Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

GoingBatty, 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)

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)

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)

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)

@Acol37: I replied at your talk page: User talk:Acol37#Image file naming. --CiaPan (talk) 19:41, 25 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)

Robert McClenon I didn't expect it to be fair and came here anyway, but I do think there was no crime so that is the case I am making. I also think that people shouldn't be punished more than once for the same crime but that is not what happened here. Dolberty (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Dolberty - We have been trying to guess what your issue is about. Either you are referring to something else, or is there is plenty of evidence of an offense. Maybe you are saying that, once a punishment has been reduced (even if imprudently), it should not be reinstated. But maybe we are not discussing the same case, because you say that there was no crime. As I said, I don't know what happened to you in school, but you obviously are looking for miscarriages of justice. You might be able to help Wikipedia by finding actual miscarriages of justice, because I am sure that there are some, but just coming in deciding that you are looking for evidence that the world is unfair doesn't help anyone, not us, not victims of injustice, not yourself. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 26 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)

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)

Inquiries from Nazim Hussain Pak

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)

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)

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)

Turn off images of these articles for my browsing

I admit that the tools are available to turn off images but the problem is that I have tried my best to use these tools but I could not activate the tool on my account. If I completely turn off the pictures then I will not be able to see pictures from those articles which are not prohibited in my jurisdiction. I tried to turn off pictures from some specific articles. I tried not to make some mistake but I remained unsuccessful. This is the only problem. As an experienced wikipedian, if you turn off pictures of these articles by editing or asking someone other to edit my skin.css page, then I shall be very thankful to you for your kindness.

• Nudity
• Toplessness
• Topfreedom
• Nudity in film
• Nudity in sport
• Pornography
• Naturism

Sinner (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: Help:Options to hide an image#Disable images on specific pages says "create a page at Special:Mypage/skin.css". The link is supposed to redirect you to a page for your current skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, for example User:Nazim Hussain Pak/vector.css if you have "Vector". I see you created User:Nazim Hussain Pak/skin.css instead. Maybe the redirection doesn't work in your browser. You can also add the code to User:Nazim Hussain Pak/common.css to hide the images no matter what skin you have. Here is the code for either css page:

.page-Nudity img {display: none;}
.page-Toplessness img {display: none;}
.page-Topfreedom img {display: none;}
.page-Nudity_in_film img {display: none;}
.page-Nudity_in_sport img {display: none;}
.page-Pornography img {display: none;}
.page-Naturism img {display: none;}

PrimeHunter (talk) 09:18, 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)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: You're looking for Help:Using colours. Please be aware of and follow the guidelines at WP:COLOR and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Color, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Good User

What are qualities of a good wikipedian?

Sinner (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sinner. A good user is generally considered to be someone who is WP:HERE as opposed to someone who is WP:NOTHERE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Nazim Hussain Pak. I think that understanding and upholding Wikipedia's five pillars is an important part of being a good editor. Looking at your own contributions, I see that you created the articles Chak Shafi and Chak Choti Shafi. Both of these articles are lacking in references. If you look at the pillars and at Wikipedia:Verifiability, you'll see that readers of articles should be able to check that information has come from reliable, published sources. These two articles will need to have references to such sources added, or otherwise the unsourced information is likely to be removed. I also note that with this edit, you added the comment "The information is based on my approximation" to the Chak Shafi article. You should never add your own approximations to articles - only information that can be verified by checking reliable sources. I hope that helps. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Nazim Hussain Pak. I would say that a good Wikipedian always tries his or her best to improve the encyclopedia. S/he works with others as well as possible. S/he is WP:CIVIL. S/he finds and cites appropriate sources for statements in articles, both ones that s/he has added, and ones that need citation when s/he starts to work on an article. s/he generally complies with guidelines and policies, except when there is a very good reason not to. Even more, s/he complies with the consensus of other editors. I would also agree with all the comments above. None of us is the ideal "good Wikipedian" at all times, but many strive to achieve that ideal. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Nazim Hussain Pak. I have been searching for possible sources to use in the two village articles, and I'm starting to wonder if they are in fact both the same place. The co-ordinates given in the infobox take me to the same location on a map. Could you clarify, please? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I am going to redirect Chak Choti Shafi to Chak Shafi, as that appears to be the correct name for the village. If you object, Nazim Hussain Pak, please reply here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

My problem is at its place!

From early morning, I have been trying to turn off some pictures and pictures from some specific articles. I have tried my skin.css. But the entries that I enter in it do not turn off images. The advice to not visit these pages is also given to me by many users but I want to visit these pages without seeing their images. I am in search in search of a helper who will turn off pictures from these articles by editing my skin.css page.

• Nudity
• Toplessness
• Topfreedom
• Naturism
• Pornography
• Nudity in film
• Nudity in sport
• Female body shape

Is someone on this great encyclopedia to help me???

Sinner (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Rather than starting a new section with the same query, please post in the section about this above, Nazim Hussain Pak (making sure that you have read the replies you have received there). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:31, 25 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)

I've been working on the article - and learning as I go along. I hope that you can see this draft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sjmaier/sandbox/International_Bond_%26_Share_Society Sjmaier (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sjmaier - that draft has no references whatsoever, let alone the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that are required to show notability.
Until you have added such references, it is difficult/impossible for other editors to assess whether the subject is notable, or not. Please see WP:Notability and Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance on what is required and how to add it. - Arjayay (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Arjayay - thanks for the prompt reply and advice. I'll work on the references.Sjmaier (talk) 17:37, 25 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)

Thank you all, I think I get it now. Jodosma (talk) 07:01, 25 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)

The article is now back in draft space, but does not have even a single reference. Dbfirs 07:26, 25 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)

Thanks for the response, DESiegel. I am familiar with the article wizard, but I thought that was for creating new articles. And I do not remember a way to say that the draft was a rewrite. That is why I mentioned "process". Also, I did not know how to change a "redirect" (very easy and I learned a lot about "disambiguation"). I have already edited the Panax page. It was basically a cut-n-paste of information from the Ginseng article, particularly the List of species. Therefore, I think a review is not needed. Besides the "talk" pages, I do not know how to request a review of an article. This would be helpful for major edits. Also, some articles are so bloated with tidbits, stuff that should not be in an encyclopedic article. The original redirect was appropriate since Panax is the "ginseng" genus. But the article focused on only two of the species. I am a plant enthusiast and when I look up Panax I want to learn about the plant, not the crop. It similar to the difference between Zea (plant) and Corn. Thanks again, I am off to make some Zea edits.User-duck (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, User-duck. Apparently i misunderstood -- i had thought, from the conversation above, that this was to be a new article. No we don't have the same sort of review process set up for major revisions that we do for AfC drafts, or not that I am aware of. Please note, in case you were not aware, then when one does a copy&paste from one Wikipedia artice 9or indeed any page) to another, the source must be attributed for copyright purposes. please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for details on how to do this, if you didn't already know.

Sometimes an editor who wants to do a major revision, say of Ginseng (since you mentioned it) will create a page with a name similar to Ginseng/revision and invites other editors to look at it before copying it into the article proper. But that isn't a formal review. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Writing an article where there was previously a redirect is sort of writing a new article though, isn't it? I would say that this is a situation where using the article wizard could be appropriate. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 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)

Article in Mar-Apr 2014 was deleted by Haworth for 'plagiarism' - should NOT have been deletedf

In Mar-Apr 2014, as a fairly new user on Wikipedia (Sustainability1), we wrote and posted an article on "Climb-and-Collapse" dynamics in population systems. It was a LOT of work, objective, data-based biology, and well-written etc. SUDDENLY, ALL of our hard work (the entire article)was GONE, having been abruptly and unnecessarily (and discourteously?) deleted by Haworth for "plagiarism" of copyrighted material.

At the time, the "delete" said something like it was plagiarism because "I know it when I see it." We didn't think about that as we worked on prepared the Wikipedia article because with expertise in the field, we had already written widely on the subject matter involved including publication elsewhere as OPEN-COURSEWARE resources. Nevertheless some "bot" perhaps found matches between an important new Wikipedia article and some of our other OCW resources posted elsewhere on the web.

The article that we posted and which was deleted WAS NOT plagiarized - (unless of course, any scholar who uses the same wording that he or she has used in other venues is now to be deleted due to "SELF-plagiarism?")(Imagine if Albert Einstein were still alive and he attempted to post an article on particle physics on Wikipedia and an "editor" or a "bot" unabashedly and unthinkingly deleted the article because the scientist had plagiarized himself.)

Anyway, being busy with other venues at that time (and fairly inexperienced with Wikipedia details), we did not want to go through ALL THAT CAREFUL and CONSCIENTIOUS work AGAIN only to have it deleted, so we just left Wikipedia.

It has bothered us ever since, however, that for those around the world who turn to Wikipedia for correct, IMPORTANT, scholarly, and referenced information on science, mathematics, and history, etc., some of the most important biospheric data sets and understandings in the history of civilization are missing today because of an abrupt deletion that could have been avoided and/or resolved by courteously raising the concern.

Lastly, if all of that original work for the Mar-Apr 2014 deleted article still exists, it would be nice TO HAVE IT RESTORED. [And possibly consider a policy that accommodates or permits "self-plagiarism?") (If Shakespeare were alive today and tried to post one of his plays on Wikipedia, would bots and some editors immediately delete the entire play due to "plagiarism?" (Or would Shakespeare or Hemingway or Nobel Laureate have to re-word every single line and sentence in the entire play or speech into a modified and less-perfect form?)

Partly was a disservice to someone trying to contribute to Wikipedia, but was far more seriously a disservice to citizens around the world who look to Wikipedia as an important source of data and information.

Thank you for Wikipedia and for considering the points offered above. Sustainability1 (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sustainability1. I think you might be confusing plagiarism and a copyright violation. If material is published elsewhere and is subject to copyright, then it cannot be posted on Wikipedia because, as it states beneath the edit window, "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL", and such a release is incompatible with the text being copyrighted. If you attribute the text to its source, it isn't plagiarism, but it can still be a copyright violation. If Einstein were alive and posted text here that was subject to copyright, then yes, it would have to be deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

What you wrote here tells me that the license on the original is incompatible with the requirements of Wikipedia. All content on Wikipedia must be available for any use and you said that the original was licensed for non-commercial use. ~ GB fan 15:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sustainability1: I assume you refer to User:Sustainability1/sandbox. It was deleted by User:RHaworth as a suspected copyright violation of http://en.calameo.com/books/0006765194f4d3958d2c4. It can be viewed and restored by administrators but if it's a copyright violation then it should not be restored. http://en.calameo.com/books/0006765194f4d3958d2c4 is marked with the license terms "Attribution - NoDerivs - NonCommercial" (CC BY-NC-ND) at http://en.calameo.com/read/0000000012ca0ed594e4a?authid=I2gqrk9RAWwc. This is not compatible with Wikipedia which allows derivative works and commercial reuse of our content. We use CC BY-SA ("Attribution - ShareAlike"). See Wikipedia:Copyrights. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sustainability1. I'm sorry that your first experience of editing Wikipedia has been unsatisfactory. Judging from the above, you are not aware of various matters in how Wikipedia works. The first is, as the other editors have already explained, copyright material may not normally be used in Wikipedia. It is possible for the copyright holder to explicitly release it under a suitable licence (see Donating copyright materials, but this is rarely done for text, because it is rare that material written for another purpose is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is most often evident when people post promotional material; but it is also the case that much that is suitable for academic publication is not appropriate for Wikipedia: a Wikipedia article should not contain any speculation, argumentation, or conclusions: it should only summarise what the reliable published sources say, and should not go beyond them. I'm not clear whether or not the text of the Calemeo article would be acceptable or not, because I haven't examined its sources, so I don't know whether it synthesises or draws conclusions beyond them or not - if it were to be used as a Wikipedia article (supposing that the copyright issue had been handled) it would be greatly preferably if it were referenced to sources sentence by sentence.

One more point: you repeatedly refer to "we". Please be aware that Wikipedia accounts may not be shared. If there are several of you, then you should create and use individual accounts (you don't have to use your real names: I do, but many people do not) so that edits can be ascribed to individuals. --ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Why do some pages have editing locks?

I was wondering why some pages have editing locks. On some pages I want to edit something, but it doesn't let me. Some information is not really up to date.

Thank you

WarriorsFan30112335WarriorsFan30112335 (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

If there has been disruptive editing on the page in the past, pages are protected to stop the disruption. ~ GB fan 15:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@WarriorsFan30112335: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome. Pages are usually protected from editing or 'locked' due to vandalism or a content dispute such as an edit war. Protection can be limited to IP and new users, or to all users except administrators in some extreme cases. If you want to edit a page and cannot, you should post on the article's talk page; at the top of every article should be a tab saying "Talk"; if you click that it will take you to the article's talk page where you can then ask someone else to make the edit for you. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

If you click the "View source" tab then you get instructions and a link for submitting an edit request. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

protection

how do you protect a pageSvgManiac (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@SvgManiac: Hello and welcome. Only administrators can protect a page; to make a request that a page be protected, you can visit this page and follow the instructions there. Please note that pages are only protected for certain reasons, such as stopping vandalism or an edit war; a page cannot be protected simply to lock a page to a certain version. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@SvgManiac: Looking at your edit history and comments on the talk page, I would say that you cannot have a page protected to preemptively prevent vandalism, or to prevent people who don't like the person you are editing about from editing that page(unless people who don't like him are actively vandalizing the page). As long as an editor is acting in good faith, it doesn't matter if they like the person. As long as they can cite their edits to a reliable source, their edit can likely go into the article. You can't keep negative information about the person you are writing about out. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Edna Meade Colson

Hello Wikipedians. I was adding an infobox to Amaza Lee Meredith and I noticed that there wasn't a page for her partner Edna Meade Colson Draft:Edna Meade Colson. I attempted to create a page for her and it failed review because my writing was too closely synthesized from the source material.

Dr. Colson is considered noteworthy, but I lack the skills to create an article. I am now familiar with her life and work, so if an interested editor would reword the article, it would provide me a great deal of information on creating an acceptable article in the future. Thank you WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello WomenArtistUpdates and welcome to the Teahouse.

I took a look at your draft. I agree that this draft could form the basis of an encyclopedia article, but you need to find some more references to substantiate factual assertions in the article. One symptom of too-closely following another source is that you may not develop your own sources. You have several citations, you need to find a few more and then write your article based on what the sources say. If you don't have a source for some factual matter, you leave that out.

If, after you go through this process one or more times, you don't feel like the article provides a suitable picture of the subject, it may mean that you have to dig some more. Or it could mean that there are not enough sources to create an article at this time.

So my advice is to go through the material you looked at to become familiar with her life and work, determine how reliable each one is, and see how the information you've gathered supports Dr. Colson's notability by Wikipedia standards. It's not always easy, but you get a great sense of accomplishment when it's all done. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Can I use an Italian Wikipedia page as a source?

I noticed that a wikipedia page is missing in English so I thought about translating it. Would be it ok? Thanks! gionogioGionogio (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Gionogio. You can't use the it.wiki article as "as source" per se. However, if that page itself is cited to reliable sources, you can translate it into English using the same sources as the Italian article. TimothyJosephWood 18:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome @Gionogio: There are certain steps you should follow if you do a translation. See Wikipedia:Translation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you tell us which article you're thinking of working on, Gionogio? Not every article in it.wp would necessarily be found suitable for this Wikipedia, and it would be a shame if you did a lot of work and then found that it couldn't be kept. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks you all for answering. The article I wanted to translate/write is this: it:Francesco Giomi. He is a professor at the Conservatory where I'm studying, plus he is the actual director of Tempo_Reale and a notably electroacustic composer who has worked with Luciano_Berio and others great names. Please let me know now if I can go on, now I'm not to work on it everyday cause I've got exams to pass. But I thought on contributing in electroacustic music since I'm studying that. Thanks again! gionogioGionogio (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Gionogio. Well the first thing that pops out on the it.wiki article is that it doesn't include inline citations, which are required for any contentious material about a living person whether that material is positive, negative or neutral. So my instinct in this instance is that your language skills might be better put to use reading the sources in Italian, (and there seems to be a lot of them) and then trying to write an English article more or less from scratch, rather than trying to do a 1 to 1 translation of the Italian article.

Maybe you can use the Italian article as a general guide, for example, to make sure you don't miss anything important, but since you really need to include inline citations, and figure out where exactly the information is coming from, you're kindof already doing to hard work involved in writing a brand new article.

If you need extended time to work on it, you may want to consider starting it as a draft, which can be done by clicking on Draft:Francesco Giomi. TimothyJosephWood 15:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcoming new users

How do I make the most of being part of the welcoming committee for new users beginning to edit the wiki?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 22:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello DoctorWho42 and welcome to the Teahouse. I like your combination of two Brit-SF memes in your username.

There are actually a few robots that form the initial welcoming committee for new WP editors. They do things like place "welcome" templates on new users' talk pages and hand out invites to the Wikipedia Adventure and the Teahouse. There are also a group of editors on WP:Recent changes patrol who are likely to pick up on earnest new editors who could use a helping hand — although sometimes a slapdown is required. New users are also likely to show up here at the Teahouse or over at WP:Help desk if they have questions.

In order to be helpful to new users, it's good to have some experience under your belt. But if you watch recent changes, or watch arriving questions here or at the help desk, you are welcome to insert your advice when you have something to contribute. Just remember not to bite. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

My first edited article

Well, I was, this is my first edited article when I'll did it.Gregory R (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

What? HillelFrei^{• talk •} 22:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pure gibberish. Gregory R, what in the world are you talking about?...if anything. --Thnidu (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

how to add pictures/photos and how to start a page from scratch

I have not figured out how to add a photo or a picture with subtitles (or without, in that case). Please tell me how. I also do not know how to create a new Wikipedia page from scratch.Huygtfrd (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Huygtfrd, and welcome to the Teahouse. Creatign a new article from scratch is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia. It is often better to edit existing articles for a time first, to get some of the feel of how things are usually done. But here are some steps which, if followed, are I think likely to lead to success.

• First, review our guideline on notability, and the relevant special guideline on notability for the type of article you plan. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
• Second, read Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, if you are connected with the subject Disclose your connection in accordance with WP:COI. If you are being paid or editing as part of your job, see WP:PAID. This is absolutely required, omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, Gather sources. You want independent professionally published reliable sources that each discuss the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop, an article will not be created. Sources do NOT need to be online, although it is helpful if at least some are. The independent part is vital in this case. Not press releases, nor news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or its affiliates. Not strictly local coverage. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the org in detail. But those significant sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is rejected, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

As for adding images, see Help:Menu/Images and media, Help:Viewing media, Help:Files , and Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Formatting and illustrating articles/Adding images. I hope those are useful to you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

How to add links.

Hi I started this originally to just play around but then I found out how I could help. All I need to know is how to include a link in an article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasty Gamer (talk • contribs) 01:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Tasty Gamer and welcome to the Teahouse.

I suggest you take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners as a place to get started. References are really important when you add material to Wikipedia and this should help. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Tasty Gamer. By "links" do you mean links to other Wikipedia articles, or links to web sites not part of Wikipedia, or links as part of citations to sources? They are handled differently.

• Links to other Wikipedia articles are made by enclosing the name of the article in double square brackets. For example, if I wanted to link to the article "Energy" I would enter [[Energy]]. This would render as Energy. If I wanted a different word to display in the article i would "pipe" the link. I might enter [[Energy|activity]] which would render as activity.
• Links to external web sites should appear only in an "External links" section near the end of an article, or in a few limited cases, in an infobox, usually near the start. They should never be placed in the text of the article body. Please read our guideline on external links for what links should and should not be placed in articles. Excessive linking is not acceptable.
• Citations to sources that can be found online should include a URL. As jmcgnh says above, Help:Referencing for beginners and the pages linked from it explains in detail the ways to format and insert citations, including the user of URLs. I personally prefer the methods using cite templates, but that is in no way required, and some other experienced editors prefer other methods.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Feedback on draft:A List

Hello! I'm interested in getting some feedback on draft:A List. Is this a good place for that? Cloudlessly (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Cloudlessly.

• In the lead section, when the draft includes Stein said that ... that is a quotation, albiet an indirect one. It therefore requires a citation directly after the statement.
• In the synopsis section, I wish that the individual statements were individually cited, rather than a group of several cites at the end of the paragraph. It would be clearer what source supports what statement. Even if some sources were cited twice.
• Please provide page numbers in the citations when possible.
• You might consider using the |quote= parameter in the citations to make it clear exactly how each source supports the draft.he play ever had a professional or non-student production?
• Is there sourcing for a "critical response" section?
• In the analysis section, has anyone reliable other than Bowers and Stein herself analyzed this? if so some other analyses should be referenced, I think.

On the whole a good job for a draft. All only my opinion, of course DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Linking section of Manual of Style without explanation about linking to automatic translation sites ...

There are certain references in an article about surveillance in a police state. The best source of info you have about such cr@p are pieces of information relating to the stasi files (much better going with Deutsche Gründlichkeit than with "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is" types of Clintonesque). How do link to an automatic translation sites? You would route a link to: http://www.gvoon.de/ddr/stasi/dokumente/woerterbuch/zersetzung-operative.html as https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gvoon.de%2Fddr%2Fstasi%2Fdokumente%2Fwoerterbuch%2Fzersetzung-operative.html Albretch Mueller (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Albretch Mueller.

Sources in other languages are allowed on Wikipedia, there is no requirement to provide a translation. I suggest citing the original and users who need help can invoke automated translators of their own choosing. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Albretch Mueller, while not required, there are two things that are fairly common practice, and will make things much easier for readers.

1. Use the |tran-title= parameter in a citation template such as {{cite web}} to provide an English-language version (manually translated please) of the title of the source. if you do this, please also use the |language= parameter to specify the language that the source is in.
2. Use the |quote= parameter to give a brief manually translated quote that makes it clear how the source supports the statement(s) in the article.

Neither of this is at all required, but I think that both are good practice. I would advise against linking to any particular automated translation site. Those who wish to use machine translation can select their own site. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Log in problems

I am having a huge amount of trouble logging in this week. I am a registered user, but when I go to login, after entering my password, I get what seems to me the nonsensical response of "No active login attempt is in progress for your session." Well, yes, there is an active login attempt, and I'm the one making it. Sometimes I appear to have successfully logged in to Wikipedia, but then when I go to another page on the Wikipedia site, it shows once again that I'm "Not logged in." I have been a registered user of Wikipedia for some years now, but this problem has only started occurring in the past week or so.

I have the feeling that someone (i.e. some editor or administrator) may be blocking IP addresses, perhaps even a range of them, in an attempt to try to block vandalism on Wikipedia. I frankly don't know much about how the Internet works, but it's my impression that IP addresses can change every time someone logs on or off to their ISP, can they not? I've even tried shutting down my Internet connection and then starting it up again in the hope of getting a different IP address, but that doesn't seem to work this evening either. At any rate, it's extremely frustrating to be unable to log in and to then be given a gibberish response like "No active login attempt is in progress for your session" repeatedly. And after three or four tries logging in I get a message about (if I remember correctly) being shut out to avoid a possible hijacked connection (?). I'd like some help but I don't know how I'm supposed to get an answer without being able to log in. By the way, my Wikipedia Username is NicholasNotabene.

107.77.217.214 (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Every few months I find that my ISP has placed me in a range of IP addresses that is blocked from editing on Wikipedia. These sorts of blocks do exist, but they do not result in the symptom you are reporting. IP-range blocks prevent editing but do not prevent logging in. Something else must be going on and it might be a setting in your own browser for how cookies are handled – that's just a guess, not based on any detailed knowledge of how WP handles logins. Try a different browser or a different computer as a way to get more information about the symptoms you are experiencing. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

May I know why are you deleting my articles

My articles are often deleted without no reason. I know that I did not put reference in the article Fault(geology), but 1 guy did not put a suitable reference (citation number 7) in the part of Strike-slip fault. So instead of his/her part, why did the Wikipedia delete my part. I request you not to delete my article.Badri K Vishal 2006 (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: Question already answered at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 617#May I know why are everyone deleting my articles., and sockpuppetry reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Badri Vishal and Mansi Krishna. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

However, to explain, this was not a case of deleting an article, but of reverting an edit, and, if an edit is reverted, it should be discussed on the article talk page. I don't see any discussion at Fault (geology). Making the same edit again after the edit has been reverted is edit-warring. Please discuss rather than edit-warring. (Of course, if you are a sockpuppet, please go away, but this is general advice.) If your English is such that you don't know the difference between deleting an article and reverting an edit, please consider editing the Wikipedia in your first language. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Badri K Vishal 2006: comparing one bad edit with another is not a good idea. If you add information the responsibility lies entirely with you to add a suitable reference to back up what you say. You have a history of adding poorly or unsourced information to science topics which resulted in you being indefinitely blocked from editing on 4 June, see User talk:K. Badri Vishal#May 2017. Since then instead of addressing this issue you have consistently tried to sidetrack the block by creating new accounts and continuing the poor standard of editing. Until you address your behaviour and understand what level of competence is needed to edit Wikipedia and then apply for your block to be lifted on one of the existing accounts, your accounts will continue to be blocked on sight. Do not continue to create new accounts; as the responses above show your current conduct receives no sympathy at all. Nthep (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Need counter-vandalism assistance

I recently spotted that User:177.42.223.250 seems to have a habit of adding unsourced claims about dates of birth or death to biographical articles, and then linking those articles to Wikipedia pages about the claimed years of birth (or death). See Special:Contributions/177.42.223.250. I have spent an hour or so reverting some of those edits, and have now also discovered a similar pattern by another anonymous account: Special:Contributions/191.33.96.84. Sigh.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to review (and revert, if appropriate) all these edits today; perhaps not even this month. But that doesn't mean that these dubious edits should linger any longer than necessary. So, is there a way for me to hand this work over to other editors who are keen to help revert unconstructive edits? I looked at Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit, but did not see an obvious place there to file such a report. (Did I overlook anything?) I also looked at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but it seems to be more about requesting blocks than reverting edits, and is only applicable if the vandal is likely to be active in the immediate future. Please WP:PING me in your reply. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Education Credentials

I recently posted some education credentials and foreign languages on the Mykel Hawke Wiki. An editor (Rivertorch) removed them, citing verification. What is needed to verify? Mykel Hawke is a commissioned Army officer, and a 4-year degree from an accredited university is required to become an Army Officer. The degrees are a BS in Biology from UNY and an MS in Family Counseling from UCA. He is rated in 7 foreign languages, again through the military and their language schools, which is in his author's biography of his bestselling language book, already linked/referenced on the Wiki page. What is needed to put these credentials back on? KMartin529 (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)