Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

David notMD, 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

Company Page Approval

Hi, I'd love some feedback on a company page I've been working on. The company is well known within our industry and I felt it needed some recognition here. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I'd really like to see this page become approved.

Thank You

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

MJOHN (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MJOHN. As it stands, I'm afraid that the draft completely lacks substantial independent secondary sources, without which an article cannot be accepted. Two of the references are patents, which are primary sources; one is by RA; and one is a passing mention. The first one (the study from the University of Florida) I am unable to open (it seems to want to download something in a strange format), so I don't know what it contains. But whatever "LPRC" might mean (you neither explain nor link to this term), it seems unlikely to contain substantial independent material about the company. What you need to find is several places where people who have no connection with the company have chosen to publish substantial material about it, since almost the whole of the article needs to be based on these sources, and not on unpublished information or on information published by the company or its associates. (Wikipedia has very little interest in what the subject of any article says or wants to say about itself: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with it have published about it).

Furthermore, since you say you hold the copyright ot File:Tag print.jpg, it would appear that you have some commention with the company. If that is the case, you need to read and follow the instructions relating to editing with a conflict of interest: if you are in any way paid to contribute to Wikipedia (eg if it is seen as part of your job) then you must declare this. --ColinFine (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thank You for response.

I just want to clarify my position in this. I am Loss Prevention Executive who currently works for a Large Retail Organization. I have been involved with Loss Prevention, RFID and EAS for over 20 years. My relationship with this page is strictly professional and that of an observer. My interest in designing this page stems from their involvement and innovation within the industry.

I am familiar with most product currently being used by some of the largest developers. Some of which initially designed by some of the people associated with 'Retailers Advantage'.

Both the 'LPRC' and 'RFID Journal' have been fixtures since the early 2000's and are main staples within Loss Prevention and RFID. In my opinion I do feel these should be considered as substantial secondary sources.

The 'RFID Journal' references a hard tag designed by 'Retailers Advantage' and studies found. Author 'Claire Swedberg', frequent writer for RFID Journal.

I have removed any pictures that could be considered copyright. All remaining are my own property or already on the web.

Though not as large as a 'Sensormatic' or 'Checkpoint'. I do feel they deserve recognition for their continued contribution.

Please reconsider this page or guide me on further adjustments.

Thank You

MJOHN (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

MJOHN, that page is not ready to be a Wikipedia article. I've moved it to Draft:Retailers Advantage, where you can work on it if you wish – the references and the overall tone both need attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MJOHN. The bulk of my reply still stands. I can see the LPRC report now, and I accept that it and the RFID Journal article are reliable. The problem is that neither of them says much about the company: they are focused on the product. (I am assuming this from the executive summary). These together may establish that the a3tag is notable, but not that the company is. You still need substantial independent reliable sources about the company.

I hear that you are not connected with the company; but I don't understand then how it is that you hold the copyright in a picture that is relevant to the company. (Note that "already on the web" is not adequate: most pictures on the web are copyright and may not be used in Wikipedia, unless the copyright holder has specifically licensed them with a compatible licence such as CC-BY-SA).

Your feeling that they deserve recognition of course has some relevance if you are in the industry, but Wikipedia's criteria for that is exactly what I mentioned above: that the subject has received substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. Wikipedia does not deal in "recognition": it is only interested in subjects which have already been recognised by independent source. See notability. --ColinFine (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I want no problems with copyright pictures. I will remove those.

I've read all the criteria. There are many holes. My impression is most of this subjective and mainly at the discretion of the admin/s on whether or not a page gets approved.

I'd be curious if all your pages meet these criteria...

I would greatly appreciate if you could be specifics with what you are looking for.

Thanks Again & Best Regards,

MJOHN

MJOHN (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There are likely many articles that do not meet the criteria, MJOHN, but over time they are likely to be identified and deleted. Many poor articles are from the early days of the project and our standards and procedures have been tightened since then - including the introduction of the Articles for Creation system, which hopefully means that fewer sub-standard articles are created nowadays. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding gallery to a page

Good day everyone. I have been trying to organise the images and add a gallery to this page National Rail Museum, New Delhi. However, I don't think I have been able to do a very good job. The page looks a bit messed up at the moment. Could someone help me out and let me know what I am doing wrong? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamLinker (talk • contribs) 08:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I would be grateful if someone could let me how to correct the formatting mess at the bottom of the page.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi DreamLinker, the gallery would probably be better off just above the "See Also" heading rather than the bottom of the page. To make sure everything fits, just fiddle around with the spacing between the list of exhibits and the Gallery on the top, and the Gallery and the "See also" section on the bottom. While constantly using the "Show Preview" button below the edit summary to make sure the edit looks the way you want.

Hopefully this helps, Toreightyone (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

A special thanks

Thanks sir for inviting me to tea house. I want to learn a lot as a member of Wikipedia.

Again a special thanks to all for considering me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibhushan (talk • contribs) 14:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You are very welcome! The other one (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about referencing sources

This question has been copied from the Teahouse talk page DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Team, I have two queries about reliable sources. Please clarify and help me. I am new to writing article.

1. I have few articles published in leading regional language newspapers. Those are still available on Web. The regional language is "Kannada". This is the scheduled, administrative official language of a state in India. More than 50 million people talk this language. "Kannada" has a wiki page. You can read more if you want. Can I create references to these articles?

2. There are some articles those were published in leading English news papers but those are no more available on Web. Because they are archived/removed. We have preserved those and published on our site https://sanchaaritheatru.wordpress.com. Can I create references linking to these sources? Nagaraj Kolara (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Nagaraj Kolara, and welcome to the Teahouse.

1. You may use citations to sources that are not in English, including to sources in Kannada, or Hindi, or any other reasonable language. It is helpful if you provide a translation of the title of the source, and an indication of the source language. if you are using the Cite XX templates, such as {{Cite web}}, {{Cite news}}, {{Cite magazine}} (and others, see Wikipedia:Citation templates) the parameter |language= can be used to indicate the source language, and the parameter |trans-title= can be used for an English-language version of the title. It can also be helpful to translate a short excerpt from the source showing exactly how it supports the statement(s) in the article, The |quote= parameter can be used for this purpose.
2. Sources do not need to be available online, provided that they can be found in libraries or public archives. Give the title of the work, the date of publication, the author (if stated), and the page number of the print publication. This is true for sources in any language. If an archive version is available online, you can give the link. Use the |archive-url= parameter if using one of the Cite XX templates. If you know when the site or page was saved to the archive, use |archive-date= to provide the date.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I just want to chime in on the second question. I would be a bit wary of a source that's reprinting news articles on a blog. Have you heard of the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine? That's an archiving service that may have archived copies of the original articles, which you can find by entering the URLs of those articles. Given the choice, I would put a lot more trust in an archived version of the original site rather than a copy of the article on a different site. I hope this helps! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 15:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DES. This helps. Following your instructions.Nagaraj Kolara (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Help

What to do here I am new so please tell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibhushan (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wikibhushan. If you are looking to get started with contributing to Wikipedia, you might want to start by taking a look at Wikipedia:Tutorial. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

A request for some input from an experienced editor.

Greetings to the Teahouse, I have recently translated and expanded an article and I got the "This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information" flag. Can I get an experienced editor to bracket out the offending passages so that I can expand with information? (Dump the copy on my talk page?) I need some experienced eyes on it to help me out please. I can guess where the problems lie and I am comfortable that they can be addressed with longer explanations, but in some cases it will expand a short biography into a short course on microscope optics- what I was trying to avoid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Oberhaeuser Thanks in advance. MikroSammler (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MikroSammler, and welcome to the teahouse. That tag was added manually in this edit by Alphalfalfa, who could best explain the reasons why it was placed. Any editor may remove it if s/he sincerely believes it is not currently appropriate, or a discussion can be started on the article talk page (Talk:Georges Oberhaeuser in this case). I do note that the first paragraph of the Microscope and optics workshop section is unsourced, and doesn't really explain why this student model was successful. Sill i don't see any obvious puffery on this page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, MikroSammler, for proper copyright attribution, the talk page statement should include a direct link to the source article. Technically it is a copyright infringement without such a link. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I added the tag because I think that some of the language seems a bit subjective, and maybe a little bit unconsciously promotional. I have fixed some of it, and the rest is nothing a little editing can't fix. Please, if you think you have thoroughly addressed those issues, feel free to remove the tag. alphalfalfa^(talk) 00:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies folks. I'll take a guess at the issue and see if I can support the statements without getting too far off track in the article. Just getting started and learning. MikroSammler (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Question on reliable sources and news opinion pieces

Hello, I have been reading up on policies and have a question regarding what constitutes reliable from news sources. Must they strictly be editorial pieces from or can opinion pieces be used as well? Within this, is there a litmus test to determine reliability? Should the author be considered an authority on some subject for his opinion to be given weight? What if said authority pushes a controversial opinion or one that is generally not accepted? Is there another policy that addresses this? Thank you for your time. Uhtregorn (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

To support factual statements, news reportage and not opinion pieces are preferred. Opnion piecs are often not considered to be reliable sources for factual statements, although it varies. When the issue is a statement such as "Many people think X" then an opinion piece saying X is relevant. In gerneal a reporter does not need to be a subject-matter expert for a news story to be a reliable source. If the issue is highly technical, and particularly in the medical field, expertise is sometimes needed. Specific cases can be discussed at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. But you must be specific there, not only what source but what statement(s) the source is being cited for, in what article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC) @Uhtregorn: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Intersting. So it seems best to avoid them if possible, but if they are included its best to mention that said statement was in fact the opinion of someone? Uhtregorn (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It is often worth including interpretations and opinions, Uhtregorn, depending on the context. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is helpful in explaining what to do in these situations. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

That makes total sense! I think that policy perfectly addresses what I was thinking about. I will look through it additionally to get a better grasp.

I really appreciate how helpful and open this community is. Thanks for answering all my questions! Uhtregorn (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

why is this page a stub?

The page 'family tree of the Norse gods' has a stub tag on it, why? It has all the info it is supposed to, GrecoRomanNut (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Greetings GrecoRomanNut and Welcome to the Teahouse... To improve the Family tree of the Norse gods article a number of those gods and goddesses in the family tree are unreferenced. Each of the two major sections could use an introductory sentence or two describing the content that follows. This would be helpful to a Wikipedia reader not familiar with the subject. Lastly, I did add another entry to the "See also" section, and two norse navigation box templates. Thankyou for your question & I hope my remarks above are helpful. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok JoeHebda I will try to add some sentences. Do you mean on top of the whole chart, just saying 'below is a family tree of the Norse gods, a line between two shows partnership, the row under is their offspring', or something like that? GrecoRomanNut (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes GrecoRomanNut, I realize it is like stating the obvious, but for those who are not familar with family trees, this is helpful. Part of WP encyclopedia style of writing, direct & to the point. Cheers! P.S. I took the liberty of correcting spelling on my username above. — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Very helpful. But afterword, should I remove the stub tag? JoeHebda, I am hopeless when it comes to that kind of signature stuff. Thanks again, GrecoRomanNut (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi GrecoRomanNut, the stub tag should not be removed until more content is added to the article. Even with more content the article still needs more work. As noted at WikiProject Norse history and culture, Assessment section, this is one of 740 stub articles. Once the article is improved, yes, the stub tag can be removed, and on the Talk page "class=stub" should be changed to "class=start". Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

JoeHebda, thanks, GrecoRomanNut (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

how do i write about commom sense in books?

I was editing 'tyet' and I added the fact that in the Kane chronicles, one of the main characters had a tyet amulet that she used to communicate with her mother. But there is not just one sentence that explains that. It is just kind of common knowledge for readers, so do I cite it or not, and if so, how?GrecoRomanNut (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikilink to Tyet for the convenience of other contributors. GrecoRomanNut, if this is "common knowledge" for the readers of these books, there must be a first passage mentioning that the character wears such an amulet, and a first passage mentioning this use. Cite the volume(s) and page(s) or at least chapter(s) where these occur. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.210.1 (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You don't necessarily need to reference a single sentence, GrecoRomanNut. Giving the page number or page range where the information can be verified is perfectly acceptable. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, thank you. As an owner of the whole trilogy, I can definitely do that. Thanks again,GrecoRomanNut (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries

How detailed must edit summaries be? Should i thoroughly describe the change made or would a simple note suffice? Uhtregorn (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Uhtregorn. That depends on how complex and possibly controversial your changes are. If you go through and argiel and fix spelling, or do general copy-editing a summery of "spelling" or "c/e" will do. A summery such as "rm unsourced statement about ..." is common. If you are making a large and complex change a more detailed summery is helpful, or a a short summery ending in "see talk page", with a post on the article talk page explaining in more detail. The purpose of the summery is to help other editors, now and in future, to understand what you did and WHY. It should be detailed enough to serve that purpose. If a "simple note" will do that, it is enough. If your edits are challanged or revertred, please discuss the matter on the article talk page, sew Bold Revert, Discuss. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Very helpful! Thank you. I will take this opportunity to review BRD. Uhtregorn (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

News released and edit timing

If something comes out in the news, is it proper to add it onto an article when it comes out, or should we wait for a bit? Or does this depend on the nature of what the news is? Uhtregorn (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Uhtregorn. It depends on the nature of the news. Some celebrities are so famous that news outlets will report where they had dinner or what nightclub they attended. Such trivia is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. But if reliable sources (not random Twitter or Facebook posts) report that a notable person has died or a historic building has burned to the ground, then that kind of news should be added to the appropriate article immediately, along with a reference to the reliable source. In other words, exercise editorial judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Intersting, and very helpful. But what if its a major news story that is still unfolding? Should editors wait until the full story has come out? Uhtregorn (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for Responsible and Knowledgable Editors and Monitoring

The article "Nader El-Bizri" has recently attracted the attention of some editors even though it exists since 2008 with many edits by diverse users over the years. The recent approach to the article by some users has not been done with patience and to properly look at sources.

For example since El-Bizri is an academic, the first official and reliable source would be his university formal website which is: https://www.aub.edu.lb/fas/cvsp/Pages/El-Bizri.aspx This website contains his university formal summary CV that is downloadable as PDF: https://www.aub.edu.lb/fas/cvsp/Documents/Nader%20El-Bizri%20Summary%20CV%20(Spring%202017).pdf These give the formal details as vetted by the university

Then, as an example of the prestigious awards he received, check the following Ordered Universe Project under the patronage of the AHRC in the UK: https://ordered-universe.com/2015/12/04/kuwait-honours-professor-nader-el-bizri-arabic-science-and-philosophy/ Also see this as noted on the university website: https://www.aub.edu.lb/news/2015/Pages/kfas-3.aspx

He was also ranked 59 amongst all Thought Leaders in the Arab world (and this groups not only philosophers but scientists, journalists, activists, religious authorities, poets) [http://www.thoughtleaders.world/en/arabic-2016/ If you search within the rankings and designate the subfield of philosophy, he is 3rd in the Arab world (and the Arabs have very rarely living philosophers nowadays!).

This is the tip of what you can find about him, if time is taken properly, and all the editing decisions are not made with haste or by users who have no knowledge of academia

Can anyone look into the article "Nader El-Bizri" after having searched properly and taken the time to read the sources? This is serious and if not handled properly can result in damage to the living person concerned (AcademeEditorial (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)) (AcademeEditorial (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

This is apparently about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nader El-Bizri. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

User:AcademeEditorial - First, do you have a connection with the subject of the article? If so, you must declare it in accordance with the conflict of interest policy. Second, has anyone made statements about the subject of the article that are libelous? You refer to harm to a living person, but the question only appears to be whether to delete the biography of a living person, and that doesn't seem to be an argument about harm. Please explain, because your statement above is strange and unsettling. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon:

Thank you for your response. I am not connected with the subject of the article. I am a scholar myself and I have intellectual interests in some of his areas of expertise. i joined wikipedia to improve intellectual contents in my expertise, and in the process I got into exchanges with editors/users who seem to be knowledgable of wikipedia technicalities but have not expertise in intellectual issues. Judging academics is done by their peers, while wikipedia casual users make statements in the noticeboards or discussions that can be harmful. Nothing libelous was noted in the article itself, but the tone of the discussions around it has been aggressive and lacking in knowledge within the humanities; bordering on being judgmental of a complex sphere of academia. Some decisions made were done without proper research and in an arbitrary way. Including this call for deletion. This is why I traced some reliable websites to show the carelessness with which this article is being handled, and in a context that seems to be ill monitored and almost amateurish when dealing with philosophy, Islamic/Arabic studies, etc. I hope that you can have a look at this matter or flag it to other responsible editors, since this article that existed since 2008 with on average 35 visit per day and hundreds of edits can be soon deleted at the random decision of a couple of casual users. Thanks for your decent etiquette and proper protocol, which is very rare in wikipedia! (AcademeEditorial (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

User:AcademeEditorial – Maybe I don’t understand something yet, or maybe you don’t understand something. You still seem to be saying something about harm to a living person. Perhaps you think that some living persons have a right to Wikipedia articles, and that therefore, if the article is deleted, a wrong will be done to its subject. No one has a right to a Wikipedia article. At least, I haven’t seen either a Wikipedia policy or a law that grants anyone such a right (and if there were such a law, it would violate Wikipedia’s freedom of the press). Perhaps you simply overstated your case and are using divisive and inflammatory language to make your case for keeping the article. You say that decisions have been made without proper research and in an arbitrary way. What decisions? The deletion discussion is still in progress, and you have as much right as any other editor to state the case for keeping the article. Maybe I don’t understand something yet; it appears to me that ‘’you’’ are loosely alleging carelessness. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: I am not implying that people are entitled to have a wikipedia biography at all. This article existed since 2008 with numerous edits, visits, and references, and perhaps I am very new to how issues are handled via wikipedia when such discussions about deletion take place. I am just seeking fairness and anything that can result in careless or hasty decisions. If you from your experience you think that decisions cannot be arbitrary then at least this is reassuring in the sense that such practices are collectively monitored and not left for the whims of a small number of users. In any case thank you (AcademeEditorial (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

Semi protected ranges

Hi I'm new here! Just got wikipedia yesterday. There are pages that say I need to make 10 edits so they can trust me to edit them, they say they are 'semi-protected ranges'... I've made 40 edits and I still can't edit them. Miles.mu (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Miles.mu and welcome to the Teahouse. Such pages require editors to be confirmed which normally means at least 10 edits and an account at least 4 days old. You will qualify in another 2 days, more or less. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Miles.mu. Because after looking it appears to me that all your edits are good faith attempts at improvement, I have granted you confirmed status early. However, please do not make any more "corrections" of "double spacing errors" as you have termed them. They are not errors (placing a double space after a period was an extremely common convention, though it has fallen out of favor among many over the past thirty years or so), but also such edits have no affect whatsoever on the display of articles, and edits that make inconsequential changes for no real purpose, but clutter people's watchlists, are highly frowned upon. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Miles.mu (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Miles.mu. I hope you find articles that really need editing, and best wishes for your work in Wikipedia, but please remember to give accurate edit summaries. Adding commas is a punctuation correction (or a matter of style), not a spelling correction. In general, style "corrections" are not needed in Wikipedia unless they are for consistency within an article, or if they improve the readability. We allow a variety of styles here (though they should all be encyclopaedic). Dbfirs 06:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

3RR and disruptive editors?

Hello again. I have been reviewing the Bold Delete & Discuss policy and saw the 3RR policy regarding edit reversions. I am curious if this applies when an editor is participating in "vandalizing" behavior, or if it is waved for such. Uhtregorn (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Uhtregorn Reverting clear unambiguous vandalism is indeed exempted from the 3RR rule. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Just wanted to be certain. Uhtregorn (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Uhtregorn. See WP:NOT3RR for a list of the exemptions from the rule. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

A compiled list of article tags?

Is there a place that has a complete list of tags with which to tag articles for improvement? I see them across several pages, so I'm wondering if there is a convenient place one could go to find what they are looking for. Uhtregorn (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Uhtregorn. See Wikipedia:Template messages (shortcut: WP:TM). Please be aware of {{Multiple issues}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Uhtregorn (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Categories in Draft Articles

What is the poicy on placing categories on Draft: articles? Does it make a difference with indexing?  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 20:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, article categories are intended for full articles, not drafts. Wikipedia:Drafts#Publishing a draft recommends what's called "commenting out" categories, formatting them with an initial colon like so: [[:Category:Hats]]. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

How to take a picture from another language wiki and add it to English language wiki?

Hello. There is a page on English Wikipedia. Arabic-language version of this page has a good picture. English version doesn't have any pictures at all. I think it'd be great to take this picture on Arabic wiki page and add it to English wiki page, but how do I do that?

I also know that there are some problems with copy-right or whatever. And it's like different wiki's have different copy-right laws. I don't understand anything about that.

(I hope this question is understandable - but if now ask away! I'll try to explain better)

Nigario.sss (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

State the Arabian file name and the English Wikipedia article name please.  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 20:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I am so sorry I did not reply in time. This is the picture on Arab Wikipedia: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/ملف:Moulay_mouhamed_ben_abde_arahman.jpg And this is this page google-translated to english: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ar&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Far.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2Fملف%3AMoulay_mouhamed_ben_abde_arahman.jpg&edit-text= And this is the English wikipedia page that needs this picture Muhammad IV of Morocco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigario.sss (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nigario.sss: although I don’t understand Arabic, I gather that this image is copyrighted and is hosted on ARWP under a claim of fair use. The same can be done here on ENWP, but a detailed fair-use rationale will be required, explaining how the image meets several criteria; please see that page and the guideline on non-free content.—Odysseus1479 05:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

How does one make a general disclaimer about accepting pay for writing articles?

I have never accepted pay for writing articles and never will. There seem to be plenty of suggestions in Wikipedia instructions about how to insinuate that a writer/editor has been paid for their volunteer contributions, but no standard way to refute the accusations.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

We generally give people the benefit of the doubt, and presume that they are not being paid. Unless of course, there is good evidence to the contrary, when we would encourage them to read our conflict of interest policies and make a clear statement about any COI and/or paid editing. As I start quite a lot of business articles, my userpage includes the statement, "I receive no payment for anything I write on Wikipedia." Edwardx (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Edwardx (talk). I will do the same.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mitzi.humphrey. See the standard template for paid editing disclosure {{Paid}}. See also the warning template series {{uw-paid1}}, {{uw-paid2}}, {{uw-paid3}} and {{uw-paid4}}--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Fuhghettaboutit (talk) I'll look at the template series to see how they vary from one another.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The text is correct?

First of all, my name is Joe Pastrana and i'm a new editor, i'd like to know about his opinions about the text is well-written and structured.

Here, I leave the text:

La Bolefuego or Candileja is a legendary character belonging to the folklores Colombian and Venezuelan, this is an apparition similar to a lamp which appears in the dark nights of the plains. It is said that this turn and sound with violence in addition to turn on and off constantly.

The legend

It is claimed which is the spirit of a woman they burned her alive in his own house with his two sons. She attacks travellers, which should not pray in his presence, because unlike of other evil beings, she is attracted to prayers that make her annoy.

I appreciate all of your opinions.

Joe Pastrana (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Thank you.Joe Pastrana (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Joe Pastrana - If you are asking whether the text in well-written in English, the answer is no. I have tagged La Bolefuego as needing copy-edit. I see that the citation that you provided is the original legend in Spanish. Can someone please improve the English? (I could improve the English, but it wouldn't help to improve the English if it wasn't consistent with the Spanish.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Joe Pastrana. It appears to me that you have translated La Bolefuego from the Spanish Wikipedia article es:Bolefuego. Is that correct? If so, then you need to credit the original Spanish article in an edit summary and to leave a note on the article's talk page, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Joe Pastrana, Robert McClenon and Cordless Larry – I have done some copy editing and added the attribution from the Spanish article. I believe it's properly written now, but am happy to hear further suggestions. –FlyingAce^✈hello 14:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the copy-edit tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Good Morning, Robert McClenon, Cordless Larry and FlyingAce I'm deeply grateful for the help provided, I sincerely apologize for translations errors. I didn't know how to start but i hope to be better at this. Thank you so much and happy day.

Make good edits for admin privileges

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have difficulty making good edits to Wikipedia, to become an admin. I wanna become an admin. I wanna know if the source is "questionable" or "reliable", so edits will not be reverted. Bemahewal (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

How much edits to become an admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bemahewal (talk • contribs) 22:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bemahewal. There is no hard and fast rule as to quantity of edits in order to become an admin. Displaying competence in a variety of areas including those that demonstrate a need for admin tools and facile knowledge about the project and its policies and guidelines through good edits and discussion (and a lack of bad edits) are much more important. That being said, a certain minimum number of edits is required for anyone to achieve the level of experience necessary to meet such goals, as well as to have a track record so that people can verify any candidate meets these expectations. So, without any number being the important part, I would say 5,000 (non-automated) edits would be a bare minimum, but again, simply having that minimum number of edits would be the least of what would be considered. I'm sorry but I think I have to bring up another [disqualifying] issue that is a simple reality here. Communication skills are very important for an administrator to have. Unless you become much more fluent in English, I do not believe there is any way you could ever become an administrator on this Wikipedia. You could instead concentrate on the Wikipedia in your native language. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Something I want to add to Fuhgettaboutit's answer, Bemahewal: in order to become an administrator, you need to have a good answer to the question "Why do you want to be an Admin?" A good answer will always be of the form "Because I want to serve Wikipedia in ... way, and I need the privileges to do this effectively". If you are looking to be an administrator for reasons of status or power, you almost certainly won't get granted the privileges. I have been an editor for over ten years, have made well over 10 000 edits, and have helped hundreds of people (I hope!) here and on the Help Desk. But I have never even requested to become an Admin, because I don't need to be for the way I want to contributed to Wikipedia, and conversely, I do not want to serve in the ways that would require me to be an Admin. --ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I wanna become an admin because I would like to experiment with the functions that only admins can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bemahewal (talk • contribs) 16:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Until you already know what at least most of the admin functions do, and how and more important why to use them, Bemahewal, you are not likely to be accepted as an admin. Edit steadily and productively, and ask again in 2-3 years. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Bemahewal - That is one of the worst arguments for becoming an admin that I have ever read. With power comes responsibility. Admins do not experiment with the functions that only admins have. An admin who experiments with the administrative functions is an admin who will result in demands for desysopping. If you think that you want to experiment with admin tools, you are a very long way away from being an admin. That is one of the worst arguments for being an admin that I have ever read. Learn better English so that you can contribute positively as an editor, or consider contributing to another Wikipedia in another language. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flag Icon for old countries

On Azerbaijan in World War II, there's a table of counties. All the countries have a flag icon for their respective country. To maintain consistency, I want to add the flag icon for two [former] nations. The Crimean ASSR and Byelorussian SSR, however there are no ISO codes for these two (for the {flagicon} template). How would I go about adding these two flags while maintaining the 25px x 15px size?

Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Toreightyone. You might be best asking for advice on this matter on the talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Finding things that actually NEED to be edited

I have had Wikipedia for 24 hours (more or less) and I've made over 100 edits already, but other users always criticize me on my edits... it's not very encouraging, considering the fact that I'm a new user here. I feel that I'm doing the wrong thing. If I stop editing, I suppose the other users would be satisfied, but I still want to contribute to this society... I have come across several articles that say 'needs citation' 'needs cleanup' or something. I feel that if I edit those articles, other users won't pick on me as much. Is there a certain way to find those articles? Thanks. Miles.mu (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Miles.mu. Welcome to the Teahouse. One place to start is at Category:Articles needing attention. You can find a lot of cleanup work to do there. About the criticism, try not to take it personally. Like you, we're all volunteers with limited time (and sometimes limited patience!), and sometimes we aren't quite as cordial as we could be. Do take any constructive criticism seriously—Wikipedia is a complex place with a steep learning curve, and the lessons we learn when we're new here will stand us in good stead a little further down the road. Good luck! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Miles.mu: I don't believe that other editors are "picking on" you. But if you add a grammatical error to an article, it's likely that another editor will remove it. They don't criticise you, they criticise the edit you made. Maproom (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Miles.mu: It's an exaggeration to say that other users always criticize you. Your changes of double spaces to single spaces were against Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Spaces following terminal punctuation. It's unlucky you made so many before an editor told you we don't make such changes. You may want to study Wikipedia:Manual of Style, or ask before making the same change a lot of times. I agree with the user saying this was an error. A conflict does not wage. It is waged by the participants. Your edit would have been correct if "waged" worked like "lasted" but it works like "fought". Maybe you can hear your version is wrong with "fought" instead of "waged". Please don't be discouraged by a few problems. You stopped the double space changes after being told. That's good. We all have to learn and respect rules. Some editors refuse to do that. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Template problems

I've been trying to make a template on the 2nd AP All-pro team. However, after I made some of it, it seems that the template called the 2016 AP All-pro team became for the 2nd team, and vice-versa for the other template. I've been trying to fix the two but it seems impossible, and I think I might have to delete both of them. Is there a way to fix the two templates by any means, or should I delete it. Can you help? Vinnylospo (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vinnylospo. Click the "View history" tab to see the edits: [1][2]. I have restored Template:2016 All-Pro Team to before your edits. You changed it to be about the 2nd team. I have copied that version to Template:2016 2nd All-Pro Team. I haven't checked the content beyond that. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

What's a rellable source for an article on a comic book?

The article on the comic book Tales of Beatrix is being proposed for deletion on the grounds that it doesn't exist. I know perfectly well that it does because I've read it, but what counts as a reliable source to prove that? For instance, would its inclusion on Amazon or Grand Comic Database (under alternative forms of the given title) be sufficient? If not, what? Lee M (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The Amazon entry proves that the comic exists, but doesn't prove its notability. The GCD entry does neither, as it appears to be editable by anyone, with no editorial control. What you need is to provide multiple reliable sources that talk about the comic in some length. It's up to you to find and use those sources. If you can't then the article won't survive. Rojomoke (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Editing at college/university

I'm not exactly new anymore but figured this would be the best place to ask. If I log into my Wikipedia account from school, and my IP address appears to be the same as a vandal or disruptive editor (IP or not), what are the chances I will be accused of being connected to them in some way? If this happens, how can I remedy this? My account was made at home and I've made a significant amount of edits away from school. Aspening (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aspening, and welcome to the teahouse. One of the big advantages of creating an account is that you will not be blamed for any edits from an anonymous IP address, and you will not receive warning messages directed at vandals from your school. In the unlikely event of an investigation, it will be clear that you are an innocent party. Just make sure that you do not allow anyone else to use your account, so you might need to log out of Wikipedia at the end of your session on a public computer (though this will be automatic when you log off on some systems). Dbfirs 06:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Boško Todorović

Hello. I did a major copyedit on about the first third of Boško Todorović. It was reverted in full and sadly, a rather unflattering comment was added. I am looking for a quick opinion on whether the copy edit was indeed so bad or have I simply struck a difficult article. I am happy to move on to other work but only if I am actually being helpful. Kind regards and my thanks, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Myrtlegroggins: when you delete hundreds of characters of content, but describe it in your edit summary as a copyedit, some editors may form the view that deliberate dishonesty is involved. Maproom (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Maproom. on reflection, I can see from the comments made to me today that I need to be more mindful of the way that I describe changes made in the edit summary. I can assure you I was editing in good faith but I can see now how I could have upset the other editor. I am understanding that my main error was a lack of care and consideration in the copyediting process rather than the changes I made in the syntax in the main part of the article per se. I will leave well alone but I hope a good copyedit of the article can be completed at some point. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

MyrtlegrogginsWhile far from a copy edit expert, I will throw out two additional suggestions. The first is based upon my observation that while a copy added in theory is supposed to be something that is noncontroversial, there are many examples of proposed edits that may seem noncontroversial to one editor but not so convincing to another. A problem will arise if you do 20 changes in a single edit and 18 are exceedingly straightforward, but some other editor disagrees with two of them, they may prefer to revert the entire edit rather than simply override the two they disagree with. This might be especially true if they start looking at your edits and find the one or two they disagree with early in the list. One solution is to make smaller edits. Make two or three or four changes in one edit, rinse and repeat. Then if someone finds one they disagree with, the reversion only affects two or three or four rather than 20.

A second observation is there are times you might want to do a large-scale change the tone, and it may not work well to do a sentence or two at a time. When you are planning to do something like this, it may be a good idea to write down the revised version in an external editor, then post a note on the talk page with a before and after and asked for feedback. Maybe somebody will quibble with one or two words and you can reach a consensus and then make the large edit. Or they may be simply happy that you asked before making it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick I appreciate your suggestions very much and I will do them. I have also made a heartfelt apology to the other editor involved. My enthusiasm got ahead of my care to others which is never what I would wish to have happen. Thank you for taking the time to comment, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

How to open article wizard

Hello,i want to ask that if i have to open article wizard, then what i have to do.If i open the article wizard page on Wikipedia then it first page shows introduction and second,third,fourth,fifth and sixth page shows subject, notability, sources, content and end respectively.I don't know what to do now?Md.Yahiya Kamal (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Md.Yahiya Kamal. The article wizard starts at Wikipedia:Article wizard and has clickable boxes to navigate it, for example "Write an article now (for new users)" on the first page. What do you want to do? When you get to the "End" page there should be an option to create a draft or article if that's what you want. If you get stuck then post a link to the page where you are stuck. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this sites claims valid?

This site claims Wikipedia has an anti-conservitive Christianity bias. This is of course a site with worse bias then us, however I'm not confident that its claims are untrue. If you cannot answer it, could you dirrect me to someone who will. Thank you for your time and consideration.22mikpau (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

User:22mikpau - That site, as you recognize, has a deliberate bias, and it sees differing views as biased. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello 22mikpau. Wikipedia does not have any bias as a matter of policy: on the contrary, the policy is for articles to be neutral. However, it is inevitable that there will be biases for various reasons, most obviously from the self-selection of its editors and the things that they choose to write about. Some people may regard policies such as WP:FRINGE as inherently biased. You may find some useful information in the essay WP:systemic bias. --ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not have any bias as a matter of policy". Having read some wikipedia articles, I highly doubt this. Notralphwaite5 (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Notralphwaite5 - Wikipedia does not have any bias as a matter of policy. Wikipedia does not have any bias as a matter of policy. If you think that we have biases as a matter of policy, please find the policy that specifies the bias and call it to our attention. If you mean that some articles have biases, that is unfortunately true, and is against policy, and we have procedures for addressing those biases. However, individual editors not only have biases, but see presentation that differs from their own views as biased. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

What to do about a new editor who is listing everything for deletion?

Hi, so a new editor is aggressively listing articles for deletion and voting for deletion on things - at times so quickly between actions they couldn't possibly have done proper due diligence (e.g. basic internet search) to check whether the subject is notable before claiming they are not - and not following wikipedia policy WP:BEFORE. Basically, the editor is creating work for others who then have to come and defend pages to stop them from being deleted. While the articles often have flaws in them, tagging them for cleanup, starting a discussion, or improving the articles prior to listing for deletion would I believe be the correct thing to do. In defending the pages people have suggested to the editor s/he has an incorrect perspective on when something should be deleted, or what is notable, WP:RS or how to address neutrality issues (as these are the main arguments the editor uses for deletion) however the editor continues to argue even when others have stepped in and improved the articles. This seems to be very troll-like behaviour, and it is destructive, time-consuming, stressful. I myself am only fairly new on wikipedia, so don't really know what to do. Powertothepeople (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you point us to some examples?--Moxy (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Think Powertothepeople is talking about this article Muslim Women's National Network Australia and its deletion request Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Women's National Network Australia. Appears DGG goes through and finds articles to nominated for deletion. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 21:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

DGG has been editing since 2006, NZ Footballs Conscience, so isn't new and therefore presumably isn't the editor Powertothepeople refers to. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Oops sorry you are right, missed the bit about it being a new editor. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 21:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

fwiw, I have for many years been challenging articles I think borderline in some respect, not just to express my own perceptions but to help clarify the guidelines for others. it is just as satisfying to me if a questionable article I challenge is resolved as keep as if it is resolved as delete, as longas it is resolved as a guide to others. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry DGG I wasn't implying in anyway what you do is wrong, I just thought that was who OP was talking about but had missed the bit where they said new editor. Just the article was one OP worked on and you had nominated which is how I came across it NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 06:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't want to name the person in case that was considered 'shaming' or create friction etc. Not DGG in this case. GretLomborg was who I was writing about, but please delete his name if it is not a good idea to claim publicly. On my radar due to this page he listed for deletion [3] and when someone mentioned towards the end of the discussion that he a new editor focussed on Afd I had a look at his contributions and thought it odd that some of his listings and votes for deletion and were so close together without time imho to properly assess whether the article should be deleted. I looked at a couple of them, and to my mind he was acting prematurely without really checking before listing. However I don't pretend to have done a thorough analysis of his activities (another reason I don't feel great about naming him), and I didn't want to stalk him and contest all his listings that I disagree with as that is poor form. So I kind of wanted advice about how this sort of thing should be approached. Thanks Powertothepeople (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

badges from wikipedia for my editing work?

I have been an active wiki editor since 2013. please tell me if earning badges for your work from wiki is important? how can we earn those badges? Sachsach (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sachsach. I suppose it depends on what motivates you. I have been editing for more than 10 years and can't remember receiving many badges (or barnstars, as they are known), but that doesn't bother me because I find instrinsic reward in editing. Others may feel differently. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Larry.. You truly are an inspiration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachsach (talk • contribs) 16:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Editors may display Service awards if thy choose, Sachsach. I do. Some find them motivating. Some find them useful to indicate roughly their level of experience. But no one should take them too seriously. barnstars are basically thank yous, and any editor may "award" them to another, when s/he thinks them appropriate. But please don't take actions primarily in hope of getting a barnstar. You may be disappointed. Also, take a look at Wikipedia:Awards. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Was act of administrator right?

Once I was gathering information about female anatomy in my sandbox. A administrator deleted the page when I was editing it. The administrator notified me We are not here so that you can develop your porn gallery. I discussed this matter on this teahouse. First read it. In light of this, I ask was act of that administrator right?

Sinner (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I had previously noticed that you had been maintaining a page of images of female nudity, Nazim Hussain Pak, and wondered why when you were also asking here at the Teahouse how you could prevent such images from displaying. It is confusing to me why you were complaining about "porn" on Wikipedia, and at the same time building a page of it. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: The full deletion rationale was: "U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host: also: no non-free content, and we're not here so you can make your porn gallery".[4] Blue text is links. Some of the images like File:Destiny's Child – Nasty Girl.png are non-free and were uploaded with a fair use rationale for a specific article. Non-free images are disallowed in userspace per point 9 at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy. If you want to view images of the female anatomy then please watch them where they are or download them to your own computer. Don't use Wikipedia to make a publicly visible gallery with them. All Wikipedia pages are publicly visible. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability and references

I have been working on an entry that was declined first for references and now notability. My question is does the Title make the instances be acceptable. I am writing about a former member of Pretty Ricky but the title is his real name, should I title it different?

Thull2011 Thull2011 (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Thull2011 and welcome to the Teahouse. It's the references that matter because good references establish WP:Notability. You should use whatever name the independent references use. The existing references are very weak. See WP:Reliable sources. Dbfirs 19:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this... normal?

Normal or bug?

Robertgombos (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Robertgombos: it's normal. When you created your account, you are creating an account on every WMF Wikipedia for all languages. I am willing to bet that all those messages are "welcome to Wikipedia" in various languages. If you don't want to see notifications from other wikis then go to Preferences -> Notifications and uncheck the box towards the bottom labelled "Show notifications from other wikis". Nthep (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Nthep, my account is 5 year old, but only today made it to the 100th edit. :) It was just a bit strange coming all notifications at once. Thank you! Robertgombos (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I've never had a slew of notifications like that, but I do get them from versions of Wikipedia that I've never edited before from time to time. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I understand. I just thought that is advisable to post the printscreen because I wanted to make sure there isn;t an error of some kind. Robertgombos (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Robertgombos: Accounts work at hundreds of wikis run by the Wikimedia Foundation. If you (or your browser via some feature?) visit a wiki for the first time while logged in then your account is automatically created there. Special:CentralAuth/Robertgombos shows 50 such account creations today within 2 minutes. In many of them you got a welcome message on your talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, I see, thank you for the heads up. Robertgombos (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Question from Truthandseek

Thank you for the invite, I have several articles ready for submission, but as of right now my main concern is having an admin that's abused his power over a subject that needs to comply with the rules and guidelines to release his hold on the subject.Truthandseek 20:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthandseek (talk • contribs)

This user has received an indefinite CheckUser block. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, PrimeHunter. I know nothing about the conflict under discussion here and have no interest in it, but I heard mental ambiguity-alarm bells at your reply. Does "This user has received an indefinite CheckUser block" refer to Truthandseek (whose account I see has been closed) or to the unnamed admin that T&s is accusing of abuse of power? --Thnidu (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: the block refers to Truthandseek - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krisdegioia/Archive. Nthep (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep: Thanks. I just looked at the sockpuppet investigations page. Yecchh. Big thanks to Vanjagenije, Mkdw, and the other contributors there! I'll stick to the Wikipediating I enjoy and can manage. --Thnidu (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

how to upload

How to upload https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Margaret_Handwerker ?Isabella Zuralski (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Isabella Zuralski and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft is already uploaded, so I think you want to know how to submit it for review. The draft needs a lot of work before it is ready for submission. Wikipedia has no interest in what an artist has to say about herself, but only in what WP:Reliable sources say about her. You need to find independent publications in which the subject has been discussed at length to establish WP:Notability, and add these references to the draft, otherwise it can never become part of Wikipedia. There are also some problems with the layout and formatting of the draft, but these can easily be fixed if the subject proves notable in the Wikipedia sense. Dbfirs 20:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. I will work on proper references. Isabella Zuralski (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I want to contribute some articles about technology and gadgets.

I want to contribute some articles on tech-related topics or if any edition to any tech article if needed how can I do so please give me some suggestions.

Thank you very much.

Shashankgizmos (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you want to write about any specific technology, any you have in mind? Did you search for technology articles in your area of interest and look to see if you could contribute to those? Notralphwaite5 (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Shashankgizmos, You may find WikiProject Technology helpful to see existing technology articles. From there, you might identify articles that can be added and existing articles for you to improve. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

new member editing suggested articles

When I first joined, there was a banner that brought me to articles that needed editing. How do I get there again? Or how do I find articles that need editing? Notralphwaite5 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Notralphwaite5. If you want to access that same page, copy this code: ?gettingStartedReturn=true → navigate to any random article → place your cursor in your browser's address bar after the existing URL → paste the copied code → hit enter. See also the Wikipedia:Community Portal, which contains a list of various tasks you can help out with. You can transclude its list of open tasks into your user talk page or user page by adding the code {{Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask}} to the one or the other. You can also sign up for delivery of suggested articles to edit at User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fuhg.... Thanks for the response. Where exactly do I copy that code to? I tried putting it on my user talk page but it doesn't seem to do anything. Any help appreciated. Notralphwaite5 (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

However, through the community portal, I found this list of articles that need editing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_needing_copy_edit

so thanks.

Notralphwaite5 (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

AfD reminders

What do you do if you have a page (you) nominated for deletion, but still, after more than a week, still hasn't received significant attention from either admins to close the discussion or editors contributing to an outcome? How would one (an editor,) raise the amount of discussion on and attract more attention for a stalling, if not completely stalled, AfD discussion, and draw it to a conclusion? alphalfalfa^(talk) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, alphalfalfa. It is always helpful to provide a link to the discussion in question. Based on your edit history, I am assuming that you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alumni Chapel (The Hill School). If so, I suggest that you do nothing further. Two editors support deleting the article and none yet support keeping it. You do not want to be perceived as canvassing for deletion. Wait for an administrator to close the debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Article with several issues

I've made a number of edits to an article (Isidro A. T. Savillo) that I think has a lot of problems, which I have tried to correct in my edits. Often another editor (usually an IP address) will revert my changes and/or make a snarky comment in the article's talk page and I've tried to respond to these comments by referring to wikipedia's guidelines, but it's very difficult to actually have any sort of discussion about the article. I've tried to avoid nominating the article for deletion, but as I've learned more about wikipedia's standards, the more I think it would be appropriate in this case. Is there anywhere I could have more experienced editors look over the article to see if it has the same issues I've identified? For this page, I think the main issue if that the subject doesn't meet the notability criteria for an academic and that a lot of the article contains trivial information. madambaster (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You're right. It is a long and superficially impressive article, but I am struggling to see how he passes WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Have nominated it, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isidro A. T. Savillo. Edwardx (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

my profile was deleted

dear, why my profile was deleted Apkidunya (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not host profiles. Maproom (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Apkidunya - You made the mistake of asking about a "profile". Don't use that term in Wikipedia discussions. Wikipedia is not a directory or a social medium. Wikipedia has encyclopedic articles that must be justified by notability. User:Maproom was abrupt in answering your question, but was correct. Referring to Wikipedia articles as "profiles" can lead to incorrect assumptions, and to deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Apkidunya The use of the word "profile" discussed above, and what it implied about the use of Wikipedia for am inimical purpose is borne out. The entry very much read as a "profile" for, say, linkedIn or Facebook, and very much did not read like an encyclopedia article, nor is its subject likely to meet the standards for an one, as referred to above, and was properly deleted as "blatant advertising" under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. The notice left on your talk page referred to this basis for the deletion, and provided links to a number of other standards and guidelines to explain the deletion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

username

I signed up today. Forgot to capitalize my surname's first letter. How can I edit that?? Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user Koushik ghar.

Koushik ghar, you can ask for a name change following the directions at Wikipedia:Changing username. ~ GB fan 10:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

How to open Draft

Hello, i have to ask that how to open a draft which was created by another person.Means that, for example if a person has created a draft on a project then how to open it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.Yahiya Kamal (talk • contribs) 12:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Md.Yahiya Kamal. If you know the name of the draft, you can just type it in the search box, preceded by Draft: (eg "Draft:Rolls Royce Cullinan" in the next question). If you know the user name of the person who created it, you can look at their contributions by typing "Special:Contributions/User name" in the search box (eg Special:Contributions/Md.Yahiya Kamal), and then picking a link to the page. You have to get the name exactly right. --ColinFine (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you sir.Md.Yahiya Kamal (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving draft when redirect exists

I wanted to accept Draft:Rolls Royce Cullinan. However a redirect page Rolls Royce Cullinan already exists. How can this be moved Jupitus Smart 13:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You'll need to request it, Jupitus Smart. See WP:MOR. --ColinFine (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Jupitus Smart tag the redirect with {{db-move}}, but this time I'll just do it for you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Deliberately misleading information

I found a deliberately misleading and biased info in a page. I fixed the info but the author of the misleading reverted my editing back to the original misleading info. In addition, he sent me in a notice that I am in an editing war and that I could be blocked when all I did was to fix the misleading info. In fact the question is about an internationally recognized country border versus the political view of a secessionist movement that has no legal and international bases. All I am asking is that Wikipedia should not serve a particular political propaganda of a mouvement, region or country and should stick to the facts. My intention is not to go for or against something or anything but just to stick to the facts and the only guidance being: are the borders reflecting the reality and the legality of the international law as defined by the United Nations ( country being a member of the United Nation).

Thus my question: What are the best option to fix misleading information deliberately added to a Wikipedia page? Axmedi (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Axmedi (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Axmedi - Read the dispute resolution policy. Discuss the issue on the article talk page. If that fails, the dispute resolution policy lists several ways to try to resolve the dispute. If you have any specific questions about any of these methods of dispute resolution, you may ask here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There are other cities in this region. How about using the phrasing from Hargeisa: "the self-declared but internationally unrecognised Republic of Somaliland in the Horn of Africa"? A discussion was started three months ago on the talk page of the article in question. Dbfirs 16:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

My article was deleted based on conformity to wikipedia guidelines.

Hello,

I'll be needing a clear-cut assistance on how my article can meet Wikipedia standards. Though i have gone through the necessary guidelines but i feel i'll be needing the assistance of a professional who is conversant with how information are posted as a guide. Thank you Olusegun Ajakaiye (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Olusegun Ajakaiye - You won't like this advice, but experienced editors will agree with it. First, do not try to use Wikipedia to host your autobiography, and do not try to get it to "meet Wikipedia standards"; it probably won't, and you will be wasting your time. Second, I very strongly advise you not to try to get the assistance of a "professional", that is, a paid Wikipedia writer. Wikipedia very strongly disapproves of paid editing, and many paid editors make grandiose claims about their editing ability that are not true. Most articles by paid editors are deleted, and paid editors are banned as quickly as we can ban them. Don't waste your time and money hiring a paid editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Help Needed Regarding a Historical article

Hi Guys, i have been recently working on an athlete page from USA who was active in the years 1928-1930. He won a silver medal in Olympics. I researched a lot but very little information is available about him. Nevertheless, i found a website where historical images were stored and the preview of that image contains watermark of the website since the pictures are paid.

My Question is that in order to link that rare image(only 1 found so far) to the article. Can we copy that image directly from the site(with the watermark)? and upload it to Wikimedia?(Since, CC license holds there) or we leave it simply? Rafiq Marbaros (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rafiqmarbaros: if you have found a site (Getty Images?) where images can be purchased and the preview image contains a watermark then it is very unlikely that the image is covered by a Creative Commons licence so no do not upload the image to Commons either with or without the watermark. Annoying as it is, we just have to accept there are subjects where finding a suitable illustration isn't possible. Nthep (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep: thank you for clearing my doubts, i wont. However, the image source is Historical Images and the page is Ben Hedges

I assume that you refer to <http://www.historicimages.com/1929-press-photo-ben-hedges-of-princeton-wins-high-jump-at-penn-relays>, Rafiqmarbaros. I don't see any indication that that image, or any image at www.historicimages.com is available under a Creative Commons license or any free license, and I don't think this would qualify as fair use. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: that's exactly what i thought that's why asked here. Thank you Rafiq Marbaros (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I have made it as a reference as per your suggestions :) Rafiq Marbaros (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia exist?

If you've already got Brittanica and Oracle and Americana and whatnot, doesn't Wikipedia seem pretty redundant? The other one (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on your previous edits, I doubt that you're looking for an actual, substantial response here, but I'll provide one as best I can: If you go to the 'About' page, there is a section labeled "Wikipedia vs paper encyclopedias", (*here*), which gives a fairly decent explanation. Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 16:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you think that, I think it might be time for...

WHY ADVANTAGES ARE DISADVANTAGES

1. Wikipedia has unlimited room to expand, thus making it too big.

2. Sure, it has “privileges” and “blocks” and “guidelines” and whatnot, but can you imagine writing in an encyclopedia?! It’s like painting over the Sistine Chapel! Unacceptable!

3. So it’s out of date. Pbshhht. Deal with it and buy a new one. Plus, I think we should stick with our traditional beliefs. What’s wrong with the old ones?

4. If you want knowledge, you need to buy it. If it’s free, it’s probably garbage.

5. Yeah, see? Computers have costs, too!

6. The links can merely be replaced with “FOR MORE INFO, SEE _______.”

7. That’s for people who are lazy.

8. Physical encyclopedias have no risk of poor edits.

See? Physical: 1, Digital: 0.

-The other one (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

If you don't like Wikipedia, might I suggest not reading Wikipedia? If, by some chance, you are strapped to a chair with your eyelids tied open in front of a monitor showing a scrolling Wikipedia feed with The Wikipedia Song blasting in the background, then let me address this message to your captors: First of all, keep up the good work. Secondly, please take away his keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• I know I should not feed the troll, but (4) is petitio principii (WP is bad because it is free hence it is bad), (5) is a strawman now that the Encyclopœdia Britannica has switched to digital-only, and (8) is demonstrably false. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Promotional v. non-promotional articles.

What makes an article promotional in nature and how do I avoid that? Mariaabalu (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

If an article promotes or praises someone or something, it is promotional, Mariaabalu. This does not mean just commercial advertising, although that is surely promotional. Advocacy for a cause is promotional. Admiration for a person is promotional. An attempt to "raise awareness" about an organization, a concept, a trend, a meme, or anything else is promotional. Proper Wikipedia articles should be neutral. They should state facts, largely supported by sources. Any opnions or judgements should be be attributed to a named person or entity, preferably in a direct quotation, and should be cited to a source inline.

To avoid promotion, avoid adjectives of praise, avoid expressing judgements, stick closely to what the reliable sources say. Use independent sources as much as possible. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @DESiegel!

I tried to edit this page, Pamela Abalu, but people kept saying it was promotional in nature. If you don't mind, would you look at it (view the history too lol) and tell me how I could have edited it better? I used tried to use as many sources as I could. Would appreciate your input, but also ok if not! Mariaabalu (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Consider your most recent addition to Pamela Abalu. Itt makes claims, in Wikipedia's voice, that sound like something from a web site or brochure written to persuade potential clients to hire the subject. One specific claim it makes is abstract and not objectively verifiable even if it were reliably sourced. And it isn't reliably sourced; the source (which is incorrectly placed as an inline external link instead of a reference) is an fluff piece containing an interview in which the subject makes claims about her own work. So you're using the subject's own claims about herself to construct ostensibly factual, highly positive statements about her in an encyclopedia article. Please read again the advice DES wrote to you above. That last edit you made basically contravenes every part of it. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

A secondary point is that though "Pamela is an architect whose work has evolved beyond physical structures to digital infrastructure" is meant well, it may make the reader suspect that she is a bullshitter rather than a real architect who designs real buildings. Maproom (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

is this relevant

is a passing mention that someone has a ratemyprofessor score of 3.2 of 5 in violation of BLP (or perhaps OR)? I don't see how it's germane to anything. Asmrulz (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Asmrulz. The only time I might consider including that in a biography of an academic would be if it had been reported in a secondary source such as a newspaper article. Otherwise, I would delete it. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

thanks, so I did Asmrulz (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Good. The other one (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ralph Yirikian

Can someone please fix the article Ralph Yirikian? Please ping me when responding. Thanks in advance, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Well @The Quixotic Potato:, do you have something in mind that you'd like to see fixed? If so, I'd think that the Talk page for the article (*which is currently empty*) would be a better place to propose changes. Also, if you can make the changes yourself, please be WP:Bold and do so yourself, within the limitations of the Wikipedia guidelines. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@NsTaGaTr: Hi! I currently have 6710 preparsed articles on my AWB todo list, so I am kinda busy. You can get a good idea about the stuff I would like to get fixed by looking at the edit I made on that article. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, The Quixotic Potato. I think you might have misunderstood what the purpose of the Teahouse is. The Teahouse is a place to learn about editing Wikipedia, not to ask other editors to do tasks that you have identified but don't have time for. We could perhaps suggest places to ask for help with this, but you shouldn't expect Teahouse hosts to fix the article for you. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: You are way too kind! Thank you. In fact I am fully aware of the fact that this place is not intended to ask other editors to do tasks I have identified but don't have time for but I am also aware of the fact that some of the people who hang out here are willing to improve articles like this one, and that they won't mind me asking. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The help desk or Village Pump (miscellaneous) might be a better venue. Or the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, if there is one and it's reasonably active. That said, your approach seems to be working Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 22:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved {{{access_date}}}. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

As a newbie. Can't figure this one out. What did I do wrong. Where my mistake was made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Forney_High_SchoolFranklyFrank (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @FranklyFrank:! No worries, I fixed it for you. Basically the problem is that Template:NCES Private School ID requires an accessdate, which is the date used in the cite reference. I added a access_date parameter and used today's date. Help:Templates contains loads of useful info about templates on Wikipedia. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Quixotic_PotatoFranklyFrank (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

My page enVerid Systems, Inc. got blocked.

Hi,

The page that I've submitted 2 weeks ago got blocked for the following 2 reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sashawarnerpr

I'm trying to get some clarification on what needs to be changed/adjusted in order to be approved. Can you please help me understand that? Would highly appreciated.

Best, SashaSashawarnerpr (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sashawarnerpr: I can't see your page since it was deleted(not blocked). However, the 'pr' in your name suggests to me that you are a public relations employee within the company you are writing about. If that's true, it would be a conflict of interest(please review) and you would also be required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to read and comply with the paid editing policy and declare any paid association you have with the company.

Without seeing your page, I'm not sure why the Test page criterion was applied- but I can say that the other criterion was likely applied because the page did not indicate with independent reliable sources how the company meets the notability guidelines for companies. As an encyclopedia, it isn't enough for a Wikipedia page to merely give information or simply state that a company exists. If you do have a conflict of interest, the only way you will likely be permitted to write about your own company is through Articles for Creation, and that's only if you have the appropriate independent sources. I'd suggest reading the FAQ page about organizations and the page on creating your first article before even attempting to create a page at Articles for Creation. If you have any other questions, please post them below. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sashawarnerpr: your wording "what needs to be changed/adjusted in order to be approved" assumes that something could be done to get your proposed article accepted. I think your assumption is mistaken. Maproom (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Sashawarnerpr. After it was deleted as a blatant advertisement, you recreated the title but with an inquiry about the deletion itself rather than with the prior content, and asked what part of the page was blatant advertising. The answer is the entire page, which was lifted from the company's press release here (and so was also an illegal copyright violation), which not only reads like a commercial, but actually is one. This is a misuse of Wikipedia, which is not an advertising platform. It any acceptable page was possible (and after edit conflicting with Maproom above, I must say I agree, no page is likely possible) it would need to be written in an entirely different manner, not to sell it, but to present a neutral write-up, referring to published, reliable, secondary, independent sources that have written about it is substantive detail. If those types of sources don't exist, no acceptable article could ever be written. Emphasizing something already listed above, do not make any further edits at Wikipedia until you comply with mandatory paid editing disclosure.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

using photos from our facebook page

Hi. I am a member of Sen. Panfilo Lacson's media team, and had been editing/updating the Wikipedia page for Panfilo Lacson. I uploaded 2 photos from our Facebook page Monday night, July 10. The photos on our Facebook page are for public consumption but Wikipedia deleted them this morning, July 11, citing copyright violation as the reason. While our Facebook page has not yet been verified, it has been continuously updated. Would it be prudent to just re-upload the photos and indicate them as our work? Sorry, I am relatively new to editing articles on Wikipedia, and I do get confused by some of the questions in the uploading process. I'd appreciate some guidance. Thanks. Iampinglacson.media (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Iampinglacson.media, and welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia only allows freely-licensed photos of living people to be used in articles. Most content is not freely-licensed unless the copyright holder has released the image so anyone can use the image, for any reason, including for commercial purposes. Because there was no evidence that the images are freely licensed, they were deleted. If the copyright holder (usually the photographer, unless they have signed a legal document transferring the rights) wishes to make such a release, they should fill out the form at c:Commons:Email templates and send it to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Once that is complete, the images will be restored, so you should not reupload them yourself. --AntiCompositeNumber (Ring me) 01:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

How can I correct a typo in an article on the Italian entomologist Antonio Berlese?

the error is in the references at the end of the article.76.91.204.92 (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Look for the part of the page has the little "[1]" (or other number). That's where the reference's text is actually defined, not the "References" section at the bottom. Player 03 (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Player 03: See Antonio Berlese. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Oops! Guess I should have checked. Player 03 (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antonio_Berlese&action=edit (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorting a bulleted list alphabetically

Hi, I have been trying to find the code for sorting a bulleted list of names alphabetically on a page. I have been searching for the code for quite some time now. (I know a little bit of Wikipedia editing. Coming back after many years.) Thankfully, HostBot brought me here.Adobeinfuse (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you might have to do it by hand, or use an external tool. You can sort tables and pages in a category, but I can't find anything about sorting lists. Here's one external tool you could use. I can't personally vouch for it, but WOT users seem to trust it. Player 03 (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It worked!Adobeinfuse (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Adobeinfuse: People are usually sorted by surname, not just in Wikipedia but almost everywhere except a few non-English speaking countries. The list was already sorted correctly before you sorted it by first name so I have reverted your edit. I kept the annotation you added to one of the entries. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

unsure about needed edit

i was looking through an article, and found a wrong statement. it was a broad enough error that it caught my attention, but i do not know the particulars enough to feel comfortable editing it myself (never edited before). advice?68.26.161.63 (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

My first suggestion is to go to the talk page and explain what's wrong. Then someone else can come along, review the situation, and help you fix it. You can also add a "{{citation needed}}" tag, which will add a template stating "unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Though when you add one of those, you're supposed to explain yourself on the talk page, so you'll be doing that either way. Player 03 (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Audio alternative for CAPTCHA

I'm a visually impaired contributor who needs to bypass CAPTCHA. Audio alternatives as well as Google's no-CAPTCHA algorithms existed for a while now, so it's unfit for Wikipedia not to utilize one of these until now. Please Help! Vtsaran (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Vtsaran. Welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I can tell, this is not something that the English Wikipedia community has any control over. I'm not sure what could be done to light a fire under those who might be able to direct resources to fix it, but it is apparently has been a known issue since 2006—see this bug report. I find that disappointing. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Vtsaran. You're seeing CAPTCHA because your account is not confirmed (see WP:Confirmed). Normally your account will become confirmed automatically when it is over four days old and has over ten edits (this is called autoconfirmed). But since you have an accessibility reason to want to bypass the CAPTCHA, I think you could request to be made confirmed at the following page: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Omar Amanat article and COI

Hi, I have no idea if this is the right forum for my question, but I have been trying to get some help with an issue, and so far have gotten nowhere. It appears to me there is someone with a clear COI making false statements on the Omar Amanat article. I addressed the issue on the article's Talk page, plus I carefully followed the directions to post on the COI Noticeboard, and got no response there either. I do not want to have an editing war with this other editor, but I think he should be blocked from editing on Omar Amanat's wiki page. I dont want to repeat everything I've already written, so here are the links to the pages where I have reached out for help, but so far have not gotten any.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Omar_Amanat#COI_Editor.3F.3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_araneo#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion

I appreciate any help you can give, either advice on what to do next, or for editors to look into this and decided themselves what needs to be done next. Thanks, Jeremy Harrison (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jeremy Harrison. I understand you're frustrated—sometimes it's hard to get other users' attention, and things move very slowly, but try to be patient. Making similar posts in multiple places can look like forum shopping, which is frowned on. The user whose actions you're questioning, User:J araneo, has made no edits since 3 July, one day before you posted to their page, so it's entirely possible they haven't seen your message yet. They've also made only 4 edits this year to Omar Amanat, and various experienced editors have edited the article in the interim, so it's not as if there's a huge problem brewing in secret or anything like that. You've made some accusations about that user on the article's talk page. It's best not to do that; an article's talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not user conduct. If you believe another user's actions warrant a block or ban, the proper place to request that is WP:ANI, but be very sure of what you're alleging before you post there. My advice, for what it's worth, is that you avoid all noticeboards for the time being and turn your attention to other articles. You've brought this article to the community's attention; now let the community act or not, as it will. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. You are right, I can sometimes be impatient. I will take your advice and wait a bit longer before I take any other actions. Jeremy Harrison (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Page Creation

How can I add a new page? Peter Kelford (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Peter Kelford: Hello and welcome. I would begin by stating that successfully creating a new Wikipedia article is one of the hardest things to do here. It takes time, practice, and effort to learn exactly how it is done. Many new editors who dive into doing so often experience difficulty. Editors that start out by making edits to existing articles often fare better because they have learned some about how Wikipedia works and the sorts of things other editors look for in articles. If you still want to attempt to write an article, I would suggest reviewing this page about doing so first, then visiting Article Wizard, which lays out the steps in creating a page. Good luck, and if you have any other questions, please post them below. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about a file

I want to know is there any problem with the file File:Mirza Muhammad Rafi Sauda.jpg which can lead to its deletion in future?

Sinner (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Assuming the tagging information is correct, the file is a faithful reproduction of a work of art from 1770. Going by Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights, the work of art is therefore out of copyright in India (and in the US).

However, the question is whether the file itself is out of copyright since the tag says it was taken off a Google search. In the US a faithful reproduction of a painting would be, but I am not entirely sure that is the case in India. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

For more information visit last section of this talk page

Sinner (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

United States Copyright

We should add United States public domain tag to every file we upload to Wikimedia commons. What should we do if the work has never been published in United States?

Sinner (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sinner. I'm not sure quite what you mean, since many (probably most, but I'm not certain) images in Commons are not public domain, but licensed under CC-BY-SA or similar. Perhaps commons:commons:TAG will tell you what you want to know. --ColinFine (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sinner. This is s slight oversimplification but:

• For a published work other than a sound recording, if the author is unknown and it was published anywhere in the world before 1923, it is considered public domain in the U.S.
• For an unpublished foreign work other than a sound recording, if the author is known, it is considered public domain in the U.S. 70 years after the death of the author (so is PD for any author who died before 1947).
• For a foreign work other than a sound recording, if you don't know about publication or who the author, it is considered public domain in the U.S. if created more than 120 years ago (so is PD if created before 1897).

Refer to here for nuance. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

'Neutral' point of view

Hi I have submitted a few drafts of an article and the first time around the notability was questioned, admittedly from my own lack of knowledge and ability to find sources. I've added to the page a bit and was told that it would be fine to have references to the company's own page as while these aren't 'notable' sources, they help provide more information. Now I have gotten a comment that it isn't neutral enough. However, this is a vague comment and I don't think I particularly agree. Any tips on what might make this better? It's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Business_Centre_Association_(BCA) Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annacarroll (talk • contribs) 09:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I still doubt that the subject is notable. I haven't checked all the references, but those I have checked do nothing to establish notability. Which sources do you believe contribute to establishing the subject's notability? Maproom (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Page deleted for advertising

Hi everybody,

Our page Republic of Gamers (ROG) was deleted for the reason of advertising. Unfortunately, the page cannot be edited anymore. Is there a way to edit the page again and seek help in case we are not sure whether the language and content used is against WIKIPEDIA's guidelines?

Thank you! Stefan Mitzkus (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Stefan Mitzkus. Indeed, "deleted" means "deleted" - a deleted page is not visible, except to admins. If you ask RHaworth, (the admin who deleted the page twice today) they may be willing to reinstate it in your user space for you to work on; but only if they judge that there is something worth keeping in it: often when a page is deleted as "unambiguous advertising or promotion" that is not the case, because it would need to be completely rewritten.

Please understand that it is not, and never will be "your page", that promotion of any kind is not accepted in Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what any subject (be it a company, a band, a person, or anything else) says or wants to say about itself. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection at all with a subject have chosen to write about it, and get published somewhere reliable. Please read about notability. Also note that if you are in any way connected with Republic of Gamers, you are discouraged from writing an article about it, precisely because you are likely to find it hard to be neutral: see conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Add a note - since I pinged RAHaworth in that reply, they will be notified of the reply anyway. --ColinFine (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Stefan Mitzkus: Possibly you could consider expanding an existing section on ROG at Asus#Republic of Gamers (ROG) first? Of course, if you decide to do so, you'll have to keep your contribution compliant with Wikipedia policies described at WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:WWIN (esp. sections at WP:NOTPROMO and WP:RAWDATA) – or you risk it will be reverted, as it happened to Republic of Gamers (ROG). --CiaPan (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Please, no expansion! I have willingly re-created Republic of Gamers (ROG) but I request Stefan Mitzkus (talk · contribs) and YiTingLiu1992 (talk · contribs) to stay well away from Wikipedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

RHaworth, it is compeltely inappropriate to ask editors to "stay well away from Wikipedia" when all they have done is to create, apparently in good faith, an article which you judged speedy-deletable as promotional. If everyone who ever created an overly promotional article stayed away, there would be few editors here indeed. Unless you have evidence that would warrant a block or a community ban asking editors to stay away violates the obligation to assume good faith and perhaps civility. You know better. Please don't do this sort of thing again. Stefan Mitzkus and YiTingLiu1992, you are welcome to edit Wikipedia provided that you make an honest attempt to comply with its policies, and particularly do not create promotional pages or add promotional content anywhere. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Article about Sheila Sri Prakash

Hi, I am a retired architect and want to refine an article pertaining to a living architect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Sri_Prakash

I notice that it is tagged for promotional language and unreliable sources. I am new to wikipedia and am still learning my way around. Can some one here take a closer look and help refine the language to meet Wikipedia's neutral point of view standards? Thanks, Kintomechanic (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I've made a start. But trying to improve an article that consists almost entirely of praise of its subject gets nauseating after a while. Maproom (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Where to find editor rankings?

I want to ask at which place I can find rankings of editors by number of edits? Sinner (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen such a feature, but I'd venture to say that there probably isn't one. An editor with 10,000 edits is no more valuable than one with seven edits. (*in the grand scheme of things*) We each contribute in our own particular way, in our own corners of the wiki. Putting 'rankings' out there turns it into a competition, which is counter to the quality that "we" are trying to add to the encyclopedia. Of course, someone with 10k edits would potentially have more experience with the wiki than that editor with only seven edits to their name... - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 13:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits :) CiaPan (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected. :D - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 13:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd like some help to make my "article" acceptable to Wikipedia.

I added several sentences to the "Bohemian Rhapsody" Live Performances section. I added several sentences about a recent performance at the Green Day concert where 65,000 people began singing to Bohemian Rhapsody as it was piped through the loud speaker. The performance went viral and received many mentions. I felt this was a good addition to this particular section. Below is what I submitted"

Green Day played a Concert in Hyde Park, London July 1, 2017 While waiting for the show to begin, the band piped Queen’s“Bohemian Rhapsody” over the sound system to the waiting crowd of 65,000 fans. Almost at once, the entire audience began singing in unison from beginning to end.

I can add references to the article. Is that what is missing? Thanks for helping me understand what I need to do to submit and have articles approved.

Mjr524 (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Mjr524 the only edits you have ever done on Bohemian Rhapsody is to add a copyvio Youtube video to the External links section. It was correctly removed. By the way, cover versions by other bands are not discussed in the article, a separate list article of covers exists. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I did add a YouTube video, but only because there were 4 or 5 others already listed in the article. That was not my primary edit.I added it as a source to show the "article" I submitted about 65,000 fans singing Bohemian Rhapsody in a spontaneous moment at a Green Day Concert. I didn't think of this as a "cover". I felt it showed the continued popularity and the fact that 65,000 people knew every word of the song, would be a nice addition to the article "Bohemian Rhapsody".

Mjr524 (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mjr524. I saw that video last week and loved it; sang along with it; Something very powerful about seeing 65,000 people singing along and everyone knowing it. I also do not consider this a cover in any way. The issue of copyright is not so clear cut for me. Normally, when we refer to a removal of a YouTube video citing WP:ELNEVER, the issue is that the source is a straightforward copyright violation. The classic form is: captured BBC newscast uploaded by YouTube user name: RandomPersonWithNoObviousConnectionToBBC, as opposed to a BBC newscast uploaded to YouTube by the BBC. Here, what you linked to was a video uploaded by Green Day, so it's not the classic copyright infringement we see. But there is a potential copyright problem, in that even though this is Green Day's official upload, it's not clear that Green Day is not violating the copyright of Queen/Freddie Mercury/whoever owns the music to Bohemian Rhapsody. You might inquire further on that issue at WP:MCQ.

Meanwhile, you may have meant to include the text you excerpt above in the article body, but something went wrong, because it was never included in your edits. You can track each edit you made by looking at the diffs (jargon for differences) in the page's page history.

Yes, any such edit should be cited to a reliable source, using an inline citation upon seeking its inclusion]]. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

On article 'Likhichaj Stone age Paintings' being discussed for deletion

1.What is the criteria of selection of an article, wherein the persons deciding the fate of the article, have NO IDEA what the writer is trying to write about?

2. Were you to allow pictures to be posted, it would be Proof of existence of a new place, not known to anyone nor recorded, so far.

3. How can one give references, to a new finding? That is beyond me!

4. The link to Likhichaj on Google Maps is reproduced here for your own checking and verification:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Likhichaj,+Baherai+Nichali/@26.1464246,77.7394856,2500m/
Previous link: [5]

Indianyogi4u (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Indianyogi4u. The process of deleting an article, like almost everything on Wikipedia, is collaborative, and there is usually an opportunity for any editor to contribute to the discussion. So far you have not contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Likhichajj stone age paintings, and I urge you to do so (but read WP:AFDFORMAT before you do). Looking at the current discussion, it seems to me that the article is likely to be kept - one editor has added some references - but if you can argue from policy for keeping it, you may do so. The main criterion for any article is what we (slightly unfortunately) call notability: briefly, that the subject has been written about in depth by independent people, published in reliable places. In answer to your question 3: if a subject has not yet been written up, then it is by definition not (yet) notable, and no article will be accepted.

Pictures are always welcome in an article, if copyright allows; but they are rarely useful as references, because 1) unless they are published by reliable sources, they cannot be regarded as reliable; and 2) pictures rarely give direct support to any claim more complicated than "X was present at Y" or "X and Y met". There is not usually any value in demonstrating that a subject exists: the substantial reliable sources which are an absolute requirement will generally do that; and if there are no such sources, then the subject is not notable, and there is no article to support. --ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(ec) @Indianyogi4u: If the place is 'not known to anyone nor recorded, so far', as you said, then it is not notable (see criteria defined in WP:NOTABILITY).

If it is a 'new finding' then it can be fascinating, but not necessarily encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a news room (see WP:WWISN, esp. the WP:NOTNEWS section).

Last but not least, images a priori do not necessarily prove the existence of anything (there is multitude of fake images of almost everything in the Web!) – and even if they do, the existence does not imply notability (see above). You need reliable sources for that (see WP:VER). --CiaPan (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(This is about Pahargarh caves.) Maproom (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Does that undermine what I wrote above...? Do caves or Stone Age paintings have their own criteria of notability or verifiability? --CiaPan (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Indianyogi4u: Why do you keep claiming this is a new finding? You admitted yourself that the caves were already discovered and recorded in the 1970s by D. P. S. Dwarikesh. They are known to the ASI and are even mentioned in tourist guides. Wikipedia should have an encyclopaedic article based on what Dwarikesh and others have published about the caves, not a blog post about your visit to them. – Joe (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

image rejected due to (faulty?) copyright assessment

I'm trying to upload an image of a scientific journal cover from the 1989. The cover bears a photograph that I have permission to use. I also happen to have the original photograph and the author's permission to use it. I'd like to upload the magazine cover to help establish the significance of the target of my wiki article and of his work. Unfortunately, the wiki filters are rejecting both photos. What can I do?LVY72 (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, LVY72. Because the aim of Wikipedia is to make all its material freely available for reuse, it is not enough to have "the author's permission to use" a picture. We require that the copyright holder have explicitly licensed it under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, which allows anybody to reuse it for any purpose, commercial or not, provided they give proper attribution. Furthermore, this licensing must be either public (eg on a website where the image is held) or directly to the Wikimedia Foundation. See Donating copyright materials for more information. In some cases (and often for covers of magazine, books, and records) there is another possibility, which is to upload it as non-free content. If the use meets all of the non-free content criteria, then permission is neither required nor sought, and you may upload it (to Wikipedia itself, rather than to Wikimedia Commons). --ColinFine (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Great. thanks.LVY72 (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Citations in another language

What is the best procedure for adding a citation to an English article if the citation is from another language publication (like Hungarian) and I don't find an English publication to cite? Niiebony (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Niiebony Simply cite it like any source. If you are using cite templates you can add a "language=hu" field to the template and also a brief quote with a translation (using a "quote=" parameter) f you feel the information might be contentious, but it's not strictly required. See Template:Citation#Full_citation_parameters -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Niiebony, it is also very helpful, although not required, to use the |trans-title= parameter (which is available in {{cite web}} and other Cite XX templates, although not in {{citation}}) to provide an English-language translation of the source title. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Irretrievable (?) reference

Foxwoods Resort Casino #History refers to a page referenced there as

author=Division of Special Revenue |url=http://www.dosr.state.ct.us/PDFFolder/Fosltweb.pdf |title=Division of Special Revenue |publisher=Dosr.state.ct.us |date= |accessdate=2011-03-12

That reference, http://www.dosr.state.ct.us/PDFFolder/Fosltweb.pdf, is 404, and the deadest URL I've ever tried to deal with. The Wayback Machine is no help at all here, thanks to a 3½-year gap between backups and an apparent slew of revisions to the web site during that span. I have no idea how to deal with this. Help, please?

I’ve put a detailed description of the problem on the talk page at Talk:Foxwoods Resort Casino § Irretrievable (?) reference, with a link to this question.

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: http://www.ct.gov/dosr/lib/dosr/Fosltweb.pdf (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyplace I can chitchat?

Is there ANY place on Wikipedia where I can chitchat with people? We can't here or on talk pages. ANYWHERE on here we can?

Pancakes654 21:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancakes654 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Pancakes654. If you mean, chat to people about working on Wikipedia, see WP:IRC. If you mean social interaction not connected with Wikipedia, then I'm afraid there is nowhere. Incidentally, you seem to have entered your signature manually, or have it misconfigured: it should have at least one link to either your user page or your user talk page. If you insert it with four tildes (~~~~) it will put that in automatically, unless you've set it up wrongly. --ColinFine (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Cannot upload any images to Linda Wang wiki page...

Hello,

I am trying to help one of my customers, Linda Wang (musician), update her Wikipedia page. She is a professor at DU and accomplished concert violinist, and has tons of photos both professional and non-professional on her website, lindawang.com, which she has rights and permissions to use those photos however she wants.

I uploaded a professional photo that we used on her website to her Wiki, but it was removed. Now I am trying to add photos that were taken by her friends and husband as audience members, but Wiki is blocking me no matter what I try to upload. I am getting the message "We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons."

What must I do to simply upload one photo of her playing the violin?

Thank you.

Webact (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• First of all, Webact, as you refer to Wang as your client, you must disclose your connection as specified by Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure (also known as WP:PAID) before you do anything else in connection with Wang on Wikipedia.
• Secondly, i have just deleted Linda Wang (musician) as a blatant copyright infringement of <https://www.lindawang.com/about>, a page that has a copyright notice. If you want to use the contents of that page, either place a free license such as CC-BY-SA on that page, allowing anyone to use or modify it for any purpose, including commercial uses, or follow the process at donating copyrighted materiel which will have the same effect.
• Thirdly, images to be uploaded to commons must be free of copyright claims, either in the public domain or freely released by the copyright owner, who is usually the actual photographer. Again, this means CC-BY-SA or a compatible license.
• Fourthly, it is not "her Wiki" but a Wikipedia article about her. She will have no control over it if it is recreated, and it may include negative content about her, provided that it is supported by reliable sources. See our policy on the ownership of articles. It may seem like a trivial point of terminology, but we have found that people who say "my wiki" or "my profile" act as if they had the sort of control they would on social media.

Have a look at File:David Siegel.jpg for how a professional photo may be uploaded. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

DES] We did this service for free and it is turning into a huge headache. Can you just restore her Wikipedia back to before my edit? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webact (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Webact I have restored the article to the version dated 28 June 2017‎ , prior to your first edit on the page. I should have checked if the copyright infringement applied to earlier versions, and only deleted the versions affected by it. I have now done so. For your future reference, no one may simply copy text into a Wikipedia article -- it must be rewritten in original words, unless it has been released under a free license. Much the same applies to images. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving template

So I, somewhat hastily, moved {{Al-Andalus-sub}} to {{alandalus-stub}} because I got tired of looking it up everytime I needed to tag a stub in WPMA ... but the documentation disppeared, so I think maybe I don't know how to move a template correctly? Not sure where the documentation for this would be .... Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AAlandalus-stub&type=revision&diff=790158469&oldid=790155708 (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, Seraphim System, please remember that stub types are managed through Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. It would be helpful to let them know, and to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types if you rename a stub template in future. Perhaps simpler would be to create a redirect to the stub template with your preferred shorter name. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I have moved it back to {{Al-Andalus-stub}}. It's about Al-Andalus, displays "Al-Andalus", adds Category:Al-Andalus stubs, and we also have {{Al-Andalus-bio-stub}}, {{Al-Andalus-historian-stub}}, {{Al-Andalus-mil-bio-stub}}, {{Al-Andalus-poet-stub}}, {{Al-Andalus-royal-stub}}, {{Al-Andalus-scientist-stub}}, {{Al-Andalus-translator-stub}}, {{Al-Andalus-writer-stub}}. It's confusing to give a false name to the template. The move left a redirect at {{Alandalus-stub}} so you can write that in new uses if it seems too hard to write the correct name. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Permanently Deleting Talk

Wondering if there is a procedure to permanently delete talk related to an article. The talk I think contains fairly accusations that have not been accepted in the article and are unsubstantiated. XcommR (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, XcommR, and welcome to the teahouse. If there are violations of the WP:BLP policy on the talk page (or other content that violates policy), they can be revision-deleted or even oversighted. I am an admin and can do revision deletion, as are several other regular watchers of this page. But you will need to tell us what talk page you refer to. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Probably the talkpage of the article linked on their userpage. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

User XcommR has been deleting negative information from an article and its talkpage about a company they have a COI with. If you check the history of the talkpage then you'll see what has been removed. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@XcommR: I have reverted your edits on that talkpage. If you do stuff like this again you may get blocked. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) XcommR I presume that you are referring to Talk:Redbubble. Content on that page was "hatted" as violating WP:HAR. by you, although you state on your talk page that you have a COI with regard to Redbubble. The statements made on that talk page do not seem to harass anyone, and most of them seem to have been incorporated into the article. They seem well sourced. What policy do they violate? It is not usual for someone involved in a discussion, or with a COI for the topic, to close such a discussion or hide its content. What policies does it violate that it should be deleted, or even hidden? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

::@DESiegel: Thanks for looking at it. I appreciate your time Best XcommR (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@XcommR: I noticed you have removed COI notices on your userpage. Please re-read WP:COI. If you are who you've claimed to be then you have a COI with regards to the LookSmart article, and it is a bit weird that you've accused others of violating WP:OUTING when that page says: "unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information" like you did on the talkpage of that deleted article. Stop falsely accusing people, stop deleting information you dislike, and declare your conflicts of interests on your userpage. In your edit dated 04:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC) you wrote: "He talks in general about the issue", as if you are talking about someone who is not you... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: pls note my COI is declared. Pls keep it civil WP:CIV as I have been quite upfront in all my interactions and attempted to abide by all WP Guidelines.XcommR (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You have not been honest, and you have falsely accused people. I have posted proof of that. If you continue acting like this you will get blocked. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

While I am not super familiar with Wikipedia guidelines perhaps you could also have a look at some basics. I asked a civil question and got a very helpful response. Which was all I was seeking. Your points are not really related to the question I asked. Perhaps have a look at WP:GF and WP:UNCIVIL Happy editing.

What is the consensus of the use of "X under X" lists for establishing notability for biographies?

Is there a rule-of-thumb consensus for the use of "X under X" or "top X Y" lists of people for establishing notability for a biography? On the one hand, many of these are published in high-quality WP:RS. On the other hand they're often very light on details and have so many entries that they seem to be scraping the bottom of the notability barrel.

Many of these lists have people who are clearly notable, so for the sake of argument assume the list is the best source for someone.

Some examples: [6] [7] [8] GretLomborg (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)