you try google books searches? Did you try library searches? Perhaps there are specialist publications not online but known in the furry community that discuss this con? Ultimately it is up to you to find sources, and the article will not be accepted without sources. Whether the sources you now have are sufficient is a judgement call, and reasonable reviewers might disagree. Also Flayrah which is the source of two of your three current citations, describes it self as "written by the community since 2001" and describes its articles as 'fan postings". I fear it would not be considered a reliable source. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

template fix

I updated the alt-right and MLB postseason templates. However, even though on some pages it is updated, on others it isn't. Can you please help? thanks.Vinnylospo (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Vinnylospo:, for technical caching reasons such templates or other transcluded information are sometimes not immediately updated in all affected sub-articles. This minor issue should sort itself out after a while, but if you want to "force" a page to display its actual content immediately after a template change you can purge the page's content. More details and a better technical explanation are available in the linked info. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-english citations in article on EN Wikipeida - allowed?

I'm trying to help a new user clean up an article he created Draft:Nenad Vasilic about a Serbian guy. The article has multiple issues, the main one being was no secondary sources for the non-NPOV claims being made. He's gone through and added a number, mostly in a Baltic language I assume is Serbian. I have no idea if they support the text of the article. - Is this okay? - Any other suggestions? Ta, AntiVan (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-English sources are allowed. See WP:NOENG. TranquilHope (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello AntiVan. While Google Translate (or other similar machine translations) is not good enough to create article content, if it is applied to non-English cited sources, it will often be good enough to let an editor who does not read the source language to see if the citation supports the statements it is cited for. Determining whether such a source is reliable is harder, but WP:RSN can help with that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DESiegel & TranquilHope - AntiVan (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Serbia is quite some way from the Baltic, AntiVan! ;-) Cordless Larry (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I'm well out of my depth here Cordless Larry do I mean Slavic? AntiVan (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought you might perhaps have meant Balkan, AntiVan. People get those two confused. Serbian is indeed a Slavic language, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

How to change Username?

My current Username is Nazim hussain Pak. I want to change it to Nazim Hussain Pak. Please guide me how I can change my Username.

Sinner (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nazim hussain Pak. See Wikipedia:Changing username. You can use the link on "Simple" under Wikipedia:Changing username#Venues:. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Fractal Rainbow

What i have to do to inprove my page about "Fractal Rainbow"? Sure it is a good concept.... and WIKI will help to know it and to be improved by other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapifo (talk • contribs) 19:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: I have moved this question out of the section for another question, above. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dapifo. You need to demonstrate that the concept has passed Wikipedia's notability criteria by demonstrating that it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the concept's creator. The best sources here would be articles in scientific journals. At present, you're citing a self-published book, which isn't a good source at all for this kind of topic, and doesn't contribute to establishing the concept's notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted this draft as a blatant copyright violation of content from this site. Dapifo, see the message I left you about this at your talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

What i have to do to inprove my page about "Fractal Rainbow"? Sure it is a good concept.... and WIKI will help to know it and to be improved by other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapifo (talk • contribs) 18:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Dapifo please stop asking questions in threads (sections) on other topics. Also, please do not simply repeat a question. Fuhghettaboutit has told you that the article was delted because it was copied from an outside web site. The firat thing you cna do is to write future content for Wikipedia in your own words, not copied from elsewhere. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Dapifo... but before you spend more time on explaining the concept, you need to establish that it has been written about in independent reliable sources, not just in one self-published book. I'm not convinced that either the concept or the book is notable in the Wikipedia sense, but you are welcome to prove me wrong if you can. Dbfirs 21:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Devon van Oostrum

Hi I am new to Wikipedia and I have edited a page about a Dutch basketball player called Devon van Oostrum. He is listed as "British-Dutch" even though he is Dutch (born in the Netherlands to Dutch parents), but he has just played basketball in England. There is no source or reference whatsoever confirming if he has dual nationality, yet another editor on his page has insisted that he should be listed as "British-Dutch" since he "plays for a British basketball team" and thus automatically has the British nationality because of that. There is no way this is possible according to British Nationality Law, but this other editor has threatened to "block" me if I revert his nationality back to list him only as Dutch. Could an experienced editor please intervene in this situation? This other editor (his Wikipedia name is Bozalegenda) is not willing to discuss this with me at all (I either have to accept his way to list this person as 'British-Dutch' or I will get blocked according to him as he says that he believes that my edits are 'vandalism'.....). I have looked into British Nationality Law and there is no way that his explanation/logic to list this basketball player as "British-Dutch' because "he played for a British team" makes sense at all.--Danteday (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Danteday, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia doesn't invariably follow legal definitions of nationality, we are more concerned with how a person is normally described, and what will give useful context to readers. That said, it would be unusual in my view to assign a nationality to a person merely because of what sports team that person played for. This is an issue that should be discussed on the article talk page, in this case on [[Talk:Devon van Oostrum It appears that neither you nor the other editor involved has yet done so. If you cannot come to agreement there, you can start with dispute resolution, perhaps with a third opinion. No edit honestly intended to improve the encyclopedia is "vandalism" even if it is incorrect or misguided. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope he is willing to discuss this with me--Danteday (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(e/c [followed by loss of internet connection].) Hi Danteday. I'm not sure about the underlying content dispute. I do have some comments though:

• No one has posted to the article's talk page (Talk:Devon van Oostrum). Talk pages are for discussion of issues of the article, and are the first place a content dispute about an article should try to be worked out civilly. I suggest using a ping there upon your post to the other person involved in the issue, just as I've pinged you to this response by linking your username and signing this post.
• If that is not fruitful (but remember Wikipedia is slow motion in many ways; don't expect a response will come within five minutes or even five hours, this issue is not one in my view that requires quick action) you can seek a third opinion, or maybe start an entry at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for more about these and others.
• I am not saying anyone has violated it. Just a heads up to avoid trouble. You and Bozalegenda should be aware of the three-revert rule, and our policy on edit warring in general, which the rule is a section of.
• Bozalegenda: you really needs to stop labeling good faith edits you disagree with as vandalism. That is a violation of community norms. Vandalism is about clear intent to harm. Even if you think an edit is terrible, and needs to be reverted, it is not "vandalism", and should not be labeled as such, unless it is quite clear that it was intended by the person to harm Wikipedia.
• Be aware of the WP:BURDEN section of our core verifiability policy. In short, some of the edits have involved removing unsourced content, noting it is unsourced. When that happens, it is bedrock policy such content cannot be returned unless the removed content is directly sourced, using a reliable source, cited through an inline citation.
• There may see some guidance for the underlying issue at Wikipedia's Manual of Style. I have not tracked down which section though (if any).

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the advice given above, but just a correction to your characterisation of part of the dispute, Danteday: Bozalegenda did not write that van Oostrum played for a British team, but the British national team (see the edit summary here). Playing for a British club would be a strange reason to describe someone as British, but playing for the national team is a much stronger basis for such a claim. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that note, Cordless Larry, it may be relevant. There have now been several posts to Talk:Devon van Oostrum, where I am trying to get a proper content discussion started. I have linked to and quoted relevant MOS guidance (from MOS:PLBLEAD). I have strongly urged the end of further edit-warring, and informed both parties that it can lead to a block. Thanks for your comments, Fuhghettaboutit, I fully agree with them. Additional eyes might be helpful, but this is a fairly ordinary content dispute, and can be settled like many others have been and will be. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Will this article pass the notability test?

Hi,

I've written an article on the International Bond & Share Society. I would like your opinion on whether it will be suitable for Wikipedia. What's the best way to share the text that I've written?

Thanks, SteveSjmaier (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sjmaier: Please provide a link to this article. You dont seem to have edited it under this username. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't find any article, draft, or userspace draft with a title at all close to "International Bond & Share Society", or mentioning that phrase on this Wikipedia edition, Sjmaier. Is it possible that it was on another edition of Wikipedia, that is, the Wikipedia for a different language? In any case, please do provide a link. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply; I've put a draft copy in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sjmaier/sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1&preload=Template%3AUser+sandbox%2Fpreload

Will that work for you?Sjmaier (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sjmaier: You will need to save the edit before we can see it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that - guess it shows that I've not done this before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sjmaier/sandbox&action=submit Sjmaier (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

False edit

Can someone please tell me how an edit can appear under my name without me having made it. I refer to this edit which I did not do, the   appeared as soon as I opened the edit window. This kind of thing should just not happen. Jodosma (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jodosma: you must have done it as there is no way to change who made an edit. The edit summary "somebody is trying to make it look lie I did this but I didn't" also supports you having done it. My guess is that you somehow got to an edit window and typed that into the edit summary field thinking you had already made the edit, then submitted the edit. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I suspect the fact that the article is Witch-hunt may be relevant? ;-} - Arjayay (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Jodosma, are you using any tools to semi-automate your edits, like AWB? A few times I've seen tools like this make automatic suggestions based on rules they follow, that have left users wondering how some part of an edit they made got added. (But AFAIK you still need to click save or the equivalent in the programs, even if inadvertent). Other sources are things like Twinkle that will automatically make certain other edits if set to, based on one you invoke, like notifying the user based on a tagging you've done to an article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

That wouldn't explain the edit summary "somebody is trying to make it look lie I did this but I didn't", though, Fuhghettaboutit. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not make the edit but tried three times to stop it after previewing to prevent it appearing, without success, so just left it there so I could show what I was talking about. I have very few tools and in any case this has never happened before. @Nihonjoe: How does anyone know that Wikipedia can't be hacked, and @Arjayay: Witch-hunt? Give me a break! And I don't think this warrants a smiley. Jodosma (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) @Cordless Larry: You're right, and given it, that edit raises a specter of account compromise doesn't it? Jodosma, I don't know what is going on, but assuming you didn't do this, is it possible you stepped away from a public computer somewhere; do you have a little brother who might be messing with you that you might interrogate? etc.? I suggest changing your password immediately, to something strong.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jodosma: Please take a step back and chill. Nothing is 100% hack-proof, but I can guarantee you this kind of things just doesn't happen. Whether you like it or not, you made the edit, likely accidentally. Don't worry about it and move on. There's nothing to be concerned about. Wikipedia can be somewhat confusing for people new to the interface, and it's entirely within the realm of possibility (and far, far more likely than someone hacking in to make such an edit) that the edit was submitted accidentally. Just Let It Go. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you clarify the steps here, Jodosma? When you say you "tried three times to stop it after previewing to prevent it appearing", do you mean that you changed the text and previewed the change, but didn't save it? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jodosma: Though, as Fuhghettaboutit mentioned, you're welcome to change your password. Just go to Special:ChangePassword. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) @Jodosma: Your post above confuses me. It implies something else going on. I was under the impression you were saying you did not make the edit, entire, period, including the edit summary. Based on your post above, are you saying that: you wrote the edit summary; the issue is that when you clicked edit the   was automatically inserted, and you could not get rid of it, so you wrote the edit summary to flag the issue and then saved?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

After I had done my edit and noticed the intrusive one I started from scratch without saving anything, then clicked "edit" again and saw that the &.nbsp; appeared without me touching any key, I just scrolled to check it, then made my summary so that I could explain what had happened. Jodosma (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jodosma: are you using AWB or WikEd? Both have these have known issues/settings where sometimes non-breaking spaces are introduced without the editor doing anything. As others have said it's no big deal if this is the case. Nthep (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I have been using WikEd for a long time but this has never happened before. Could this happen randomly? Jodosma (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's happened to me before. Nthep (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jodosma: The article had the Unicode character U+00A0 which means a non-breaking space. wikEd automatically converts it to the HTML character entity   in accordance with MOS:NBSP: "Always insert hard/thin spaces symbolically ({{nbsp}}, {{thinsp}},  ,  ), never by entering them as literal Unicode characters entered directly from the keyboard." PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

denied posting of my page: Music scene Berkeley California

I created an article on a musician under the broader page I call the Music Scene in Berkeley California. The article was reviewed and denied inclusion. How can I go about understanding the problem(s) and fixing them?

I also see a reference to the article possibly having been or soon to be deleted. How do I determine if it has been deleted?

Thanks, Steve Dowler Sdowler (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The draft Draft:T.A. Talbott was deleted on July 16th on the grounds that it had been abandoned. I cannot see any other details, but perhaps the deleting admin User:Sphilbrick could help if you want the article back to work on it. There is advice on your talk page that perhaps you have not read? We already have an article Music of California, so I'm not sure that we need a separate article on music in Berkeley unless it has been written about in reliable sources. Google doesn't find anything about T.A. Talbott for me. Dbfirs 20:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Dbfirs, I presume you meant in your reply that the page will be deleted July 16 2017? Or was it deleted July 16, 2016? In any case, I'll checkin with Sphilbrick to see if I can get it back so I can fix it.

I wasn't aware of the deletion potential and was very lax in fixing this article.

Sdowler Sdowler (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted in July 2016, Sdowler. You can see that information if you click on this link: Draft:T.A. Talbott. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want it back, you just have to ask.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Uploading an article

I created an article (WILLIAM AV CLARK Geographer Demographer) it was sent back for revision I did the revisions but I cannot find the article. How do I find the text and upload. Please help WilliamAVClark (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@WilliamAVClark: Hello and welcome. It appears that you did not create the page while logged into the username that you are using now. I could not get any results while searching for the name of the article you gave. Did you create it in a Sandbox under a different username? 331dot (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The title of the article was William (Bill) Clark (Geographer- Demographer)

WilliamAVClark (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The unreviewed submission is at Draft:William (Bill) Clark (Geographer- Demographer). Nthep (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit confict) @WilliamAVClark: It's at Draft:William (Bill) Clark (Geographer- Demographer). It was resubmitted 26 May 2017 and is pending review. You are welcome to edit it before the unknown time where it will be reviewed PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, I have found the page which is located here. I think you edited it while logged out(which is why it doesn't appear under your username's edit history). It appears that you submitted the draft on May 25th and it is still awaiting review. As articles are reviewed by volunteers, it can take some time. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted this page as a copyright violation of this site. WilliamAVClark if you own this text (even though it reads more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article) you could only post it here after verifiably releasing its copyright to the world, irrevocably, into the public domain, or under a suitably free copyright license. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I now see the problem as I used material from a court report. If the page can be undeleted it would be a simple task to edit that text. I would be grateful for an undeletion so that I can edit and have the page reviewed thank you 45.50.161.221 (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry William, we cannot undelete copyright violations because they are a violation of law and have the prospect for legal liability. You can't copy and paste previously written material (or in the case, if this was your writing, as I advised above, you would have to go through the formal process to release the copyright). As we often tell people: "You may use external websites or other writings as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words." You should also understand (as relevant here) that copyright infringement is not avoided by surface modification of existing content, e.g., changing a word here and a word there, while substantially retaining the wording, structure and creative expression in the original material. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.

I don't understand what you mean about a court report, unless the content from the website I linked was reproduced there. To give an example from a larger swath of copied content, the draft said:

• "Clark has participated as analyst and expert witness in the major desegregation court cases which took up the question of how we can understand the patterns of ethnic and racial separation in large US cities..."

and the linked website says:

• "He has participated as analyst and expert witness in the major desegregation court cases which took up the question of how we can understand the patterns of ethnic and racial separation in large US cities..."

Regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

References

(Erm, I don't know what I was thinking above, but there's no way you can release the copyright, because, despite your account name, there's no way you are the subject—a college professor would have decades of experience with citing sources, not copying and proper paraphrasing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC))

What I am not understanding is why we cannot bring up the draft , it was not yet accepted to wikipedia, and I can then work on the draft - what you are requiring by deleting my not yet accepted page is requiring me to redo the total submission which is a lot of work. This does not seem a sensible response. I am not asking that the page be accepted simply that I can work on the draft. Please advise 45.50.161.221 (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

We cannot host material violating copyright - not in article space, not in Draft space, not in user space, or in any other space. Rmhermen (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Renaming/Replacing articles

I have run into several instances were a page for a subject redirects to a related page but should exist on its own. Example(1): "Panax", a plant genus, redirects to "Ginseng" which is the common name for some of the species. The "Ginseng" article says, "This article focuses on the species of the genus Panax, named Panax ginseng and P. quinquefolius." This is a VERY good idea. However, since there is no "Panax" article, a lot of information not related to Panax ginseng and P. quinquefolius, including a list of Panax species, is included. I would create a "Panax" article but I do not know if it would be accepted or implemented. Example(2): A plant species name (Aptenia cordifolia) has been determined to be a synonym for (Mesembryanthemum cordifolium). Wikipedia has an article for Aptenia cordifolia and redirects Mesembryanthemum cordifolium to it. Obviously the article needs to be edited to change the names (and probably more). Again, I would edit the article but how would the redirect and article pages be changed. I can not find a process for this.User-duck (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi User-duck. You can change a redirect by following the redirect and then click "(Redirected from ...)" below the title. See more at Help:Redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, User-duck. Perhaps better would be to use the article wizard to create a draft of a new article under the articles for creation project. That would mean that an experienced editor would review the draft once you thought it was ready and submitted it for review. When and if the draft is approved, the reviewer will move it to the article mainspace, and handle any issues with the previously existing redirect, or ask an admin to assist if that is needed. This method avoids many problems with articles that are still in the process of preparation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Why wikipedia and wikimedia commons are so porn?

If Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons are just for educational purpose, then why are so much porn pictures on wikipedia and commons. Most of these pictures do not have any educational purpose, these are just to have a porn website. Only a small number of pictures are enough to cover educational purpose. Why all porn material from wikipedia and Wikimedia commons is not being deleted?

Sinner (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: Hello and welcome. Please see the content disclaimer. Wikipedia is meant to be a collection of all human knowledge and as such it is not censored for any reason. Yes, the article about the male anatomy will have pictures of it throughout the article; the article about the female anatomy will have the same; the article about sex will have pictures dealing with that. Note that 'porn' has a very specific meaning and that usually does not include basic images of anatomy. If you do not want to see images that offend you, you can visit this page for instructions on how to suppress them on your computer. 331dot (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Reading this page may also help you understand this. While Wikipedia will not remove images just because they might be offensive to someone(which is the case with many types of images, not just images of human anatomy or the human body), if you feel that an image is truly inappropriate for an article, you should bring it up on the article talk page of the article the image is in. I realize this may not be what you want to hear, but I hope this helps you understand how things work here. Please ask any other questions you have. 331dot (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nazim Hussain Pak. Adding to the above, it is an important principle here that Wikipedia is not censored. What one person considers porn, another person may consider educational. That being said, I am not aware of indisputably pornographic images here on Wikipedia. We have some explicit photos used to illustrate specific topics. If you can mention a few articles, that that would be helpful. Wikimedia Commons is a free image repository, and it has its own policies and its own administrators. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I find the people managing a page or a portal?

How do I know who are the people managing a portal in case I notice a mistake or something and but the editing keeps being rejected?

Minnin (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Minnin: Hello and welcome. Virtually all pages on Wikipedia have what is called a talk page; you should be able to access it by clicking the word "Talk" located at the top of the article. Once there, you can edit it to pose your questions. If you are referring to this edit you attempted to make, I can say that Islamic honorifics like that are usually omitted from articles, unless as part of a quote; please see this page for a better explanation. 331dot (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Minnin. There are no people who "manage" a page or a portal. Anyone may edit (almost) any page at any time. many articles have more or less regular editors who work on them with some frequency, but they do not have more rights than anyone else. See WP:OWN. However, that does not give anyone permission to violate Wikipedia's policies, such as neutrality. 331dot is correct that an article talk page is the place to discuss what does or does not belong in an article. It is also the place where the regular editors of a page are most likely to see and respond to a comment or suggestion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

got it, thanks !!

Minnin (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Pictures are still being displayed!

I have turned off pictures from page Nudity on my skin.css page. The pictures are still being displayed. Please edit my page skin.css such that its pictures are not displayed to me. Thanks!

Sinner (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: Perhaps don't go to the page Nudity if you don't want to see naked pictures? It's pretty easy to avoid pages with possible naked or suggestive pictures if you pay attention to the title of the page.

I've fixed your common.js and common.css per the instructions here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Writing colorful text

I want to ask how I can write colorful text in wikipedia?

Sinner (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

CHEMICAL FORMULA

I just want to know, how to put a chemical formula. For example, H2O, I want to put in a chemical formula way like how chemists put but in Wikipedia using Wikipedia tools.Badri Vishal 2006 (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)